JUDGMENT Narendra Nath Tiwari, J. 1. This appeal has been preferred by the appellants against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 17.12.2002 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Dhanbad in S.T.No. 368/93 whereby though the appellants have been acquitted of the charges framed under Sections 307/34 I.P.C, they have been found guilty under Sections 324/34/342 I.P.C and have been sentenced to undergo R.I for six months along with a fine of Rs. 500/- each for the offence under Section 342 I.P.C and R.I for one year along with a fine of Rs. 500/- each for the offence under Section 324 I.P.C. Both the sentences are to run concurrently. 2. The prosecution case in brief is that on 9.5.92 at about 12 noon Arvind Kr. (PW-1) one of the informants son was taken by Surendra Choudhary (appellant No. 2) to his house. Allegedly Arvind Kr. (PW-1) had stolen his bulb and for that he was tied down and assaulted with fists and slaps. When the informant went to beg release of her son PW-1, she was also threatened. She then returned to her house. At about 4.30 P.M when the informants husband returned from his office, the appellant No. 1 allegedly came to their house and assaulted the informant with sword due to which she sustained injuries on her head and finger. When her husband tried to save her, the appellant No. 1 assaulted him with sword causing injury on his left hand. The appellant No. 2 assaulted them also with Lathi. On the alarm raised by them, the neighbours gathered and the accused persons fled away from the place of occurrence. After investigation of the case, the police submitted final form under Sections 428, 342, 341, 307, 323/34 I.P.C and for the said charges, the appellants were put on trial. 3. In course of trial the prosecution altogether examined four witnesses. PW-1 Arvind Kr. is the son of the informant, PW-2 Ganapati Tiwari is said to be an independent witness, PW-3 Sadhu Sharan Singh is the husband of the informant and PW-4 Sunaina Devi is the informant herself. The prosecution, however, did not examine the I.O and the doctor who had prepared the Injury report after examining the injuries on the person of the informant and her husband. The prosecution, however, did not examine the I.O and the doctor who had prepared the Injury report after examining the injuries on the person of the informant and her husband. The appellants were questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C. They also examined one defence witness who had examined the injuries on their persons and had prepared the injury report, Exts. A & B. Learned Trial Court relied upon the evidences of PW-1 the son of the informant, PW-4 the informant and PW-3 the husband of the informant and convicted and sentenced the appellants, as above. 4. Mr. M.B. Lal, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants, assailed the impugned conviction and sentence of the appellants on the ground, Inter alia, that there is no material on record on the basis of which the conviction under Section 324 or 342 I.P.C can be maintained against the appellants. PW-1 is the son, PW-3 is the husband of the informant and PW-4 is the informant herself. P.W.2-Ganpati Tiwari, the only independent witness, turned hostile and did not support the prosecution case. The doctor has not been examined to prove the injury. Even the formal F.I.R has not been proved by examining any competent witness. The I.O has also not been examined who could have thrown light on the alleged injuries and the weapons alleged to be used by the appellants. The appellants have examined D.W.1 who had prepared the injury reports, Exts. A & B. The prosecution has failed to explain the alleged injuries on the persons of the appellants. Learned Counsel submitted that the conviction and sentence are based on contradictory statements of the interested witnesses and that too without any proof of the alleged injuries on the persons of the informant and her husband and the same rare not sustainable in law. Learned Counsel submitted that the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by learned Court below is liable to be set aside even on the ground of non-explanation of the injuries found on the persons of the accused appellants. Learned Counsel further submitted that the alleged occurrence took place on 9.5.92 and the fardbeyan of the informant is said to be recorded on the same day, but the formal F.I.R was drawn on 11.5.92 and the same was dispatched to the C.J.M on 14.5.92. Learned Counsel further submitted that the alleged occurrence took place on 9.5.92 and the fardbeyan of the informant is said to be recorded on the same day, but the formal F.I.R was drawn on 11.5.92 and the same was dispatched to the C.J.M on 14.5.92. The said inordinate delay in forwarding the F.I.R to the Court has not been explained and the same has vitiating effect on the prosecution case. Learned Counsel submitted that there is every possibility of distorting the facts of the alleged occurrence, in absence of any explanation for such inordinate delay in dispatching the F.I.R to the Court. Learned Counsel relied on a decision in Sidheswar Paswan and Ors. v. State of Bihar 2001(3) Eastern Criminal Cases 172. He further submitted that in absence of the examination of the doctor and I.O, the injuries have not been proved and the prosecution miserably failed to bring home the charges under Section 324 I.P.C against the appellants and as such the impugned judgment and order of learned Trial Court being based on the testimony of the family members and the interested witnesses is vitiated in law and is liable to be set aside. 5. Learned A.P.P, on the other hand, drew attention of this Court on paragraph 12 of the impugned judgment and submitted that the informant has given her fardbeyan about the alleged occurrence and assault and the same has been corroborated by PWs. 1 & 3. Only on the ground that PW-1 and PW-3 are interested witnesses, their testimony can not be rejected. Learned Trial Court relied on the said evidences after due discussion and has rightly convicted and sentenced the appellants and there is no infirmity and illegality in the said judgment/order. 6. I carefully examined the evidences on record. According to PW-1 Arvind Kr., the appellant No. 1 had given sword blow on the head of his mother due to which she sustained injuries on her head and right thumb (PW.1 - Para 5). In paragraph 6 he stated that the appellant No. 1 also assaulted his father with sword and caused cut injures on his left wrist. In paragraph 7 he has stated that the appellant No. 2 gave repeated Lathi blows on him, his father and mother due to which they sustained injuries and thereafter they were taken to Central Hospital (Tata Company) Jamadobha for treatment. In paragraph 7 he has stated that the appellant No. 2 gave repeated Lathi blows on him, his father and mother due to which they sustained injuries and thereafter they were taken to Central Hospital (Tata Company) Jamadobha for treatment. He has, however, denied that his father was armed with sword and the appellants were trying to take away that sword as a result of which his father and others sustained injures. PW-2 Ganpati Tiwary in the first paragraph of his deposition denied to have witnessed the alleged occurrence and was declared hostile by the prosecution. PW-3 Sadhu Sharan Singh in paragraph 6 of his deposition has supported the prosecution version of causing injuries with sword by the appellant No. 1 on the head and right thumb of the informant. He has also supported the prosecution version that the appellant No. 2 assaulted them with lathi. He has named the PW-2 Ganpati Tiwari who is said to have accompanied them to hospital. The said witness has also stated that they were treated in the hospital and their statements were recorded by the police in the hospital. The informant, who examined herself as PW-4, has also supported her version and has stated that the appellant No. 1 assaulted her with sword and the appellant No. 2 with Lathi due to which she had become unconscious. She has stated that she had sustained injuries on her head and right thumb and thereafter they were taken for treatment to Central Hospital, Jamadobha where their statements were recorded by the police. 7. On the other hand, the defence has examined Dr. Mahendra Pd. as DW-1 Who has proved the injury reports. In his evidence he has stated that on 9.5.92 he examined Supkai Pd. (@ name of the appellant No. 1) and found the following injures on his person : (i) Sharp cutting incised wound over the posterior surface of third plalanges of the middle finger, ring finger and the little finger. This injury was on the left hand. The dimension of the injury was about 1/4" x 1/6" x 1/10", the size of the injuries around the three fingers are same. (ii) Sharp cutting incised wound over the palm of right hand in between the interasices muscle of the index finger and the middle finger stretching to the mid of the palm about 11/2" x 1/4" x 1/10". The dimension of the injury was about 1/4" x 1/6" x 1/10", the size of the injuries around the three fingers are same. (ii) Sharp cutting incised wound over the palm of right hand in between the interasices muscle of the index finger and the middle finger stretching to the mid of the palm about 11/2" x 1/4" x 1/10". All the injuries were caused by sharp cutting weapon. He prepared the injury report which is proved as Ext. A. He has further stated in his evidence that he also examined Surendra Choudhary (appellant No. 2) on the same day at 6.30 P.M and found sharp cutting incised wound over the posterior surface of first phalanges at index finger and middle finger of the left hand about 1/4 "x1/6"x1/10". The size of both the injuries is same. He has opined that the injuries were caused by sharp cutting weapon. 8. The strange feature of this case is that no injury report has been proved on behalf of the prosecution and neither the doctor nor the I.O has been examined to support the prosecution case that the informant and her husband had sustained injuries caused by sword or Lahti. There is no independent witness to support the prosecution version. 9. The prosecution has also failed to explain the delay in forwarding the F.I.R. The alleged occurrence took place on 9.5.92 and the fardbeyan of the informant was recorded on the same day, but formal F.I.R was lodged on 11.5.92 and the same was forwarded to the C.J.M on 14.5.92. There is no explanation for the said inordinate delay in forwarding the F.I.R to the Court. The said long delay in forwarding the F.I.R without any explanation raises serious doubts. 10. There is no explanation regarding the injuries caused to the appellants which have been proved by DW-1 as Exts. A & B. 11. Section 324 of the I.P.C runs as follows: 324. The said long delay in forwarding the F.I.R without any explanation raises serious doubts. 10. There is no explanation regarding the injuries caused to the appellants which have been proved by DW-1 as Exts. A & B. 11. Section 324 of the I.P.C runs as follows: 324. Voluntarily causing hurt by dangerous weapons or means - Whoever, except in the case provided for by Section 334, voluntarily caused hurt by means of any instrument for shooting, stabbing or cutting, or any instrument which, used as a weapon of offence, is likely to cause death, or by means of fire or any heated substance, or by means of any poison or any corrosive substance, or by means of any explosive substance or by means of any substance which it is deleterious to the human body to inhale, to swallow, or to receive into the blood, or by means of any animal, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both. 12. From bare reading of the said Section, it is evident that in order to prove charge under Section 324 I.P.C, the prosecution has to prove voluntarily causing hurt by means of any instrument for shooting, stabbing or cutting, or any instrument which, used as a weapon of offence, is likely to cause death etc. It is thus necessary to prove the use of such weapon and the injuries in order to bring home the charge under Section 324 I.P.C. 13. In the instant case the injury report has not been proved and neither the instrument nor the weapon used in committing the alleged offence has been brought before the Court. The accused-appellants admittedly sustained injuries, but the prosecution has failed to explain the injuries. There is no independent evidence to corroborate the prosecution version. 14. The prosecution has thus failed to establish the charges against the appellants beyond all reasonable doubts. The conviction and sentence passed by learned Trial Court against the appellants, thus, cannot sustain in law and is herby set aside. The appeal is accordingly allowed. As the appellants are on ball, they are discharged from the liability of their bail bonds.