Judgment Chandra Mohan Prasad, J. 1. This appeal is against the judgment and order dated 4th June, 1992 of the 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Katihar passed in Sessions Case No. 64 of 1983 whereby appellant Ram Sagar Rai has been convicted under Sec.323 I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 6 months and appellant Jamun Rishi has been convicted under Sec.324 I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 1 year. 2. At the very outset it has to be mentioned that four accused persons, namely, Ram Sagar Rai and Jamun Rishi (appellants) and Prem Sagar Rai and Mangal Rishi were put on trial for various charges under Sections 307/149, 326 and 323 I.P.C. On conclusion of trial, accused Prem Sagar Rai was acquitted and the appellants, besides Mangal Rishi, were also convicted under Sec.323 I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 6 months. Out of the convicts, only the present two appellans prefered this appeal. 3. The prosecution case was that on 20th August, 1982, at about 5:00 P.M. the informant Ramjee Tiwary (RW. 6) alongwith Shashi Bhushan Tiwary (RW. 5) was going from his house to his field and in the way when they reached near the house of Jamun Rishi, the accused persons alongwith one Anant Lal (who died during the trial) were found sitting near the house of appellant Jamun Rishi. Seeing the informant, Jamun Rishi stated that he had filed a case against the informant whereupon the appellant enquired as to what the case was. Then it is said that Anant Lal stated that the informant had filed a case against them and he ordered to assault whereupon Jamun Rishi (appellant) gave a farsa blow on the head of the informant. Shashi Bhushan (RW. 5) tried to intervene and save the informant whereupon Mangal Rishi assaulted him (Shishi Bhushan) with Lathi. Accused Ram Sagar Rai (appellant) gave a Lathi blow on the arm of the informant. The informant received injuries and fell down. The informant and Shashi Bhushan both had received injuries. The informant was removed to the hospital. The fard beyan of the informant was recorded and on the basis of fard beyan, an F.I.R. was drawn up and the investigation commenced and on completion of it, charge-sheet was submitted and the accused persons were put on trial wherein the accused persons, including the appellants were convicted and sentenced, as above. 4. The fard beyan of the informant was recorded and on the basis of fard beyan, an F.I.R. was drawn up and the investigation commenced and on completion of it, charge-sheet was submitted and the accused persons were put on trial wherein the accused persons, including the appellants were convicted and sentenced, as above. 4. As many as eight witnesses were examined by the prosecution. RW. 6 Ramjee Mahto and RW. 5 Shashi Bhushan Tiwary are the injured and eye witnesses to the occurrence. RW. 2 Shiv Govind Singh and RW. 3 Ram Jinis Tiwary have also been examined as eye witnesses to the occurrence. RW. 1 Jagdish Tiwary was tendered by the prosecution and he did not say anything about the occurrence. RW. 4 is a formal witness who proved the F.I.R. marked Ext 1. RW. 8 Dr. Chandra Shekhar Prasad Singh is the doctor but he had not examined the injuries on the injured and he simply proved the writings on the injury certificates (Ext 4 & 4/1) as granted by Dr. B.N. Khan who had examined the injured. RW. 7 G.N.Tiwari is the Investigating Officer. The informant (RW. 6) deposed that while he alongwith Shashi Bhushan Tiwary (RW. 5) reached near the house of Jamun Rishi, the appellants and other accused persons were there and on the orders of Ram Sagar Rai, Prem Sagar Rai, Anant Sagar, Jamun Rishi gave a farsa blow causing cut injury on his head. He further deposed that when his nephew (RW. 5) came to save him, Mangal Rishi (who is not the appellant) caused a Sahli (pointed weapon) blow causing injury on the parietal region. Ram Sagar Rai gave him (the informant) a Lathi blow. He became unconscious and was removed to the Hospital where Darogajee came and recorded his fard beyan. He has admitted in his cross-examination that the accused persons have filed a case of arson and that a sessions case was being tried against him. 5. RW. 5 has deposed on similar line, about the occurrence as deposed by the informant. P.Ws. 2 & 3 who are the eye witnesses to the occurrence, have also deposed about the occurrence on similar line as stated by the informant. 6. 5. RW. 5 has deposed on similar line, about the occurrence as deposed by the informant. P.Ws. 2 & 3 who are the eye witnesses to the occurrence, have also deposed about the occurrence on similar line as stated by the informant. 6. The I.O. (P.W. 7) deposed that witness Shiv Govind had stated before him that Jamun Rishi (appellant) had lathi in his hand and that he had not stated that Jamun Rishi was holding a Farsa. He has also deposed that Ram Jinis Tiwary (RW. 3) had not stated before him that Jamun Rishi had come with a Farsa and that he (appellant Jamun Rishi) had given a Farsa blow on the head of the informant. He (RW. 7) has further deposed that Shashi Bhushan (RW. 5) had also not stated before him that Jamun Rishi had given a Farsa blow causing injury on the head of the informant. 7. During hearing, the learned counsel for the appellants argued that admittedly a case was filed by the accused and that due to this enmity, the informant lodged a false case implicating the appellant in it. It was also argued that the eye witness Shiv Govind Singh (RW. 2), Ram Jinis Tiwary (RW. 3) and injured Shashi Bhushan Tiwary (RW. 5) deposed in their evidence that appellant Jamun Rishi had given a farsa blow on the head of the informant but as per evidence of the I.O., these witnesses had not stated before the I.O. that Jamun Rishi had given any Farsa blow on the head of the informant and that Shiv Govind Singh (RW. 2) had stated before the 1.0. that Jamun Rishi was holding a Lathi. Referring to this evidence of the 1.0. it was argued that since the witnesses did not say before the 1.0. about any assault caused by means of Farsa at the hands of appellant Jamun Rishi,. the evidence of such witness as adduced before the trial court about the assault by means of Farsa at the hands of appellant Jamun Rishi is not believable. I find substance in this submission of the learned counsel. 8. It was further argued that the informant says to have received injuries on head by means of farsa but the injury report (Ext. I find substance in this submission of the learned counsel. 8. It was further argued that the informant says to have received injuries on head by means of farsa but the injury report (Ext. 4) relating to informant Ramjee Tiwary does not show any sharp cutting injury but it shows only one lacerated wound and one defused swelling both caused by hard blunt substance. Thus according to the medical evidence also the prosecution case about the appellants having caused farsa injury to the informant is falsified. 9. So far appellant Ram Sagar Rai is concerned, the prosecution alleges that he assaulted with Lathi. The informant has categorically stated in his fard beyan that Ram Sagar Rai (appellant) had given Lathi blow on his left arm. Referring to the injury report (Ext 4), relating to the informant it was pointed out that the doctor did not find any injury on the left arm of the informant. Thus, the prosecution case about the appellant Ram Sagar Rai assaulting the informant and causing injury on his left arm is also falsified. 10. Thus, on the basis of the discrepancies and infirmities in the evidence of witnesses, as discussed above, I find that the prosecution has not been able to prove its case beyond shadows of doubt. Accordingly, charges as levelled on the appellants, are also held not proved beyond shadows of doubt. 11. In the result, the appellants are acquitted of the charges. They are also discharged from the liability of bail bonds.