Judgment C.M.PRASAD, J. 1. The appeals are against the judgment dated 21.4.2003 of the 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Madhepura, passed in Sessions Trial No. 95/99/200/2000 whereby each of the four appellants, namely, (i) Kameshwar Yadav, (ii) Bahadur Yadav, (iii) Quddus Mian and (iv) Shiv Shankar Jha has been copwicted under Sections 380, 148, 448 and 341 of the Indian Penal- Code and respectively sentenced to R.I. for three years, R.I. for one month. The appellant Ram Bilash Yadav has been convicted under Sections 148, 448, 307/149 and 341 of the Indian Penal Code and respectively sentenced to R.I. for one year, R.I. for six months, R.I. for seven years and S.I. for one month. The appellant Sanjay Yadav stands convicted under Sections 148, 448, 307/149 and 341 of the Indian Penal Code with respective sentences of R.I. for one year, R.I, for six months, R.I. for nine years and S.I. for one month. The appellant Kaushalendra Yadav has been convicted under Sections 148, 448, 307 and 341 of the Indian Pena! Code and respectively sentenced to R.I. for one year, R.I. for six months, R.I. for nine years and S.I. for one month. 2. The prosecution was instituted on the written report (Ext. 3) of the informant Satyendra Kumar Satya (P.W. 7) as filed before the Officer-in-charge of Kumarkhand P.S. on 20.5.1998. On the basis of the written report, the formal F.I.R. (Ext. 4) was drawan up and investigation commenced. The F.I.R. (Ext. 4) discloses the date and time of report at the P.S. respectively as 29.5.1998 at 1 A.M. 3. The informant stated in his fardbeyan that on 29.5.1998 at about 6 A.M. while he was in the Aagan of his house, the appellants being variously armed trespassed into the Aagan and that accused-appellant, Kameshwar Yadav abused him and ordered to kill, whereupon, the appellant Sanjay Yadav, with intention to kill the informant gave a Farsa blow causing grievous injury on his head. He (Sanjay Yadav) gave a second Farsa blow on the informant and the informant tried to ward of that blow but he (informant) received injury on his hand. He (Sanjay Yadav) gave a second Farsa blow on the informant and the informant tried to ward of that blow but he (informant) received injury on his hand. The informant also alleged that when his son Sanjeev Yadav (P.W. 6) came to save him, the appellant Kaushalendra Yadav fired his pistol hitting on the left side of the abdomen of his son and that receiving injury he (son) fell down and, thereafter, the appellant Ram Bilash Yadav shot an arrow hitting on the right thigh of the informants son Sanjeev Yadav. Further allegation was that the appellants Kameshwar Yadav, Quddos Mian, Bhadur Yadav and Shiv Shankar Jha entered into the house of the informant and took away three boxes containing, ornaments, cloths etc. all valued at Rs. 40,000/-. About the motive for the occurrence, the informant stated in his written report that Kaushalendra Yadav was on imimical terms with him due to earlier disputes and pending cases against him and that the appellants were pressing for withdrawal of his (informants) cases against them and when the informant declined for withdrawal, the appellants caused the occurrence due to that grudge. 4. As many as ten witnesses were examined by prosecution. Out of these, the P.W. 1 Rajendra Mandal, P.W. 2. Amod Kumar Yadav, P.W. 3 Jagdish Yadav, P.W. 4 Sikandar Yadav, P.W. 5 Bijendra Yadav have been examined as eye-witnesses to the occurrence. P.W. 7 Satyendra Kumar Satya is the informant himself and P.W. 6 Sanjiv Yadav is informants son. P.W. 8 had examined the injured informant and his son (P.Ws. 6 and 7). P.W. 9 Suresh Kumar is the I.O. of the case. P.W. 10 Binod Choudhary is also the I.O. Later on, he took charge from P.W. 9 and submitted chargesheet. 5. At the outset, the evidence of the doctor is discussed first. The doctor (P.W. 8) deposed that on 29.5.1998 at 7:45 A.M. he examined Satyendra Kumar Satya and found the following injuries. (i) Incised wound 1" x 1/8" scalp deep over left parietal region of head. (ii) Bruise 3" x 2" x 1" over right forearm and wrist, X-ray showsd, fracture of radius bone. (iii) Tenderness over the body. Nature of injury no. (i) was simple caused by sharp cutting weapons, such as Farsa. Injury no. (ii) was grievous in nature and caused by hard blunt substance such as lathi, injury no. (ii) Bruise 3" x 2" x 1" over right forearm and wrist, X-ray showsd, fracture of radius bone. (iii) Tenderness over the body. Nature of injury no. (i) was simple caused by sharp cutting weapons, such as Farsa. Injury no. (ii) was grievous in nature and caused by hard blunt substance such as lathi, injury no. (iii) was simple in nature and it may be caused by hard blunt substance such as lathi. 6. The doctor proved the injury report, as Ext.2. 7. The doctor further deposed that he examined Sanjay Yadav (P.W. 6) on the same day at 7.50 A.M. and found the following injury on his person. (i) Perforating injury in lower part of left side of the abdomen, wound margin lacerated and 1 & 1/2 circle. X-ray showed multiple pillets and wads. The patient was referred to Sadar hospital, Madhepura for operation and other needful. (ii) Intact arrows injuries in thigh of right side, penetrating from one side to other side, (iii) multiple pillets injury over the abdomen. Nature of injury no. 1 opinion reserved. Advice X-ray, X-ray showed injury no. i was caused by firearm. Nature of injury no. ii was simple caused by arrows. Nature of injury no. iii caused by firearm. The injury report of this injured was proved as Ext.2/1. 8 In cross-examination at para-5 the doctor deposed that the injured persons were referred to him from the P.S. and requisitions were received from the P.S. concerned. Thus, the doctor says that he had examined the injured on the basis of the requisitions received from the concerned P.S. The injury certificates and the injury report marked as (Exts. 2 and 2/1) as granted by the doctor shows that the same had been written on the back of the requisitions received from the P.S. which go to show that requisitions were issued from the P.S. and it was received by the doctor before the time when he examined the two injured (P.Ws. 6 & 7) and granted their injury report (Ext. 2 and 2/1). 9. The I.O. (P.W. 9) deposed that on 29..1998 the informant Satyendra Kumar Satya (P.W. 7) came to his P.S. and gave him the written report (Ext. 3). On the basis of written report the F.I.R. (Ext. 4) was registered and that, thereafter, he took up investigation and sent the injured persons to the hospital for treatment. 2 and 2/1). 9. The I.O. (P.W. 9) deposed that on 29..1998 the informant Satyendra Kumar Satya (P.W. 7) came to his P.S. and gave him the written report (Ext. 3). On the basis of written report the F.I.R. (Ext. 4) was registered and that, thereafter, he took up investigation and sent the injured persons to the hospital for treatment. He also deposed that he inspected the place of occurrence and described the place of occurrence as the place behind the house of informants Pattidar Duryodhan Yadav which was a lane like place used as passage to house of Duryodhan Yadav from back side of the house and that by the side of that place there was a Chapakal (hand pipe) which was enclosed from four sides with Tatti and the I.O. was informed that the injured were assaulted at that place while they were returning after attending the call of nature. Though the I.O. also stated that he was informed that land belong to the informant at Para-7 of his evidence he further deposed that during inspection of the P.O. he had not entered into the Aagan of the informant. Thus, the I.O. says that he did not enter into the Aagan for inspection of the P.O. and it was not shown to him (I.O.) as the place of occurrence and he was led to the place behind the house of Duryodhan Yadav indicating it as the place of occurrence. At para 6 of his evidence the I.O. deposed in categorical terms that the informant Satyendra Yadav had come to his P.S. on 29.5.1998 at 10 A.M. and then he had given his written report to him and that thereafter he had registered the F.I.R. and had issued the injury reports i.e. the requi- sitions for examination of the injured by the doctor. Thus, according to the I.O. the written report was filed at the P.S. at 10 A.M. and thereafter the requisitions were issued for medical examination of the injured and the medical examination was done thereafter. 10. P.W. 10, has not conducted any material portion of the investigation and he took charge of investigation at a later stage and he performed formalities of filing the chargesheet on perusal of the materials in the case diary. 11. 10. P.W. 10, has not conducted any material portion of the investigation and he took charge of investigation at a later stage and he performed formalities of filing the chargesheet on perusal of the materials in the case diary. 11. The informant (P.W. 7) deposed about the occurrence of assault at the hands of the appellants as per the allegations mentioned in his written report but in examination-in-chief he does not say about the assault on his son (P.W. 6) by means of arrow at the hands of the appellants Ram Bilas Yadav as alleged in his written reoport. This is an important missing of the evidence of the informant. At para-6 of his evidence he admitted that he is on inimical terms with the appellant Kameshwar Yadav due to dispute with regard to Banshdiha. Thus informant has enmity with the appellants. Hence, in such view of the matters, the evidence of the witness has to be examined with great care and caution. At para-9 of his evidence the informant deposed that the Appellant Kameshwar Yadav claimed his share over Banshdiha land but he informant never allowed him to obtain possession over that land. At para-11 of his evidence he admitted that the appellant and Kaushalendra Yadav had filed a case against him and other 11 persons. 12. P.W. 6 who is the another injured and son of the informant deposed about the assault on the informant and on himself at the hands of the appellant as alleged in the fardbeyan. He states in his evidence that somebody had shot an arrow which had hit on his thigh but he does not name the assailant who had shot the arrow. At para-5 of his cross-examination he deposed that his father including himself has four brothers and the family of the four brothers live in the same Aagan which a big one and that there are several room around the Aagan. During hearing it was pointed out by the appellants counsel that in this case only the informant and his son has been examined as the family members on the point of occurrence and that several members of the family live in the same Aagan and no other member has been examined and that other witnesses examined are the co-villagers who did not see actual occurrence and they are said to have come to the P.O. hearing the nulla. At para-8 of his evidence this witness stated that prior to this case Kaushalendra Yadav had filed a case on him, his brother, his father and uncle. Thus, this witness and his father (informant) who are the two injured persons in this case are accused in the case filed by the appellant Kauishalendra Yadav. This witness has not named the assailant who had shot the arrow on him and particularly at para-12 of his evidence he says that the persons who had shot the arrow on him is the resident of the same village and he always sees him in the village but he would not name that person. This shows that this witness knows about the assailant but he is willfully suppressing his name for the reasons best known to him. At para-12 he further deposed that on the date of occurrence (29.5.98) he had woke up at 5:30 A.M. and that thereafter he had not remained in his house till 10 A.M. Thus it becomes doubtful that he was at the P.O. at 6 A.M. which is the time of occurrence. 13. P.W. 2 has deposed as eye-witness to the occurrence. At para-3 of his cross-examination he has stated that the appellant Kaushalendra Yadav had filed a case on him Satyendra Kumar Satya (P.W. 7), Sanjiv Yadav (P.W. 6) and others and that the case was under trial at that time. This witness also said that he had also filed one case on Kaushalendra Yadav which too was under trial. Thus, this witness is on inimical terms with the appellant. 14. The P.W. 3 deposed that while he was going to ease himself he heard nulla, then he went to informants house and saw the informant and his son in injured condition and he then saw the occurrence of assault on the two injured. This witness claims to be an eye-witness on the point of occurrence of assault. At para-9 of his cross-examination he deposed that while he was feeding his cattle at his Darwaja he heard the sound of firing coming from the Aagan of the informant. This witness further stated at para-11 of his cross-examination that the house of the informant situates in the Eastern portion of the village and his (P.W. 3) house situates in Western portion of the village. This witness further stated at para-11 of his cross-examination that the house of the informant situates in the Eastern portion of the village and his (P.W. 3) house situates in Western portion of the village. Thus the house of this witness and the house of the informant situate in two different sides of the village. 15. According to the case of prosecution the occurrence of assault by means of firing shot was caused at the end of the occurrence when the informants son had gone to save his father. This witness said to have heard the sound of firing while he was at his Darwaja and then he had come to the informants house. Thus he has come to the P.O. after the occurrence was over. In such view of the matters, this witness cannot be believed as eye-witness to the occurrence as claimed by him. 16. P.W. 4 has deposed that on hearing sound of firing he went to the house of the informant and he had seen the informant and his son lying there with injuries and that on being asked the informant disclosed that the appellant Kaushalendra Yadav had assaulted his (informants) son Sanjiv Yadav causing injury by firing a shot on him. Thus this witness is not an eye witness to the occurrence of assault and he simply deposed to have seen the two persons in injured condition when he went to the P.O. on hearing sound of firing. 17. P.W. 5 has deposed about the occurrence of assault saying that he had seen the occurrence when he went there on hearing hulla. At para-4 of his evidence he deposed that the appellant Kaushalendra Yadav has filed a case and that he (P.W. 5) is an accused in that case. Thus, this witness is on inimical terms with the appellants. On consideration of the evidence as adduced by prosecution a number of infirmities appear in the case of prosecution which go to adversely affect the credibility of the prosecution story as propounded by prosecution. First of all, the motive as alleged by the informant has not been established by him. The informant alleged in his written report that the appellants were pressurising for withdrawal of his (informants) case and that when he declined for it, the appellants committed the occurrence. First of all, the motive as alleged by the informant has not been established by him. The informant alleged in his written report that the appellants were pressurising for withdrawal of his (informants) case and that when he declined for it, the appellants committed the occurrence. From the evidence of P.W. 5 at para-4 that the appellant Kaushalendra Yadav has filed a case in which, the informant (P.W. 7) and his son (P.W. 6) as well as witness Aamod (P.W. 2) are the accused, it is clear that the appellant Kaushlendra Yadav had filed a case on the informants son and brothers. None of the witnesses including the informant has stated at any place that the informant had filed any case against the appellants. In such view of the matters, there does not remain any occasion for the appellants to ask for the withdrawal of any case filed by the informant, therefore, I find that the very motive for the purpose of commission of the occurrence as stated by the informant has not been proved by him. Besides this, it is clear from the evidence of the witnesses that the appellant Kameshwar Yadav who is the agnate of the informants side has got land dispute with the informant and in such view of the matters, enmity is there and chances of false implication due to enmity cannot be completely ruled out in the facts and circumstances of the case. 18. About the location of the place of occurrence there is serious infirmity in the case of prosecution. According to the informant the appellants had trespassed into the aagan and committed the act of assault there. Thus, the place of occurrence is the Aagan of the informants house but the I.O. (P.W. 9 at para-3) who inspected the place of occurrence mentions that the place of occurrence was the land situated behind the house of the informants agnate Duryodhan Yadav and that this place was a land like passage way where a Chapakal was fixed and the Chapakal had been enclosed from four sides with Tatti and the I.O. was informed that the informant and his son had been assaulted at that place while returning after attending the call of nature. Thus, according to the I.O. the place of occurrence was the land like passage way situated behind the house of the informants agnate Duryodhan Yadav. Thus, according to the I.O. the place of occurrence was the land like passage way situated behind the house of the informants agnate Duryodhan Yadav. The I.O. further deposed (P.W. 9 at para-7) that he had,not entered into the Aagan of the informant. Thus, the Aagan of the informant was not shown to the I.O. nor the I.O. found it to be place of occurrence, hence, he did not enter into the Aagan for inspection. Thus, according to the inspection of place of occurrence as made by the I.O. the place of occurrence is not the Aagan of the informant but the Chapakal enclosed with Tatti situated on the land like passage behind the house of the informants agnate Duryodhan Yadav. 19. The learned APP tried to explain that the house of the informant and his agnate Duryodhan Yadav are closely situated and the place inspected by the I.O. was the place of occurrence which was described as Aagan by the informant. But this does not appear to be the actual position. The I.O. has categorically deposed that he had not entered into the Aagan of the informant. It means Aagan of the informant was a different place than the place of occurrence as found and inspected by the I.O. In such view of the matters, a serious doubt is entertained over the place of occurrence being the Aagan of the informant as claimed by the informant. Rather I would like to say that the prosecution has failed to establish the place of occurrence as stated by it. 20. The learned counsel for the appellant argued that the prosecution has not been able to prove the time of occurrence. In order to support his submission the learned counsel pointed out the evidence of informant (P.W. 9 at Para-6) that the informant had come his P.S. at 10 A.M. and he had given his written report to him and then he had registered the F.I.R. and thereafter he took up investigation and then he issued requisitions for examination of the injured. Thus, the written report of the informant was handed over to the officerin-charge of the P.S. at 10 A.M. on 29.5.1998 and thereafter on recording the F.I.R. he took up steps by way of issuing requisites for medical examination of two injured. The learned counsel further referred to the injury certificate (Ext. Thus, the written report of the informant was handed over to the officerin-charge of the P.S. at 10 A.M. on 29.5.1998 and thereafter on recording the F.I.R. he took up steps by way of issuing requisites for medical examination of two injured. The learned counsel further referred to the injury certificate (Ext. 2 and 2/ 1) as granted by the doctor (P.W. 8) with respect to the injuries found on examnination of the two injured (P.Ws. 6 and 7). The injury certificates (Ext. 2 and 2/ 1) shows that the two injured, namely, Satyendra Kumar (P.W. 7) and Sanjeev Kumar (P.W. 6) were respectively examined at 7.40 A.M. and 7:50 A.M. on 29.5.1998. The injuries certificates (Ext. 2 and 2/1) have been written on the very requisites issued by the I.O. The requisites were admittedly issued at 10 A.M. on 29.5.1998. The medical examination of the two injured could not have been possible before 10 A.M. at which time the requisites were issued. But the doctor examined the two injured namely P.Ws. 7 and 6 at 7:45 and 7:50 which is prior to 10 A.M. which was a time when the requisites were not in existence. The learned APP has explained that the injured were lying in the hospital and they were getting treatment and the medical examination was done there at that time, hence, the medical examination happened before 10 A.M. but this is not the position as stated by the I.O. himself. The I.O. states that the informant had come to the P.O. at 10 A.M. and he had himself handed over his written report to him at that time. Thus, according to the I.O. the informant was not in the hospital and he had himself gone to the officer-in-charge of the P.S. and had given his written report there and thereafter steps were taken by way of issuing requisities for the medical examination of the injured. So this argument that the injured were lying in hospital before 10 A.M. is not believable in view of the evidence of the I.O. that the informant himseif came to the P.S. and had given his written report at 10 A.M. and that on the basis of that written report, F.I.R. was instituted at the P.S. and subsequent steps with regard to issue of requisitions for medical examination of the injured was taken up. Since the medical examination of the injured is shown to have been done much prior to the time of giving the written report to the officer-in-charge of the P.S. the learned counsel for the appellant has argued that the prosecution has not come with clean hands and that the original written report was not that written report (Ext. 3) but something else and that subsequently in order to suit the case of prosecution some other document was produced at 10 A.M. and the real written report was suppressed. In view of the deficiencies in the case of prosecution due to the medical examination of the two injured being shown to have been done prior to the time of giving of the written report, I find that the submissions of the learned counsel for the appellant in this regard has substantial reason. In such view of the matters, i find that the written report which has been made the basis for the case of prosecution is a highly suspicious document and it discredits the whole prosecution story. Thus, hearing and considering the defects and the infirmities in the case of prosecution as discussed above, I feel that the prosecution has not been able to prove its case beyond the shadows of reasonable doubt. Therefore, I find that the appellants are entitled to benefit of doubt and accordingly by way of giving benefit of doubt the appellants are acquitted of the charges. Accordingly, the order of conviction and sentence as passed by the Trial Court is hereby set aside. The appellants are also discharged from the liability of bail bond excepting the appellant Kaushalendra Yadav. 21. In the result, this appeal is allowed.