Judgment SHYAM KISHORE SHARMA, J. 1. Supplementary affidavit has been filed on behalf the appellants that one of the appellants Hardeo Singh S/o Ram Sharan Singh died in the month of June, 2007. This fact has been supported by the counsel for the informant. 2. Accordingly, the appeal against the appellant stands abated. Above named appellants have filed this appeal against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 30.1.1993 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, II, Gaya in Sessions Trial No. 241 of 1989/70 of 1990 whereby the appellant no. 10 Lakhan Singh was found guilty for the offence under sec. 324 and 148 of the Indian Penal Code and was sentenced to undergo R.I. for two years each where as other appellants were found guilty under sections 147 and 323 Indian Penal Code and were sentenced to undergo R.I. for one year each for each of the charges. The sentences were ordered to run concurrently. 3. According to the prosecution case on 13.8.1988 at 8 PM at village Kurmawan, P.S. Bodhgaya while the informant Kamla Mahto and other prosecution witnesses were plucking the vegetables from their field then the accused persons formed unlawful assembly and they were armed with Garasa and lathi. Allegation is that at the behest of accused Maheshwar Singh Lakhan Singh assaulted by means of Garasa (sharp cutting weapon) which the informant prevented by his left hand as a result thereof he received injuries on his hand. When the informant fell down then other accused persons assaulted him Upon cry of the informant his son Iswar (PW 4) came. Accused Lakhan Singh hurled his Garasa which hit the elbow and he sustained injury and fell down. After causing injury to the informant and his son the accused persons assaulted Ram Naresh Mahto, Sheo Lakhan Mahto, Domani Devi, Lala Prasad, Laleshwar Mahto, Jagdish Mahto son of Jeolal Mhat, Jagdish Mahto son of Rohan Mahto, Chintamani Mahto, Muresh Kumar, Bhukhan Mahto, Kapil Prasad and Ganga Mahto by means of lathi. Motive of the occurrence was that prior to the occurrence an altercation took place between the Rajdeo Singh and Sheo Shankar Singh two days prior to the occurrence and this occurrence was committed to settle score on account of that enmity. Motive of the occurrence was that prior to the occurrence an altercation took place between the Rajdeo Singh and Sheo Shankar Singh two days prior to the occurrence and this occurrence was committed to settle score on account of that enmity. On the basis of statement given by the informant the police registered the case bearing Bodh Gaya P.S. Case No. 143 of 1988 under sections 147, 148, 149, 341, 323, 324 and 307 of the Indian penal Code. Cognizance was taken and the case was committed to the court of Sessions where charges were explained to the accused persons. They pleased innocence and preferred to be tried. Defence of the accused persons was of false implication. Further defence was that no such occurrence has taken place. The informant and his persons have got a fabricated injury report taking into the connivance of the doctor. The place of occurrence was not proved by the I. O. No document showing plot no. 1359 khata no. 221 was produced by the prosecution upon which any inference could be drawn that the alleged place of occurrence is in the name of the informant and his witnesses rather the fact was that the land was Gairmazarua land. Hence contradiction in the evidence of the witnesses were enough to demolish the prosecution version and the entire case of the prosecution has remained doubtful with the unsolved questions of facts. 4. In order to prove the case the prosecution examined altogether 16 witnesses. They are: Sita Ram Sao (PW 1), Lala Prasad ( PW 2), Bhukhan Mahto ( PW 3) , Ishwar Kumar Singh (PW 4), Sheo Lakhan Prasad ( PW 5), Chintamani Mahto (PW 6), Jagdish Mahto son of Rohan Mahto (PW 7), Rarndeo Mahto (PW 8), Domani Devi ( PW 9), Jagdish mahto son of Jeolal Mahto (PW 10), Vijai Sharma (PW 11), informant Kamla Mahto ( PW 12), Dr. S. K. Sahu ) PW 13), Tej Narain rasad (PW 14), Chanderdeep Prasad (PW 15) and the I. 0. A. P. Yadav (PW 16). The defence has not examined any witness. 5. Three witnesses are formal in nature:- PWs 1, 2 and 15. One witness PW 9 who was the wife of Jagdish Mahto was tendered and she has stated nothing about the occurrence. Nine material witnesses were brought on behalf of the prosecution to prove the charges against the accused persons. The defence has not examined any witness. 5. Three witnesses are formal in nature:- PWs 1, 2 and 15. One witness PW 9 who was the wife of Jagdish Mahto was tendered and she has stated nothing about the occurrence. Nine material witnesses were brought on behalf of the prosecution to prove the charges against the accused persons. Besides them PW 13 was examined by the prosecution in support of its case that the injured were treated by him. After examining the entire evidences brought on the record the court below acquitted the appellants from the charges under sec. 307 and 325 of the Indian Penal Code. PW 12 is the informant of: the case. He is one of the injured. He in his evidence has stated that on 13.1.1988 at about 8 AM he was plucking the vegetables from his field. In the neighborhood other persons were also plucking the vegetables. The informant was backed by his son Ishwar Singh. At that time Ram Dev Mahto, Shivlakhan Prasad, Jagdish Mahto, Domani Devi, Bhukhan Mahto, Chintamani Mahto, Lala Prasad, Jagdish Mahto S/o Jeolal Mahto, Lalehswar mahto and Suresh Prasad were also there. Lakhan Singh, Hardev Singh, dhaneshwar Singh, Maheshwar Singh, Deo Kumar Singh, Kesar Singh, Balhari Saingh, Nago Singh and Dinesh Thakur were seen coming from the side of the village. At that time Lakhan Singh was having Garsa whereas other accused persons were having lathi. Those persons reached in the field of the informant PW 12. Maheshwar Singh exhorted other accused persons for killing. Thereafter, Lakhan Singh gave Grasa blow on the head of the informant. The informant tried to save himself and in that circumstance he received injuries on his left hand. Thereafter, Hardev Singh, Keshar Singh, Maheshwar Singh and Dinesh Thakur assaulted him by means of lathi. Others also assaulted the informant. When the informants son Ishwar Singh PW 4 came for rescue then he was assaulted by means of Garasa by Lakhan Singh. He received injuries on his left hand and left leg. Hardev Singh, Kesar Singh and Maheshar Singh assaulted by means of lathi and other also committed various overt acts of assault. 6. According to the PW 12 altogether 12 persons received injuries. They went Bodh Gaya Hospital for treatment where they were treated by the Dr. Sahu ( PW 13). The matter was reported by the Dr. Hardev Singh, Kesar Singh and Maheshar Singh assaulted by means of lathi and other also committed various overt acts of assault. 6. According to the PW 12 altogether 12 persons received injuries. They went Bodh Gaya Hospital for treatment where they were treated by the Dr. Sahu ( PW 13). The matter was reported by the Dr. Sahu to police station where the Officer In Charge came and informant gave his statement i.e. fard beyan (Ext-3). For X-ray this witness was sent to Mugadh X-ray hospital. This witness has stated that his case was not being properly investigated so he has filed protest petition (Ext-2) . He has further stated that prior to the occurrence Rajdev Singh and Chandradeep Prasad quarreled for which a case was registered. PW 2 Lala Prasad, PW 3 Bhukhan Mahto, PW 4 Ishwar Siongh, PW 5 Sheo Lakhan Prasad, PW 6 Chintamani Mahto, PW 7 Jagdish Mahto, PW 8 Ramdev Mahto, PW 10 another Jagdish Mahto are other injured witnesses who have given similar evidences as given by the informant. In their examination in chief they have stated that the accused persons have committed various overt acts. One of the accused Lakhan Singh has given a Garasa blow which has caused injury and other accused persons have given lathi blow. In their examination in chief they remained consistent so far the manner of causing injury versions. Before discussing their evidences of the witnesses it would be proper to discus the evidence of the doctor PW 13 who has examined the injured. PW 13 was posted as Medical Officer, State Dispensary at Bodh Gaya, on that very day the injured persons were sent to his hospital for treatment and injury report by the Bodh Gaya Police Station. On that date he examined 12 persons. Firstly, he examined PW 4 Iswar Singh son of Kamla Mahto the informant and found following injuries: (i) One incised wound 4"xl/2"x1/4" on the middle of the head. (ii) One fracture of right clavical bone in the middle part. (iii) One incised wound 2"xl/2" on the left forearm. (iv) One small incised wound on the left leg. (v) One bruise 2"xl" on the right arm (vi) One bruise l"xl"on the left scapular region. 7. According to the doctor injury no. 2 was grievous in nature and rest were simple. Injury no. (iii) One incised wound 2"xl/2" on the left forearm. (iv) One small incised wound on the left leg. (v) One bruise 2"xl" on the right arm (vi) One bruise l"xl"on the left scapular region. 7. According to the doctor injury no. 2 was grievous in nature and rest were simple. Injury no. 1, 3 and 4 might have been caused by sharp cutting weapon such as Garasa and rest might having caused by hard blunt substance such as lathi. PW 13 later on has examined Kamla Mahto the informant and found following injuries: (i) Fracture of acromonium process of scapula bone of right side. (ii) One incised wound lxl/2"Xl/2"xl/4"on the left palm. (iii) One bruise 2"xl"on the left leg. (iv) One small bruise on the left scapular region 8. According to the doctor the injury no. 1 is grievous in nature and rest were simple in nature and the injury no. 2 might have been caused by sharp cutting weapon such as Garasa and rest were by hard blunt substance such as lathi. Later on this witness has examined Chintaman Mahto PW 6 and found following injuries: (i) One fracture of right clavicle bone. (ii) One small lacerated wound on the head. (iii) One bruise 2"xl" on the left scapular region. (iv) One bruise l"xl"on the right thigh. (v) One small bruise on the right scapular region. 9. According to the doctor injury no. 1 was grievous and rest were simple caused by hard bluilt substance such as lathi. On the same date this witness has examined Lala Prasad PW 2 and found following injuries: (i) One incised wound 2"xl/2"xl/4"on the right side of head. (ii) One bruise 2"xl"on the right arm. (iii)One bruise l"xl" on the right leg. (iv) One bruise 2"xl"on the right thigh. (v) One small bruise on the right side of the neck. 10. According to the doctor all the injuries were simple in nature. Injury no. 1 might have been caused by sharp cutting weapon such as Garasa and rest by hard blunt substance such as lathi. 11. (iv) One bruise 2"xl"on the right thigh. (v) One small bruise on the right side of the neck. 10. According to the doctor all the injuries were simple in nature. Injury no. 1 might have been caused by sharp cutting weapon such as Garasa and rest by hard blunt substance such as lathi. 11. This witness has also examined Bhukhan Mahto PW 3, Laleshwar Prasad (not examined), Mukesh Kumar (not examined) , Jagdish Mahto son of Rahul Mahto (PW 7), Jagdish Mahto Son of Jeo Lal Mahto PW 10, Domani Devi PW 9, Ramdev Mahto PW 8 and Sheo Lakhan Prasad PW 5 and found simple injury on their persons as mentioned in their respective injury reports. All the injury reports have been marked as Ext-5 to 5/11 and all the injuries were caused within 24 hours from the time of examination. 12. The I. O. has been examined as PW 16. He has gone to the dispensary for collecting injury reports on 21.9.1988 but the injury reports were not ready and the doctor PW 13 stated that the injury reports would be made available within one or two days. PW 2 Lala Prasad has stated that he was examined before the police and he in his evidence has described the manner of occurrence when ten named persons have come and committed various overt acts. When the attention of the I. O. was drawn towards the statement of the PW 2 then PW 16 in para 22-30 denied that such statement were given to him by PW 2. Simultaneously vital contradictions have created in the statements of PW 3 and PW 16 (Para 31-32), PW 4 and PW 16 (Para 30-31), PW 5 and PW 16 ( Para 31-33), PW 6 and PW 16 (Para 31-32), PW 7 and PW 16 (Para 31-32), PW 8 and PW 16 (Para 31-32), PW 12 and PW 16 in Para 32. Submission of the learned counsel for the appellants is that a number of contradictions pointed out by the I. O. goes to show that these witnesses have not given true versions and they have given different type of statements on two occasions. They have stated something differently in the court as it has differed substantially from the statement given by them under sec. They have stated something differently in the court as it has differed substantially from the statement given by them under sec. 161 Cr.P.C. It has been suggested that, in fact, no statement has been recorded by the I. O. or these witnesses have not given any statement before the I. O. and they were examined for the first time before the Court. So a number of contradictions have erupted in their evidences. It has also been submitted that a false prosecution has been lodged after procuring the manufactured injury reports in league with the doctor PW 13. The place of occurrence has also not be proved as no document showing that plot no. 1351 and khata no. 22 1 was produced before the I. O. which stood in the name of the informant and his witnesses rather the land was shown to be a Gair Mazarua Malik land. The motive of the alleged occurrence has also not been cleared. Supporting the case of the prosecution learned APP assisted by the learned counsel for the informant submits that the prosecution case has been proved beyond all reasonable doubts. It has also been proved that the alleged assault was caused by the accused persons as a result thereof the informant and his son and other witnesses received a number of injuries. The investigation has not been done in its true manner so a protest petition was filed (Ext-2) before the C.J.M. The motive has also been roved as there was altercation prior to the date of occurrence. That motive was with regard to a case for which FIR (Ext-3/1) as Bodh Gaya P.S. Case No. 141 of 1988 was lodged under sections 341, 323, 324/379 of the Indian Penal Code. With regard to the injury reports it. has been submitted that these are true injury reports and those injury reports were such that could not be fabricated. 13. The prosecution from beginning was not in believe that the investigation was being conducted in proper manner so it had file a protest petition (Ext-2). With regard to the injury reports it. has been submitted that these are true injury reports and those injury reports were such that could not be fabricated. 13. The prosecution from beginning was not in believe that the investigation was being conducted in proper manner so it had file a protest petition (Ext-2). But bare perusal of the record shows that the protest petition was never filed in the court of the C.J.M. though exhibit-2 has been relied as protest petition but that protest petition did not bear the seal of C.J.M. This fact has also been considered by the trial court and trial court found that no protest petition was ever filed by the informant. Though a number of contradictions are there in the record and there is no explanation before the prosecution as to how the injury reports were not made available to the I. O. when he visited the doctor after one week of the occurrence. At that time the I. O. was told by the doctor that the injury reports were not ready. A doubt on such act of the doctor is created with regard to the truthfulness of the prosecution version of the occurrence. As if a person is taken to hospital then injury report is prepared. The I. O. of this case has not gone to the doctor immediately after occurrence rather he has gone after more than . one week of the occurrence but surprisingly by that time the injury reports were not made available to him (Para 20 of the PW 12). No explanation has been given by the prosecution at all as to why the injury report was not prepared even after one week. Another doubt has been created in the prosecution version that injured were taken to State Dispensary and not the Medical College nearer to the house of the informant PW 12. PW 12 while being examined in the court was asked as to where the better treatment is made available then he plainly states that better treatment was available in the Magadh Medical college Hospital which was nearer to his house but there is no explanation as t:o why injured will not go to nearer than a farther place for treatment. This also creates a doubt on the prosecution version. The informant in his evidence has stated in Para 4 that the I. 0. This also creates a doubt on the prosecution version. The informant in his evidence has stated in Para 4 that the I. 0. was informed by the doctor PW 13. But the doctor PW 13 in Para 1 has stated that on 13.9.1988 some injured persons were sent to his hospital for treatment by Bodh Gaya Police Station, here also there is vital contradiction. The doctor says that the injured were sent to his Dispensary by the Bodh Gaya Police Station whereas the informant says that the I. O. came after doctored informed him. The injury report of Kamla Mahto (PW 12) is (Ext-5/1). The first injury noted by the doctor is that it is fracture of acromonium which will be confirmed by x-ray that injury reports bears the date of 13.9.1988, here also the statement of the informant has contradicted that he was sent later on for X- ray and when the X-ray report was received then the injury was noted. On record it is clear that the injury was noted on the same date i.e. after observation of X-ray report. But neither X-ray report nor X-ray plate was produced in the court so it was very difficult to come to the conclusion that as to what was the nature of Considering the above vital contradictions on facts with regard to time, manner and place of occurrence, I am of the view that some doubt has remained on the prosecution version and once a doubt is created then the benefit of doubt will go to the accused not to the prosecution. In the result the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence is set aside and this appeal is allowed. The appellants are discharged from the liabilities of their bail bonds.