Judgment SHYAM KISHORE SHARMA, J. 1. Appellants have preferred this appeal against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 6th July, 1993 passed in Sessions Case No. 182 of 1990 passed by the Ist Additional Sessions Judge, Munger whereby all the appellants have been found guilty for the offences under Sections 307/149, 147 and 148 of the Indian Penal Code and were sentenced to undergo RI for three years each. No separate sentence was passed under Sections 147 and 148 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. According to the prosecution case on 18.11.1988 informant Narayan Yadav (PW 4) was cutting paddy crops in his field situated at Bagra Bahiar. Some altercation took place between the son of the informant and son of Mathura Mahto which was intervened by the informant and thereafter son of Mathura Mahto returned. Later on the appellants armed with khanti and lathi reached at the field and started abusing the informant. The appellant Mathura Mahto attacked by khanti which caused injury on the cheek of the informant. Others committed assault by lathi. The informants father Mohan Yadav (not examined) reached and tried to save the informant then he was also assaulted by lathi and khanti as a result of which he received severe injuries. The occurrence was witnesses by Jagdeo Rai (not examined), Dwarika Yadav (not examined). The informant was brought to police station where his statement was recorded. Thereafter he was treated by the doctor. On the basis of statement of the informant PW 4 Halsi P.S. Case No. 87 of 1988 dated 18.11.1988 was registered under Sections 323, 325, 307/34 of the Indian Penal Code. After investigation charge-sheet was submitted. After taking cognizance the case was committed to the Court of Sessions. 3. The defence of the appellant was that no occurrence as alleged has taken place and the appellants have been implicated due to family dispute. The appellants and witnesses belong to one genealogical table. 4. In order to prove the case the prosecution has examined altogether 5 witnesses. They are PW 1 Basudeo Narain a formal witness who has proved a writing and signature of formal FIR (Ext-1). PW 2 Rajendra Prasad is an advocate clerk and he has proved written report of Ram Sawroop Yadav (Ext-2). PW 3 is Ram Swaroop Yadav and PW 4 is the informant himself. PW 5 is Dr. Laxmi Narayan Singh. They are PW 1 Basudeo Narain a formal witness who has proved a writing and signature of formal FIR (Ext-1). PW 2 Rajendra Prasad is an advocate clerk and he has proved written report of Ram Sawroop Yadav (Ext-2). PW 3 is Ram Swaroop Yadav and PW 4 is the informant himself. PW 5 is Dr. Laxmi Narayan Singh. The doctor has examined the informant on 18.1.1988 at 11.30 p.m. 5. The Doctor PW 5 has found the following injuries on the person of PW 4 : (i) Lacerated wound on the right side of head over parital region 1"x 1/2" x 1/3". (ii) Lacerated wound at the right side of head over parital region 1" mideal to injury to I. 3/4"xl/ 2" x1/3". (iii) Incised wound on the back of right forearm on the upper part 1"x1/2"x1/3". (iv) Bruise with swelling on the left side of head over partial region 1/2" in diameter. (v) Lacerated wound on the left side of cheek by the side of nose 3/4"x1/2"x1/2". (vi) Bruise with swelling in front of left leg in middle third part. (vii) Two bruise on the left side of back 2" apart 3"x1". 6. According to the doctor injury No. 3 was caused by sharp cutting weapon such a farsa and rest was caused by hard and blunt substance. After examination the doctor has given injury report (Ext-3). 7. PW 5 also examined Mohan Yadav on the same day at abut 11.40 p.m. and found following injuries : (i) Lacerated wound on the left side of head over parital region 3/ 4"x1/2"xscalp deep. (ii) Lacerated wound on the back of right forearm in upper third part 1//x1/2"x1/4". (iii) Abrasion on the back of left forearm in the middle third part. (iv) Bruise with echymesis on the back of left leg 2"x1". 8. Age of injuries was within 72 hours and simple in nature and caused by hard blunt substance. That injury report marked as Ext- 3/1. 9. The informant in his evidence has stated that at about 4 and 1/2 years earlier at 4 p.m. on Friday he along with his father were at their field and cutting paddy. The informants son and son of the appellant No. 1 had some quarrel but the matter was pacified. Later on the appellant Mathura, Krishna, Fakira, Umesh, Surendra came at that time Mathura was having khanti whereas others were having lathi. The informants son and son of the appellant No. 1 had some quarrel but the matter was pacified. Later on the appellant Mathura, Krishna, Fakira, Umesh, Surendra came at that time Mathura was having khanti whereas others were having lathi. Mathura attacked on the informant which caused injury on his neck. Others also assaulted by means of lathi. The informants father came for his rescue but he was also assaulted by khanti and lathi. The matter was reported to the police and the police sent him to hospital where he remained hospitalizes and getting treatment for 25 days. In cross-examination he was asked to show as to what was the place of occurrence but he could not give out either khata number or plot number of the field. According to this witness his further statement was not recorded by the police. He has not shown the place of occurrence he was hospitalised. 10. According to this witness he received injuries from khanti on his neck and remained hospitalised for 25 days. 11. PW 3 in his evidence has stated that on 18.11.1988 at about 4 p.m., PW 4 and his father were cutting the paddy, he heard noise and thereafter rushed and found the appellants. At that time the appellant No. 1 was having a khanti According to him he assaulted on the informants head by lathi. When the father came then he was also assaulted. 12. According to this witness informant remained hospitalized for 10 days and thereafter he returned to his house. 13. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that non- examination of another injured who is said to be the father of the informant speaks a lot about the prosecution case. There is no explanation as to why another injured person was not examined in the Court. It has also been submitted that not only the informants father rather most of the independent witnesses were not produced before the Court and their non-examination has caused prejudice to the defence. There is no explanation at all as to why the IO was not examined and non-examination of the IO caused prejudiced to the appellants case. In this case the place of occurrence was established. Charge-sheet witnesses Badri Narayan Yadav, Dwarika Yadav and Mutar Ram were not examined. They were withheld because they should have stated truth before the Court. There is no explanation at all as to why the IO was not examined and non-examination of the IO caused prejudiced to the appellants case. In this case the place of occurrence was established. Charge-sheet witnesses Badri Narayan Yadav, Dwarika Yadav and Mutar Ram were not examined. They were withheld because they should have stated truth before the Court. The son of the informant who was the genesis of the occurrence has also been withheld and there is no reason as to why he was not examined. The prosecution has also withheld examination of brother-in-law of the informant (PW 3 para 16), mother of informant (PW 4 para 1), Jagganath and Rameshwar (PW 3 para 5) due to non-examination of these vital witnesses the defence is entitled to get benefit of Section 114 (G) of the Evidence Act. Even the witnesses examined in the Court has given contradictory evidence and they have not come with true version. The informant in his evidence stated that he returned to his house after 25 days after getting treatment inside the hospital but he has been contradicted by PW 3 who has stated that the informant returned after 10 days. About the manner of injury also the informant in his fardbeyan has stated that he got injury on his left cheek but in examination-in-chief he stated that khanti injury was upon his nose. The doctor has stated that only one sharp cutting incised wound which is said to be caused by sharp cutting instrument such as khanti. Injury No. 3 which was on the right forearm on the upper part, according to the doctor this injury was by hard blunt substance. 14. Learned APP submits that non-examination of IO has not caused any prejudice to the appellant. The statement of PWs 4 and 5 almost tallies and there are minor variation which did not get the rid of prosecution case. 15. After analysing the evidences I found that father of the informant has not been examined he was an injured witness and his non-examination definitely causes some doubt on the truthfulness of the prosecution version and treatment given to the injured PW 4 stated that he returned after 25 days after getting treatment from the hospital whereas PW 3 stated that he return after 10 days. PW 4 at one place states that he got injury by khanti on his cheek but doctor has stated some different version. Therefore, it has not been proved that as to what was the nature of injury which the informant received on account of assault not only with regard to these injuries but also there are contradictory evidences at all. The informant has also not been examined under Section 161, Cr PC. Non-examination of IO has definitely caused prejudiced to the appellant as place of occurrence could not be established. In view of the non- establishment of the place of occurrence, non-examination of the IO, contradictory evidence with regard to nature of injuries, contradictory evidences with regard to treatment, non-examination of independent witnesses I am of the view that the prosecution has not been able to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubts. The doubt remained un-cleared as to why independent witnesses has not been examined. Once a doubt is created with regard to truthfulness of the prosecution case then benefit of doubt is bound to go in favour of the accused not to the prosecution. 16. Accordingly, 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.