S.K.SHARMA, J.:- This appeal has been filed by above two appellants against the judgment dated 5.5.1993 passed by 8th Additional Sessions Judge, Purnia in Sessions Trial No. 283 of 1990 whereby appellant no.1 Akhilesh Yadav has been convicted under Section 326 of the Indian Penal Code and has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years while appellant no.2 Binod Kumar Yadav was convicted under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code but was released on admonition. The fardbeyan of Krishnadeo Maharana (P.W.3) is the basis of the prosecution case. According to informant P.W.3, on 22.8.1989 at 1.00 P.M. these appellants along with others namely, Chhitan Yadav, Sukhdeo, Anil Prasad Yadav, Sunil Kumar Yadav and Sinod Kumar Yadav encircled the informant while he was returning from his field and at the behest of accused Chhitan Yadav, Akhilesh Yadav who was having garasa assaulted him whereas other accused persons also assaulted by means of lathi. The assault caused by Akhilesh Yadav caused injury on the head. The assault of other accused persons also caused injuries. On hulla, the witnesses came. The injured after receiving injuries became unconscious. The injured was brought to sadar hospital for treatment where his fardbeyan was recorded by the police. The case was registered and matter was investigated into and after completion of investigation, charge sheet was submitted. Thereafter cognizance was taken and the case was committed to the court of sessions. The trial proceeded. Charge under Sections 307/149 and 147 of the Indian Penal Code was framed against the five accused persons and charge under Sections 307 and 148 of the Indian Penal Code was framed against accused Akhilesh Yadav. The charges were framed to the accused persons who pleaded innocence and preferred to face the trial. Altogether 6 accused persons faced the trial but four accused persons have been acquitted and these two appellants have been convicted and sentenced, as stated above. The defence of the accused persons from the very beginning was of false implication and further defence was that the informant had entered into the house of accused for committing theft and he assaulted accused Binod Kumar Yadav and Sinod Kumar Yadav while running away. Further defence was that the informant was caught by the villagers and they assaulted the informant. The defence has also produced two injury reports vide Exts. A and A/1 in support of its case. Further defence was that the informant was caught by the villagers and they assaulted the informant. The defence has also produced two injury reports vide Exts. A and A/1 in support of its case. The requisitions for sending the injured by the police have also been exhibited which are Exts. B and B/1. The doctor who examined injured Binod Kumar Yadav and Sinod Kumar Yadav has also been examined as D.W.1. In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined altogether 7 witnesses. They are: P.W.1 Bangali Yadav, P.W.2 Mangan Yadav, P.W.3 Sri Krishnadeo Maharana, the informant, P.W.4 Md. Yasin Ansari, P.W.5 Dr. Trilok Chandra Prasad, P.w.6 Nageshwar Prasad Singh and P.W.7 Sadanand Maharana. P.Ws. 4,6 and 7 are formal witnesses. P.W.2 has been declared hostile. The Investigating Officer has not been examined. Besides injured, one person has been examined as eye witness. P.W. 3, the informant, in his evidence has stated that occurrence occurred on 22.8.1989 in the night at about 8-9 P.M. On that date, this witness has stated that while he was returning after watching his field along with Bangali Yadav and when reached near the house of Chhitan Yadav, he saw that accused Chhitan Yadav, Sukhdeo, Anil Yadav, Sunil, Akhilesh, Binod and Sinod Yadav were Sitting there. At the instgation of accused Chhitan Yadav, the accused persons encircled this witness and thereafter Akhilesh Yadav assaulted him with farsa on his head thrice and accused Binod Yadav assaulted him with lathi. Seeing assault, Bangali Yadav escaped crying. On hearing hulla, the witnesses came. This witness who is informant has fully supported his prosecution case. The only supporting witness is P.W.1 in his examination-in-chief has stated identical version which have been stated by the informant P.W.3 with regard to assault but in cross-examination this witness has given a complete goby about the factum of assault by farsa. In paragraph 16 of his evidence, this witness has stated that the accused persons assaulted the informant with lathi only. If the statement of this witness is considered to be true, then it would appear that there was assault only be means of lath is. P.W.5 is Dr. Trilok Chandra Prasad who on 23.8.1989 was posted at Primary Health Centre, K. Nagar and on that day he examined Krishnadeo Maharana and found following injuries on his person: (i) a sharp cut linear over left parietal bone of skull. P.W.5 is Dr. Trilok Chandra Prasad who on 23.8.1989 was posted at Primary Health Centre, K. Nagar and on that day he examined Krishnadeo Maharana and found following injuries on his person: (i) a sharp cut linear over left parietal bone of skull. (ii) A sharp cut 6" linear over frontal skull bone with skull fracture. (iii) A cut 4" linear over right parietal skull. According to doctor, the above injuries were caused by sharp cutting weapon may be farsa. Apart from above injuries, this witness found one swelling and two bruises over the person of the informant caused by lathi. This witness in his cross-examination has stated that injury no. (ii) on the head was fractured and thus it was grievous. The injury report has been marked as Ext. 3. The patient was referred to Purnia but no doctor of Purnia has been examined. So final opinion with regard to nature of injury of informant has not been given. This witness on the same day also examined accused Sinod Kumar Yadav and found following injuries on his person: (i) A cut over right dorsum of hand 5" in length. (ii) A cut over right side of head. According to doctor, the injuries were simple in nature and might have been caused by sharp cutting weapon. This witness on the same day also examined Binod Kumar Yadav and found following injuries on his person: (i) Swelling on left foot 6" x' 6". (ii) Swelling on the back of wrist 5" x 5". According to doctor, the injuries were simple in nature and might have been caused by hard blunt substance. The Investigating Officer of this case has not been examined and in his absence, the place of occurrence has not been established. Independent witnesses have also not come to support the prosecution case. The charge sheet witnesses namely, Ganeshi Yadav, Bilash Yadav and Bindeshwari Yadav have also not been produced by the prosecution for their examination and there is no explanation for their non-examination. The doctor of Purnia has also not been examined in this case. So it cannot be said as to what was the injuries received by the informant P.W.3. On the other hand, some documents have been produced on behalf of the defence to show that on the same day some accused persons received injuries. That documents have been marked exhibits. The doctor of Purnia has also not been examined in this case. So it cannot be said as to what was the injuries received by the informant P.W.3. On the other hand, some documents have been produced on behalf of the defence to show that on the same day some accused persons received injuries. That documents have been marked exhibits. The doctor has also stated in his cross-examination about the examination of two accused on the same day namely, Binod Kumar Yadav and Sinod Kumar Yadav. It appears that most of the accused persons have been acquitted by the trial court. It further appears that independent witnesses and the three charge sheet named witnesses have not been produced by the prosecution for their examination. The only supporting witness is P.W.1. The non-examination of the charge sheet witnesses and also independent witnesses creates doubt with regard to manner of occurrence. Once doubt is created, the benefit of the same is to be given to the accused persons. After analysing the entire evidences on record, I am of the view that the prosecution has not been able to prove the charges against these appellants also beyond the shadow of all reasonable doubts. Accordingly, these two appellants are also entitled to be acquitted. In the result, this appeal is allowed and the conviction and sentence of these appellants is set aside. The appellants are also discharged from the liabilities of their, bail bonds.