JUDGMENT C.R. Sarma, J. 1. Heard Mr. A.K. Bhowmik, learned Sr. Counsel assisted by Mr. S. Ghosh, learned Counsel appearing for the Appellants. Also heard Mr. A. Ghosh, learned Addl. PP for the State. 2. This appeal under Section 374 (2) Code of Criminal Procedure is directed against the judgment and Order dated 27.9.2002 passed by the learned Asstt. Sessions Judge, South Tripura, Udaipur inst 10(ST/U)/2002 under Section 307 IPC. By the said impugned judgment, the learned Asstt. Sessions Judge convicted the Appellants for the offence under Section 307 Indian Penal Code and sentenced them to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 8 years. Being aggrieved by the said judgment of conviction and sentence, the Appellants have come up with the present appeal on the ground that the learned trial Judge committed illegality by recording the conviction and sentence without any substantial evidence on record. The prosecution case, in brief, as revealed during trial may be stated as follows: Sri Ananda Debbarma (P W1) lodged an FIR with the officer-in-Charge, Kakrabon outpost, alleging therein that, on 27.7.2000, his maternal uncle Sri Radhabasi Debbarma (PW 2) went to his rubber plantation at 5 pm in the morning. As the said PW 2 did not return home, at about 3 pm, the son of the said PW 2 went to their rubber garden and found that his father was lying in injured condition. The injured was accordingly taken to the hospital for treatment where he regained senses. The injured disclosed the names of the assailants to the PW 1 and PW 3 in the hospital. Accordingly, the FIR being lodged, the Police registered a case under Sections 148/149/325/307 IPC. During investigation. Police recorded the statements of the witnesses and collected the medical report. At the close of the investigation, Police submitted chargesheet against the Appellants and Ashish Debbarma (since deceased) and forwarded them to the Court to stand trial. The offence under Section 307 Indian Penal Code being exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, the learned Asstt. Sessions Judge framed charges against the Appellants for the offence under Section 307 Indian Penal Code to which they pleaded not guilty. During trial, the prosecution examined as many as 9 witnesses including the medical officers PW 7 and PW 8 and Investigating officer P W 9. Sessions Judge framed charges against the Appellants for the offence under Section 307 Indian Penal Code to which they pleaded not guilty. During trial, the prosecution examined as many as 9 witnesses including the medical officers PW 7 and PW 8 and Investigating officer P W 9. At the close of the evidence for the prosecution, the accused persons were examined under Section 313 Code of Criminal Procedure . They denied the allegation and declined to adduce defence evidence. Learned Asstt. Sessions Judge considering the materials on record found the accused persons guilty of the offence charged and accordingly convicted them under Section 307Indian Penal Code and awarded punishment as aforesaid. 3. Being aggrieved by the said conviction and sentence, the Appellants have come up with the present appeal. The learned Counsel appearing for the Appellants taking me through the evidence on record has submitted that there is not an iota of substantive evidence against the present Appellants and that the learned trial Judge committed illegality by convicting the Appellants without any evidence on record. It is also submitted that the charge under Section 307/34 Indian Penal Code was wrongly framed against the Appellants. The learned Addl. PP, supporting the impugned judgment and order, submitted that the learned trial Judge recorded the conviction and sentence on the basis of the evidence on record and that, the appeal was liable to be dismissed. In order to appreciate the counter arguments, advanced by the learned Counsels, appearing for both the parties, and to examine the correctness of the impugned judgment and order, I feel it appropriate to briefly recapitulate the evidence on record. In the present case, the charge was framed against the five persons for the offence under Section 307 IPC. In the charge, there was no mention regarding intention and knowledge. Even the learned trial Judge, while framing the charges against the five persons did not add the Section 34 Indian Penal Code to bind all the accused persons. Therefore, the charge framed against the Appellants does not indicate that the alleged offence was committed by the Appellants in furtherance of their common intention. Even the learned trial Judge, while framing the charges against the five persons did not add the Section 34 Indian Penal Code to bind all the accused persons. Therefore, the charge framed against the Appellants does not indicate that the alleged offence was committed by the Appellants in furtherance of their common intention. In order to bring charge against a person alleging commission of an offence under Section 307 Indian Penal Code it must be indicated in the charge that the act i.e. the offence was committed with such intention or knowledge and under such circumstances that had the act caused death he/she would have been guilty of murder. In a case under Section 307 Indian Penal Code the ingredients i.e. (i) an intention or knowledge of committing murder and (ii) doing the act towards it must be present. Hence, if the charge does not contain the said two ingredients, the same cannot be a lawful charge under Section 307 IPC. The charge framed by the learned Sessions Judge reads as follows: That on 27.7.2000 at about 5.30 am at Samukhchara under R.K. Pur PS you severely assaulted Radhabasi Debbarma in such circumstances in his rubber plantation that, if by such act you had caused the death of Radhabasi Debbarma you would have been guilty of murder and you thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 307 Indian Penal Code and within my cognizance. As discussed above the charge framed in this case does not indicate that there was any mention regarding intention and knowledge about causing death. Therefore, I find sufficient force in the submission of the learned Counsel appearing for the Appellants that the charge was defective. But in view of the provision prescribed by Section 464 Code of Criminal Procedure such defect cannot vitiate the finding recorded by a Court. Such defects can be cured taking resort to Section 464 (2)(a) and (b) Code of Criminal Procedure . 4. Now coming to the evidence on record, it appears that PW 1 and PW 3 did not see the occurrence. Both of them were reported by the injured himself. The injured has been examined as PW 2. Both PW 1 and PW 3 took the injured to the hospital in an unconscious state. 4. Now coming to the evidence on record, it appears that PW 1 and PW 3 did not see the occurrence. Both of them were reported by the injured himself. The injured has been examined as PW 2. Both PW 1 and PW 3 took the injured to the hospital in an unconscious state. According to PW 1, the injured told them that (1) Sashi Debbarma, (2) Apu Debbarma, (3) Nakul Debbarma, (4) Banamali Debbarma, (5) Sebananda Debbarma, (6) Ashish Debbarma (7) Pushpa Debbarma and (8) Umesh Debbarma assaulted them with lathi and kicks. But PW 3 i.e. the son of the injured, who was also present along with PW 1 in the hospital at the time of disclosing the names of the assailants by the injured, stated that his father i.e. the injured had told them that (1) Ashish Debbarma (since deceased) (2) Umesh Debbarma, (3) Banamali Debbarma, (4) Nakul Debbarma, (5) Pushpa Debbarma had assaulted him. Therefore, it appears that according to the PW 1, eight persons had assaulted the injured, but according to PW 3, only five persons had assaulted the injured. In my considered opinion, either the PW 1 exaggerated by adding the names of (1) Sashi Debbarma, (2) Apu Debbarma and (3) Sebananda Debbarma or the PW 3 suppressed the involvement of (1) Sashi Debbarma, (2) Apu Debbarma and (3) Sebananda Debbarma for the reasons best known to him. Considering the facts and circumstances of this case, the said contradiction, in my opinion was a major one raising doubt about the veracity of the prosecution story. According to the defence, due to political rivalry, a case was concocted against them. In this regard, a suggestion was put to P W 2 suggesting that due to political rivalry the case was concocted against them. This suggestion was denied by the PW 2. However, PW 2 i.e. the injured admitted that as a chairman of his area, he was a supporter of the CPI(M) party. In view of the above position, the PW 1, PW 2 and PW 3 being close relatives of the injured, their evidence is required to be carefully scrutinised and accepted with caution. However, PW 2 i.e. the injured admitted that as a chairman of his area, he was a supporter of the CPI(M) party. In view of the above position, the PW 1, PW 2 and PW 3 being close relatives of the injured, their evidence is required to be carefully scrutinised and accepted with caution. PW 2 i.e. the injured in his evidence stated that while he was working in his rubber plantation, (1) Apu Debbarma, (2) Sashi Debbarma, (3) Man Chandra Debbarma, (4) Sebananda Debbarma, (5) Banamali Debbarma and (6) Ashish Debbarma went to him and that Ashish Debbarma had asked him regarding his visit to Mirzabazar and it was alleged by them that he went to bazar to inform the Bengalis regarding the presence of extremists which allegation was denied by this witness. According to the injured the accused persons uttered filthy words against him and assaulted him with lathi. He further stated that he was given kicks on his chest as a result of which he lost his sense. The injured further stated that (1) Pushpa Debbarma, (2) Banamali Debbarma and (3) Umesh Debbarma were there amongst the miscreants. In his cross-examination, this witness denied the suggestion that accused (1) Banamali Debbarma was not present amongst the miscreants. The injured in his cross-examination clearly stated that (1) Ashish Debbarma (since deceased) (2) Apu Debbarma, (3) Sebananda Debbarma and (4) Man Chandra Debbarma had assaulted him. of course, he denied the suggestion that Appellant Umesh Debbarma, Banamali Debbarma and Pushpa Debbarma were not present amongst the miscreants. From the above evidence of the injured, it appears that the said injured did not mention the specific role played by the present Appellants. Fact remains that the charge has not been framed under Section 34 IPC. Therefore, there is no allegation of common intention amongst the miscreants. A careful perusal of the evidence of the injured rules out the involvement of the present Appellants in causing the injuries to the injured. If the present Appellants had assaulted the injured in any manner, there was no reason for not adding their names while stating that Ashish Debbarma, Apu Debbarma, Sebananda Debbarma and Man Chandra Debbarma had assaulted him. According to the injured, the PW 4 and PW 5 were also present in the hospital at the time of disclosing the names of the assailants. According to the injured, the PW 4 and PW 5 were also present in the hospital at the time of disclosing the names of the assailants. But the PW 4 and PW 5, who were tendered by the prosecution, were not examined in support of the prosecution version. PW 6 was the writer of the FIR. He has exhibited the FIR. PW 7 and PW 8 were the Medical officers. From the evidence of Medical officer, it appears that the injured sustained multiple bruise injuries and echoymosis on the back of his chest and fracture in respect of the 4th rib on the left side which was a grievous injury. As discussed above, from the evidence of the PW 2, I find no cogent and substantive evidence to believe that the Appellants had assaulted the injured. In view of absence of any evidence regarding the role played by the present Appellants, their simple presence in the place of occurrence cannot be the substantive evidence for holding them guilty of committing the offence under Section 307 IPC. It is settled law that in a criminal case, the prosecution is required to establish the case beyond all reasonable doubt by adducing cogent, reliable and substantive evidence. As discussed above, in view of the above mentioned contradictions and failure of the PW 2 to mention regarding the specific role played by the Appellants, I am inclined to hold that the prosecution failed to prove the charge against the Appellants beyond all reasonable doubt by adducing reliable and substantive evidence. Hence, I find sufficient merit in this appeal requiring interference with the impugned judgment and order. 5. Accordingly, the impugned judgment and order, by which the Appellants were convicted and sentenced, is set aside. In the result, the appeal is allowed and the accused persons are set at liberty forthwith. Their bail bonds shall stand discharged. The lower Court records be returned. Appeal allowed