JUDGMENT By Court. - Both the aforesaid appeals arose from the judgment of conviction dated 20.8.2003 and order of sentence dated 21.8.2003 passed in Session Case No. 73 of 1994 by learned Sessions Judge, Deoghar. The appellants of Criminal Appeal No. 1602 of 2003 (Lakhan Yadav) and appellants of Criminal Appeal No. 1245 of 2003 (Ram Sharan Yadav and Bharat Yadav) have been convicted under Section 302/34 of Indian Penal Code and under Section 323/34 of Indian Penal Code. All the aforesaid three appellants were sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and fine of Rs.20,000/- (Twenty thousand) each and in the event of default, rigorous imprisonment for three years under Section 302/34 IPC and six months rigorous imprisonment under Section 323/34 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. As both the appeals are directed against the same judgment of court below, therefore they are heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment. 3. The prosecution was launched on the basis of written report of informant Jagdish Prasad Yadav (P.W. 6), father of the deceased dated 5.11.1993. 4. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 5.11.1993 at about 9 A.M. while the informant-Jagdish Prasad Yadav was going to vegetable market at Madhupur Bazaar and when he reached near the turning of Glass Factory, the accused-appellants Ram Sharan Yadav, Lakhan Yadav, Bharat Yadav and Pinku Yadav who belong to the same family surrounded the informant-Jagdish Prasad Yadav and started assaulting. The informant raised alarm whereupon, his sons Narayan Yadav and Hiralal Yadav rushed there to rescue him, but the accused-appellants attacked them, assaulted and injured. It is alleged that Ram Sharan Yadav was armed with spear, Lakhan Yadav with iron rod and Bharat• Yadav with club (lathi). Lakhan Yadav had given hard hit with rod on the head of Narayan Yadav as a result of which he fell down. It is subsequent case of the prosecution that Narayan Yadav, who had received grievous injury on his head, died on the way on hospital. 5. On the basis of said written report, police registered the case against the accused-appellants under Sections 341/323/325 and 307/34 of the Indian Penal Code. Subsequently, after the death of Narayan Yadav, police on conclusion of investigation submitted charge-sheet under Sections 341/323/325/307 and 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code. 6. Charges under Sections 302/34, 323/34, 325/34 and 341 IPC were framed against all the appellants. Subsequently, after the death of Narayan Yadav, police on conclusion of investigation submitted charge-sheet under Sections 341/323/325/307 and 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code. 6. Charges under Sections 302/34, 323/34, 325/34 and 341 IPC were framed against all the appellants. The appellants denied the charges and claimed to be tried. They were put on trial. In their examination under Section 313 Cr.P.C., they denied to have committed any offence. 7. However, Pinku Yadav @ Mahendra Yadav was declared to be juvenile and was sent to the Juvenile Court for trial. 8. The prosecution in order to establish charges against the accused-appellants, altogether examined ten witnesses. P.W. 1 Hiralal Yadav is the brother of the deceased. He claimed to be injured in course of incident and eye witness to the occurrence. P.W. 2 N.A. Sattar is a Doctor who conducted postmortem on the dead body of the deceased Narayan Yadav, P.W. 3 Punam Kumar Singh is a witness to the seizure list prepared on seizure of incriminating iron rod. He proved his signature on the seizure list (Ext.-2). P.W. 4 Avtar Ahmad is another witness to the seizure and he has proved his signature on the seizure list as (Ext.-2/1). P.W. 5 Sukhlal Shah is a co-villager. P.W.6 Jagdish Prasad is the informant of the case. P.W. 7, Govind Yadav and PW. 8 Bomshankar Rawani have been tendered by the prosecution. P.W. 9 Saraswati Devi is the wife of informant and mother of the deceased Narayan Yadav. P.W. 10 Vishnu Dayal Singh is the Investigating Officer. 9. Learned trial court on conclusion of the trial, relied on the testimonies of P.W. 1, P.W. 3, P.W. 6, P.W. 9 as also the medical evidence of P.W.2 and the evidence of Investigating Officer P.W. 10 and held the accused persons guilty under Sections 302/34/323/34 LP.C. Appellants were not found guilty under Section 325/34 and under Section 341 IPC. Court below thus convicted and sentenced as aforesaid. 10. Learned counsel for the appellants have assailed the said judgment of court below on the following grounds: (i) There are vital contradictions in the evidences of prosecution going to the root of the case, but the learned trial court did not take into consideration the said contradictions and erroneously based his conclusion on inadmissible evidence. 10. Learned counsel for the appellants have assailed the said judgment of court below on the following grounds: (i) There are vital contradictions in the evidences of prosecution going to the root of the case, but the learned trial court did not take into consideration the said contradictions and erroneously based his conclusion on inadmissible evidence. (ii) The prosecution has failed to establish two versions of the first information report from the evidences of P.W.'s. (iii) The written report which is said to be the basis of the case is said to be made over to the police at three places, at the police station, hospital and at the place of occurrence. (iv) However, the prosecution has based its case on the basis of written report said to be given in the police station, but the same could not be established by the prosecution evidences. (v) The first information is said to be given by Sukhlal Shah to the police, but the same has not been brought on record. The written report regarding the occurrence subsequently made over by Jagdish Prasad Yadav at best can be said to be a statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and the same cannot be accepted as F:I.R. under Section 154 Cr.P.C. (vi) There is serious doubt regarding the place of occurrence, as would be evident from the versions of prosecution witnesses. Prosecution has thus failed to establish the place of occurrence. (vii) The ocular evidence is not supported by the medical evidence, in view of the serious contradiction between the two. The prosecution has miserably failed to establish the charges against the appellants. (viii) There is vital contradiction regarding the nature of injury and the manner of assault. Different prosecution witnesses have given different account of manner of assault and the nature of injury. (ix) All the prosecution witnesses are inimical and interested. The material witnesses namely P.W. 1 Hiralal Yadav, P.W. 6 Jagdish Prasad Yadav, P.W. 7 Govind Yadav and P.W. 9 Saraswati Devi are the members of same family and there is admitted land dispute and enmity between them and the accused-appellants. (x) No independent witness has supported the prosecution case. Inquest Report was neither prepared nor produced before the Court. The material witnesses namely P.W. 1 Hiralal Yadav, P.W. 6 Jagdish Prasad Yadav, P.W. 7 Govind Yadav and P.W. 9 Saraswati Devi are the members of same family and there is admitted land dispute and enmity between them and the accused-appellants. (x) No independent witness has supported the prosecution case. Inquest Report was neither prepared nor produced before the Court. Injury report of the alleged injuries on the persons of P.W.1 and P.W.6 has not been brought on record and the Doctor who examined the injuries of the said persons had not been examined. The entire prosecution case is full of doubts and contradictions. 11. Mr. Kailash Prasad Deo, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants submitted that prosecution has not been able to establish as to which written report is true, and which is in existence. P.W. 6, the informant-Jagdish Prasad Yadav in paragraph-4 stated that he had submitted that written report of the occurrence in the police station,• which was written in the hand of Sub-Inspector B.D. Singh, and he had only signed the said report. The said witness, however, contradicted his statement in paragraph-14 of his deposition where he stated that written• report was written in the hospital, was submitted to the Sub-Inspector of Police in the hospital. The Sub-Inspector B.D. Singh, who is also the Investigating Officer in this case, has been examined as P.W. 10. He stated that the informant-Jagdish Prasad Yadav had given written report in the police station. He however, had not stated that report was written by him. Learned counsel further submitted that in absence of his support, the said written report has not been proved by the prosecution and the same cannot be said to be legally proved, and said report cannot be read in evidence. In the written .report (Ext.-3), there is no mention of the death of Narayan Yadav at the place of occurrence. However, the informant P.W. 6 Jagdish Prasad Yadav stated that Lakhan Yadav hit Narayan Yadav with iron rod on his head and he died on the spot. P.W. 9 Saraswati Devi, mother of the deceased, and wife of the informant, also supported the said version in her deposition. He further submitted that incriminating rod, which was to be seized by the police had not been produced before the Court. P.W. 2 Dr. P.W. 9 Saraswati Devi, mother of the deceased, and wife of the informant, also supported the said version in her deposition. He further submitted that incriminating rod, which was to be seized by the police had not been produced before the Court. P.W. 2 Dr. N.A. Sattar who conducted post mortem on the body of deceased, had found stitches of wound on the head, but there is no explanation, and there is no mention at all regarding stitches of wound in any evidence. P.W. 9, however, in paragraph-2 clearly stated that since the deceased Narayan Yadav died, he was not given any treatment after the injury. The stitches of wound is therefore is an unfold mystery. Learned counsel submitted that there is serious dispute regarding the place of occurrence as would be evident from the deposition of prosecution witnesses. P.W.6-Jagdish Prasad Yadav has stated that it was in front of the shop of Ram Sharan Yadav, whereas, P.W. 9 has said that it was at Khirod Shawano P.W. 1, P.W. 3 and P.W. 10 have made out different story. They have stated that place of occurrence was 'Glass Factory More'. There are serious contradictions regarding the place of occurrence, and the prosecution failed to establish the same. So far as, nature of injury and manner of assault are concerned, yet, there are different versions of the prosecution witnesses and in the written report, it has been mentioned that deceased Narayan Yadav was assaulted by all the accused persons. P.W. 1 Hiralal Yadav who is said to be an injured and eye witness to the occurrence, stated that the deceased Narayan Yadav was assaulted by all the accused persons with iron rod, spear, and (club) lathi. He had also sustained penetrating wound by spear, on his foot. However, the Doctor, P.W. 2 contradicted the same and stated that single injury was found on the head of the deceased and on his person. He had not found any severe injury on his person. P.W. 6, the informant in paragraph-1 has stated that Lakhan Yadav had given iron rod blow on the head of the deceased Narayan Yadav, there by, he has not supported his own version of his written report. Inquest has not been prepared, and it could not be proved as to where the dead body was found. P.W. 6, the informant in paragraph-1 has stated that Lakhan Yadav had given iron rod blow on the head of the deceased Narayan Yadav, there by, he has not supported his own version of his written report. Inquest has not been prepared, and it could not be proved as to where the dead body was found. P.W. 1 Hiralal Yadav is said to be an injured person has stated in paragraph-1 that he was assaulted by Lakhan Yadav, Bharat Yadav, and Pinku Yadav, as a result of which, he fell down. Lakhan Yadav thereafter assaulted him in his belly. He was sent to the hospital at Ranchi and was treated there but neither such injury report had has been brought on record, nor the Doctor who treated him had been examined. P.W.6, the informant on the other hand has stated in paragraph-2 that P.W. 1 was treated in the hospital at Ranchi. P.W. 9 Saraswati Devi, wife of the informant stated that all the injured persons were treated by Dr. B.N. Das at Madhupur. Learned counsel submitted that in view of the said vital contradictions, the prosecution failed to prove the genuineness of the (i) written report, (ii) manner and mode of occurrence, (iii) place of occurrence, (iv) nature of assault and (v) nature of injury sustained by the informant, deceased and others. The cumulative effect of the same is that the prosecution miserably failed to establish any charge against the accused- appellants. Almost all the material witnesses are highly interested and inimical. Their testimonies are not credible and reliable. The medical evidence contradicted the ocular testimony, but the learned trial court based his finding on the said evidence which is inadmissible, incredible and full of doubts and contradictions. Learned counsel submitted that this is a case of no evidence and learned trial court committed serious error of law as well as of fact holding the appellants guilty of the said charges. 12. Learned APP, on the other hand, submitted that homicidal death of Narayan Yadav is admitted. It is also admitted that there was enmity between the parties. There are evidences to prove that on the date of occurrence, the informant and his two sons were attacked, assaulted and brutally injured by the accused persons. P.W. 6, Jagdish Prasad Yadav father of the deceased, Narayan Yadav had lost his son. It is also admitted that there was enmity between the parties. There are evidences to prove that on the date of occurrence, the informant and his two sons were attacked, assaulted and brutally injured by the accused persons. P.W. 6, Jagdish Prasad Yadav father of the deceased, Narayan Yadav had lost his son. The Doctor P.W. 2 found severe injury on the head of the deceased. The said injury was inflicted by Lakhan Yadav which has been proved by the informant, father of the deceased as also by P.W. 1 and P.W. 9. Though there are contradictions here and there, but looking to the rural background of the witnesses, the same are not unnatural. Only on the ground of some contradictions, testimonies cannot be totally discarded. Injury on the body of the deceased is admitted and as such, non-production of Inquest Report by the prosecution, cannot be said to be prejudicial to the defence and fatal for the prosecution. Learned Trial Court on discussion and appraisal of evidences rightly come to the conclusion and held the appellants guilty and convicted them for the charges aforesaid. 13. Having heard learned counsel for the appellants, and learned APP, we scrutinized the materials or record. We find from the deposition of P.W. 5 Sukhlal Shah that he had first informed the police regarding the occurrence in the morning. The prosecution however is completely silent over the said information. The version of this informant has not been brought on record. The prosecution case is based on written report of P.W. 6 Jagdish Prasad Yadav which according to him was submitted in the police station. However, P.W.6 is also not consistent on his said version in paragraph-14 of his deposition, he has further submitted that he had given written report in the hospital. P.W. 10, Investigating Officer in his deposition in paragraph-1 statid that P.W. 6 had given written report in the police station Further, P.W. 6, the informant stated that he had given the statement which was recorded by Sub-Inspector B.D. Singh. The written report was thus in the hands of said B.D. Singh over which he has put his signature. But said B.D. Singh, P.W. 10 is also the Investigating Officer in his examination had not stated the same. 14. The written report was thus in the hands of said B.D. Singh over which he has put his signature. But said B.D. Singh, P.W. 10 is also the Investigating Officer in his examination had not stated the same. 14. In view of the said contradictory statement, we find substance in the statement of learned counsel for the appellants that two versions of the informant has been suppressed by the prosecution and the same has not been brought on record. We, therefore, find that the very foundation of the .case is full of doubts, regarding the manner of occurrence and nature of injury sustained by the different persons from different versions of the different witnesses. P.W. 1 stated that the deceased Narayan Yadav war assaulted by all the accused persons. He was also assaulted by iron rod, spear and lathi. In the written report also, it has been stated that Narayan Yadav was assaulted by all accused persons. But, P.W, 6 in paragraph-1 contradicts by saying that Narayan Yadav was hit only by Laxman Yadav with iron rod. P.W. 2 Dr. N.A. SattaI' who examined the injuries on the dead body of Narayan Yadav found simple injury on his head. The said part of prosecution is also full of contradictions and doubts about the place of death of the deceased Narayan Yadav. There is mystery in the fardbeyan. Nothing was mentioned regarding his death at the place of occurrence, but P.W. 6 does not support the said version in his deposition. P.W. 9 Saraswati Devi, mother of the deceased stated that Narayan Yadav succumbed to injuries and died at the place of occurrence. P.W. 1 stated that Narayan Yadav died on the way to hospital. P.W. 10, Vishnu Dayal Singh in paragraph-2 of his deposition stated that he had also, taken statement of Narayan Yadav and thereafter had proceeded to the place of occurrence. There is no Inquest Report to corroborate with the injury and position of the dead body. We further find that there is serious contradiction regarding the place of occurrence. In the written report, it is said tobe in front of the shop of Ram Sharan Yadav. P.W. 6 has supported that version in his deposition. However, P.W. 9 has stated that occurrence took place at Khirod Shawano P.W. 1, P.W. 3 and P.W. 10, Investigating Officer have stated that place of occurrence was Glass Factory More. . In the written report, it is said tobe in front of the shop of Ram Sharan Yadav. P.W. 6 has supported that version in his deposition. However, P.W. 9 has stated that occurrence took place at Khirod Shawano P.W. 1, P.W. 3 and P.W. 10, Investigating Officer have stated that place of occurrence was Glass Factory More. . 15. In view of the said conflicting versions of the P.W.s, place of occurrence could not be established. The Investigating Officer, who visited the place of occurrence, has not been given to topographical statement to the place of occurrence. In Ghurey Lal VS. State of Uttar Pradesh. 2008(10) Supreme Court Cases 450 the Supreme Court has held that the accused is presumed innocent until proven quilty. Presumption of innocence is in favour of the accused person. In the case where the nature of injury medical evidence and other circumstances are doubtful. benefit of doubt has to be given to the accused. 16. In view of the aforesaid discussion and conclusion arrived from the materials on record and as also in view of the established legal principle, we find that entire approach of the learned trial court is erroneous. We find no legal ground to uphold the impugned judgment as also the conviction of the appellants. 17. In the result, we allow these appeals. The appellants are acquitted of the charges. We, therefore, set aside the impugned judgment, as also conviction and sentence of the appellants passed in S.C.No. 73 of 1994 by learned Sessions Judge, Deoghar. We are informed that Lakhan Yadav the appellant in Cr. Appeal No. 1602/03 has been serving his sentence and is in custody since 2003. He is ordered to be set at liberty forthwith. Ram Sharan Yadav and Bharat Yadav the appellants in Cr. Appeal No. 1245 of 2003, who are on bail, are discharged from the liability of their bail bonds.