Order Heard the learned counsel for the appellants and learned counsel for the State. 2. The instant appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction dated 18.3.2002 and order of sentence dated 21.3.2002 passed by Sri Dilip Kumar Sinha, Sessions Judge, Lohardaga in S.T. Nos. 385 of 1998/32 of 1998 by which judgment appellant has been found guilty for the offence u/ss. 307 and 394 of the I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo R.1. for 8 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- u/ss. 307 of the I.P.C. and in default further imprisonment for one year. He was further sentenced to undergo R.1. for 7 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- and in default further imprisonment of one year u/s 394 of the I.P.C. All the sentences were directed to run concurrently. 3. It is submitted by leaned counsel for the appellant that identification of the accused by the prosecution witnesses is fully doubtful. The informant, who had no source of light stated that she identified the accused by his voice, while P.W.5 has stated that he identified the accused in the light of torch and torch light had fallen on the back of the accused. He has no occasion to see the accused by his face. He has also stated that even the time of occurrence has been given by the informant and P.W. 5 contrary to each other and as such the conviction of the appellant is bad in law and fit to be set aside. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State has opposed the prayer and submitted that victim, P.W.4 has identified the accused-appellant and as such the finding of the conviction and sentence requires no interference by this court. 5. After hearing both the parties and after going through the record, I find that the prosecution case was started on the basis of the fardbeyan given by Bibi Ashiran Khatoon, informant-P.W.4 on 25.11 .1997 at 13.30 hours to the officer-in-charge of Senha P.S. stating therein that yesterday i.e. 24.11.1997 she had gone to sell vegetables at Ghagra Bazar and after selling vegetables while she was returning by a truck she got down near Kandra Chouk and on foot she was coming to her house. When she reached near the 'Phutkal tree' then somebody flashed torch on her eye and asked her to give the money earned by her. When she reached near the 'Phutkal tree' then somebody flashed torch on her eye and asked her to give the money earned by her. She identified the person by voice to be Azad Ansari of her village who is constructing a house in the village and' she stated that she has got no money, whereupon the accused caused several Bhujali injury on her neck, back and hand. She started making hulla and villagers started coming and identified the accused. 6. On the basis of the said fardbeyan, police registered a case u/ss. 307, 326, 341,393 of the I.P.C. and after investigation submitted charge-sheet u/s 393 of the I.P.C. Since, the case was exclusively triable by the Court• of Sessions, learned C..LM. after taking cognizance of the case committed the case to the Court of Sessions and the Sessions Judge, himself convicted the appellant as aforesaid. 7. It appears that in course of trial the prosecution has examined altogether 6 witnesses. P.W. 1 is Md. Azam Ansari. P.W.2 is Bande Oraon. P.W.3 is Dr. Murli Manohar Sengupta, who examined the informant. P.W.4 is Bibi Asiran Khatoon, informant of the case. P.W.5 is Ajmat Ansari. P.W.6 is Haripad Narsundar, 1.0. of the case. 8. P.W.1, Md. Azam Ansari has stated that on the date of occurrence at about 7.30 in the evening he was in his house and hearing hulla of Sibi Asiran Khatoon, to save her life he went there running and found her lying in injured condition on the road. She had 7/8 injuries on her body. She told him that she was assaulted by Azad Ansari-accused. Thus, they brought her to Senha Police Station and from there she was taken to the Hospital. He identified the accused in the court. In cross-examination the has stated• that his house is nearest to the place of occurrence and he was the first to reach the place of occurrence. After he reached no occurrence took place. After him, witness Azmat Ansari, Nijamat Ansari etc. came. 9. P.W.2, Sande Oraon has only stated that he heard about the occurrence from the villagers and he has been declared hostile. 10. P.W. 3, Dr. Murli Manohar Sengupta has stated in the court that on 24.11.1997 he examined the injury of the informant and found the following injuries:(i) One incised wound on the left side of neck 6" x 1" X W'. 10. P.W. 3, Dr. Murli Manohar Sengupta has stated in the court that on 24.11.1997 he examined the injury of the informant and found the following injuries:(i) One incised wound on the left side of neck 6" x 1" X W'. (ii) One incised wound on the left side of the back 1" x W' x xY2". (iii) One incised wound on the left ear 1" x 14" x 14". (iv) One incised wound on the right side of the back 2" x 14" x 14". (v) One incised wound on the right cheek 1" x 14" x 14". (vi) One incised wound on the left palm 1" x 14" x 14". (vii) One incised wound on the left side of forehead 1" x 14" x 14". (viii) One incised wound on the left side of forehead W' x 14" x x14". (ix) One incised wound on the right little finger W' x 14" x 14". (x) One incised wound on the right little finger W' x 14" x 14". (xi) One incised wound on the right elbow 1" x 1,4" X 1,4". (xii) One incised wound on right forearm 1" x 112" X 112". In the opinion of the doctor all the injuries, except injury no. 12 are simple in nature. He has proved the injury report, marked as Ext.-1. In his cross-examination he has stated that he has not found any blood clot around the injuries. 11. P.W.4, Bibi Ashiran Khatoon, informant of the case has supported the prosecution case as given by her and stated that two years back when she was returning from Ghagra Bazar and came near Kandra Chouk and proceeded towards her house and when she reached near the 'Phutkal tree' then accused-Azad Ansari demanded money from her and when she refused by saying that she has got no money, several bhujali blows were given on her person including neck, back and hand. On hulla Azam Ansari, Nizamat Ansari etc. came and took her to Sadar Hospital where she was treated and when police came she gave her statement in the hospital and after the same was read over to her, she put her L.T.I. She narrated the case in the court. In cross-examination she has stated that she has got nothing to do with the Appellants. She was not even in visiting term with him. In cross-examination she has stated that she has got nothing to do with the Appellants. She was not even in visiting term with him. She has stated that the place of occurrence is about 100 yards from the house of Mahfooz Ansari. In para 8 she has stated that when she reached near the Phutkal tree then somebody flashed a light of torch on her face. The assault also took place. Then she made hulla. She also stated that when her nephew came he tried to chase the accused. 12. P.W.5, Azmat Ansari has tried to say that on hearing Hulla of Ashiran Bibi to save her life, he went there and saw Azad Ansari giving chura blow to the victim and causing many injuries on her face, neck and hand. After that 4/5 persons came running. Then they took Ashiran Bibi to Hospital where she was treated. He stated that accused Azad Ansari is a resident of different village and wants to make the house in his village. Presently, he is living in the sasural of his brother. He stated that he identified the accused by torchlight and the torchlight had fallen on the back of the accused while he was running away. In his cross-exam ination at Paras 12 and 13 he has stated that night of the occurrence was dark and he identified the accused in torchlight. In para 13 he has stated that when he reached the place of occurrence, Ashiran Bibi had fallen on the ground and he was the first to reach the place of occurrence. He stated that she was lying near the 'putush jhari' by the side of 'Phutkal tree'. 13. P.W. 6 is the Investigating Officer of the case, who has proved the fardbeyan and also the F.I.R marked as Exts.-2 and 3. He also gave the detail of the place of occurrence. In his cross-examination he has admitted that he received information firstly by Ashiran Bibi, but no station diary entry was made. After obtaining the injury report at supervision he submitted charge-sheet in this case. He has inspected the place of occurrence in the absence of the informant. 14. He also gave the detail of the place of occurrence. In his cross-examination he has admitted that he received information firstly by Ashiran Bibi, but no station diary entry was made. After obtaining the injury report at supervision he submitted charge-sheet in this case. He has inspected the place of occurrence in the absence of the informant. 14. Thus, from the evidences discussed above, it appears that although, the informant, P.W.4 stated in court that she has nothing to do with the accused, Azad Ansari, who was constructing a house in the village, but in the F.I.R. she stated that only by voice she identified the accused as Azad Ansari. P.W.5 firstly stated that he identified the accused while he was still assaulting the victim with chura in his hand causing injury on the neck, face and back of the informant, but subsequently, in cross-examination he admitted that he saw the accused in the light of torch, since it was dark and torch light had fallen on the back of the. accused. He contradicted his statement when he stated that when he reached the place of occurrence victim was already lying in the injured condition by the side of phutkal tree, i.e. the occurrence has already happened. P.W. 1 has also stated the same thing that when he reached the place of occurrence, the accused had already ran away and the victim was lying injured. P.W.1 claimed that he was the first to reach the place of occurrence and P.W. 5 also claimed the same thing. In between such contradiction it is difficult to accept the identification of the accused by the sole informant, who had no source of IIgl11 and light in the hand of the accused had fallen on her face and immediately he started assaulting her. 15. In that view of the matter, since, the identification of the accused by the informant and witnessses are doubtful and in my opinion, benefit of doubt must be given to the accused-appellant and accordingly, giving the appellant, Azad Ansari benefit of doubt, he is acquitted from the charge levelled against him. 16. In the result, the appeal is allowed and the judgment of conviction dated 18.3.2002 and order of sentence dated 21.3.2002 in S.T. Nos. 385 of 1998/32 of 1998 is set aside. Since, the appellant is on bail, he is released from the bondage of bail.