JEGEMENT This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 21.12.2002 passed by Shri B.K. Gautam, Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.-II, Palamau at Daltonganj in Sessions Trial No. 179 of 1998, by which judgment he found both the appellants guilty under Sections 324/ 34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced them to undergo R.1. for 3 years and accused-appellant no. 2, namely, Ashish Sao is separately sentenced to undergo R.1. for a period of 2 years under Section 354 and is further sentenced to undergo for S.1. for a term of 1 year for an offence under Section 509 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellants that there is no evidence that these two appellants took part in assaulting the informant, Raj Kumar Ram and the statement of the witnesses are contradictory to each other and as such the conviction and sentence of the appellants is bad in law and fit to be set aside. 3. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State has opposed the prayer, but admits that the evidence of the witnesses, are contradictory• with regard to manner of assault. 4. After hearing both the parties and going through the record, I find that the prosecution case was started on the basis of a written report on which L.T.I. was taken of informant, Raj Kumar Ram stating therein that on the same day i.e.12.5.96 at about 11 a.m. some altercation took place because of the fact that his cousin sister Ranju Kumari and her friend were being teased by accused-appellant no. 2, Ashish Sao whereupon they caught hold of Ashish Sao and raised an alarm. On hearing the informant and his younger brother came out of the house and caught hold of accused Ashish Sao, who had entered into the house of Sakhi Ram and information was sent to the father of the Ashish Sao, thereupon, his father, accused, Bodhan Sao and his son Dilip Sao came variously armed with Lathi and Gadasa and suddenly Ashish Sao took the Gadasa from the hand of Dilip Sao and assaulted the informant on his head, causing injury, by which he became unconscious and fell down. 5. 5. On the basis of the said written report the police registered a case under Sections 341/323/324/307/114/509 of the Indian Penal Code and after investigation submitted charge-sheet in the case. 6. Since, the case was exclusively triable by a Court of Sessions, the same was committed to the Court of Sessions and subsequently charges were framed by 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Palamau at Daltonganj, who tried the case and found the appellants' guilty as aforesaid. 7. In course of trial, the prosecution has examined as many as 8 witnesses. 8. P.W. 1, Para Devi, she has stated that on hearing 'Hullah', she came out of the house, she saw that the accused, Ashish Sao gave a Gadasa blow on the head of her husband-informant, Raj Kumar Ram. 9. P.W. 2, Niranjan Kumar, he has stated that on hearing Hullah he came out of the house he saw that the accused Bodhan Sao came along with his son Dilip Sao variously armed with Gadasa and Lathi. Then, the accused, Dilip Sao gave a Gadasa blow on the hand of informant-injured thereafter the accused, Ashish Sao snatched a Gadasa from Dilip Sao and gave a Gadasa blow on the head of the injured, Ram Kumar Ram. 10. P.W. 3, Raj Kumar Ram (informant), he stated that accused, Ashish Sao snatched Gadasa from the hand of Dilip Sao and gave a gadasa blow on him. 11. P.W. 4, Sebak Sao, who is one of the eye witnesses of this incident. He stated that the injured, Raj Kumar Ram was assaulted with lathi by Dilip Sao and except Dilip Sao nobody took part in the fight. 12. P.W. 5, Ranju Kumari, she stated that his cousin brother-informant, Raj Kumar Ram was assaulted by the accused, Ashish Sao. 13. P.W. 6, Dhano Devi, who has been deciared hostile. 14. P.W. 7, Dr. Awadh Kishore Upadhayay, who examined the injured-informant and found following injuries on the injured person: (i) Incised wound on right side of head 3" x 1/8" x skin deep with bleeding from wound. (ii) Abrasion on left cheek ½ “x1/8”. (iii) Abrasion on left forearm ½ “x ¼”. All the injuries were simple in nature. 15. P.W. 8, Ravi Kishore Tiwari, who has proved formal F.I.R in the writing of Officer in charge as Ext.-2 16. It is important to note that I.O. was not examined in the case. (ii) Abrasion on left cheek ½ “x1/8”. (iii) Abrasion on left forearm ½ “x ¼”. All the injuries were simple in nature. 15. P.W. 8, Ravi Kishore Tiwari, who has proved formal F.I.R in the writing of Officer in charge as Ext.-2 16. It is important to note that I.O. was not examined in the case. It appears from the evidence of the witnesses that they have given contradictory evidence in the F.I.R. While in the F.I.R. the informant stated that it was Ashish Sao, who snatched the Gadasa from the hand of Dilip Sao and gave him a blow on his head. Her wife, who is eye witness, she stated that Ashish Sao gave a Gadasa blow on the head of her husband. While P.W. 2, Niranjan Kumar, he stated that it was Dilip Sao who gave a lathi blow and not Gadasa blow and except Dilip Sao nobody had assaulted the injured. In that view of the matter, the entire manner of occurrence as given by the witnesses are contradictory to each other. Moreover, the wife of the informant stated at para 15 that after sustaining the injuries her husband remained unconscious for 3 hrs. after the occurrence. In that view of the matter, how this written report was taken under his L.T.I. on the same day when he was unconscious. 17. In the view of the matter, the entire prosecution case has become doubtful and the appellants are given benefit of doubt and acquitted from the charges leveled against them. 18. The judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 21 .12.2002 passed by Shri B.K. Gautam, Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.-II, Palamau at Daltonganj in Sessions Trial No. 179 of 1998, is hereby set aside. The appeal is allowed. 19. The appellants are on bail, they are discharged from the bondage of their bail bond.