JUDGEMENT Anjana Prakash, J. 1. The Appellant has been convicted under Sections 324 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for three months and a fine of Rs. 5,000/- in default of which further imprisonment for one month by the 7th Additional Sessions Judge, Munger, by a judgment dated 15.4.1997 in Sessions Case No. 324 of 1986. 2. The case of the prosecution in brief is that while Bijay Kumar Sharma was carrying water to his field, accused persons arrived there variously armed and the Appellant Ram Padarath Singh is said to have given a lathi blow on the Informant and when he was asked as to why they are doing it, the Appellant assaulted Bipin on account of which he fell down. The accused persons also committed theft of certain articles. 3. The prosecution examined 14 witness to prove its case out of whom PW-1, PW-2, PW-3, PW-4, PW-5, PW-7, PW-8, PW-9 and PW-11 are eye witnesses out of whom PW-9 is the Informant. PW-6, PW-10, PW-12, PW-13 and PW-14 are formal witnesses. However, the Doctor has not been examined in the case nor has the Investigating Officer been examined on behalf of the prosecution. 4. The defence of the Appellant was that in fact, there was a counter version of this occurrence for which Sikandra P.S. Cae No. 173 of 1984 had been instituted by the Appellant who had sustained injuries along with the other persons on account of assault made by the prosecution party. Since it is an established law that multiplication of witnesses by a party will not necessarily mean that it has been able to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubts, this Court proceeds to scrutinize the evidence on a vital point as to whether they have explained the injury on the Appellant. I find from the evidence of all the witnesses examined on behalf of the prosecution that none of them have made any attempt to explain the injuries on the person of the accused. 5. I find from the evidence of all the witnesses examined on behalf of the prosecution that none of them have made any attempt to explain the injuries on the person of the accused. 5. Since there was a specific plea of the defence for which two defence witnesses were examined and documents with regard to the counter version were also exhibited, in my view in the absence of the Investigating Officer who alone could have independently placed the correct case before the Court, it would be unsafe to rely on the evidence of the witnesses led by the prosecution simply for the reason that there were many of them who supported its case. 6. In view of such, the Appeal is allowed. The order of conviction and sentence passed against the Appellant in Sessions Case No. 324 of 1986 by the 7th Additional Sessions Judge, Munger, is hereby set aside. 7. The Appellant is discharged from the liability of his bail bond.