P.K. Musahary, J.;— The present-petitioner on being convicted and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 3 years and to pay fine of Rs. 1000/- I.D, for another R.I. for six months for the offence under Section 326 IPC and to undergo R.I. for six months for the offence under Section 324 IPC which were directed to run concurrently vide judgment and order dated 03.09.01 rendered by the learned SDJM (S), Sivasagar in GR Case No. 317/2000, and the appeal preferred by him against the said judgment of the learned trial Court, being dismissed by the Court of learned 1st Additional Session Judge (Ad-hoc), Sivasagar vide judgment dated 11.08.03 passed in Crl. Appeal No. 59 (4) 2001, filed the instant Revision Petition for setting aside and quashing the impugned judgments of conviction and sentence. 2. The short facts projected by the prosecution is that on 23.04.2000 at about 06 P.M. the convict/petitioner voluntarily, dealt dao blows on his father Shri Bhadreswar Gogoi who fell down on the ground in serious condition due to the injuries received on his head, forehead, shoulders and hands. The injured was immediately shifted to Jaysagar Hospital for treatment. The accused also inflicted injuries by the dao on another person Smt. Sashi Saikia who came forward to save the injured Bhadreshwar Gogoi. Acrime being RS. Case No. 21/2000 was registered under Section 306 IPC on the basis of a written FIR received on 24.04.2000 from the wife of the injured. The I.O. visited the place of occurrence, drew sketch map, recorded the statements of witnesses, visited the injured in hospital and collected the medical report. On surrender of the accused with the crime weapon dao at the police station on 01.05.2000, the I.O. arrested him and produced before the Magistrate. On completion of investigation, the I.O. submitted the charge sheet under Section 2417324/326 IPC. The learned trial Court having found sufficient materials, framed charge under Section 324/326 IPC against the accused. The charge being read over and explained, the accused/petitioner pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 3. During trial the prosecution examined as many as 8 witnesses to prove the charge while the accused examined none for his defence. The learned trial Court at the conclusion of the trial and after hearing the learned counsel for the parties, convicted and sentenced the accused which was upheld in appeal as stated earlier. 4. I have heard Mr. 3. During trial the prosecution examined as many as 8 witnesses to prove the charge while the accused examined none for his defence. The learned trial Court at the conclusion of the trial and after hearing the learned counsel for the parties, convicted and sentenced the accused which was upheld in appeal as stated earlier. 4. I have heard Mr. M. Bhuyan, learned counsel for the convict/petitioner and Mr. K. Munir, learned Addl.PP, Assam for the State-Respondent. 5. Drawing attention to the injury report and the evidence of the Medical Officer, P W 7, it is submitted by Mr. Bhuyan that out of 4 injuries, injury No. 1 and 4 are grievous in nature but the same are not covered by the definition provided under Section 320 IPC. Injury No. 1 and 4, according to him do not come under the description of grievous injuries mentioned in first to seventh descriptions. The eight description speaks about a hurt which endangers life or which causes sufferer to be during the space of 20 days in severe bodily pain, or unable to follow his ordinary pursuit. As per the medical evidence, as argued by the learned counsel, the injured was admitted in hospital on 23.04.2000 and remained under treatment for less than 20 days which is not within the meaning of severe bodily pain or unable to follow his ordinary pursuits. There was no fracture of bone of any part of the body causing permanent privation of any member or joint. He has cited a case of Avinash Shetty Vs. State of Kerala & Anr. reported case (2004) 13 SCC 375 , to make a point that conviction under Section 326 IPC is possible only when the injury/injuries are found grievous falling under Section 320 IPC relying on case of Mathai Vs. State of Kerala, reported in (2005) 3 SCC 260 , he argued that as per the evidence of I.O, PW 8, no blood was found at the place of occurrence although the injured person allegedly received several cut injuries caused by a sharp weapon like dao. 6. I have gone through the lower Courts' record and the evidence of the witnesses. PW 1 is the second wife of the injured Bhadreswar Gogoi, who lodged the FIR. She claims to be an eye witness to the alleged occurrence. In her evidence she maintained the statements made in the FIR. 6. I have gone through the lower Courts' record and the evidence of the witnesses. PW 1 is the second wife of the injured Bhadreswar Gogoi, who lodged the FIR. She claims to be an eye witness to the alleged occurrence. In her evidence she maintained the statements made in the FIR. Injured Bhadreswar was examined as PW 2. He stated, amongst other, that the accused is his own son from his first wife. Troubles started between the accused son and injured father after he married PW 1. The accused was given some land by PW 2 and he has been living in a seperate mess. PW 4, Smt. Sashi Saikia is the sister of PW 1 who lives in the same village. She also claimed to be an eye-witness to the alleged occurrence. As per her evidence she came to rescue PW 2 but she also received injuries due to assault of the accused. Incident of causing dao blows on the person of the Bhadreswar Gogoi appears to have been proved by the evidence of P W 1, 2 and 4. Evidence of all these 3 witnesses appears to be corroborating each other. No other discussion on the occurrence of alleged incident is necessary. 7. Dispute is in regard to injury No. 1 and 4. The Court is to determine whether injury No. 1 and 4 are grievous in nature within the definition of Section 320IPC. On the face of the evidence of the Medical Officer, PW 7, injury No. 1 and 4 are grievous in nature. The said injuries are quoted below:- "(1) Cut injury over his left face extending from middle of the left ramme mandible to left pinna, cutting the left maxillary bone exposing left maxillary simus 2 inches wide and 6 inches length. (4) Cut injury over left forearm 2" posterior to left wrist joint line cutting the distal end of left." In his evidence before the Court the Medical Officer stated that he prepared an injury report in respect of injured Bhudheswar Gogoi after medical examination. But the said medical report has not been proved by PW 7 (Medical Officer) or any witness. The said medical report ought to have been proved and exhibited by PW 7 but it was not done so. But the said medical report has not been proved by PW 7 (Medical Officer) or any witness. The said medical report ought to have been proved and exhibited by PW 7 but it was not done so. In my considered view, the prosecution could not be allowed to put reliance on such document not proved at the time of trial. This position had been fairly accepted by Mr. K. Munir, learned Addl. PP, Assam. 8. The prosecution witnesses No. 1,2,3 and 4 deposed that the injured was assaulted by the convict/petitioner. Amongst them P W 1,3 and 4 are related and interested witnesses inasmuch as they are second wife, son and sister-in-law of the injured. They have not stated that they closely saw the injuries of the injured person. They have not stated the nature of injury in their evidence. PW 5, Smt. Pratima Bora, is a co-villager who came with a bucket of water after hearing cry to the place of occurrence. She has also stated that she saw the injury and the nature of injuries sustained by the injured person. Nothing has been stated by the aforesaid prosecution witnesses as to how the injured was shifted to hospital. There is no mention in their evidence how the injured was removed to hospital and who were the persons who removed him to hospital. As per FIR, the alleged incident took place at 6.00 P.M. It was not dark by then and it was expected that some villagers should have come to the place of occurrence and helped in removing the injured to hospital. It was also expected that apart from the related witnesses (P W 1, 3 and 4) there should have been some neighbours who could witness the alleged incident and give evidence to that effect but the prosecution could not cite any independent neighbour or co-villager as witness. The so-called independent witness Smt. Pratima Bora (PW 5), in her cross-examination stated that she did not see the incident of assault by her own eyes. 9. The injury report having not been proved and exhibited the Court is not permitted to take into account the same as supporting material or documentary evidence. It appears that the medical officer, PW 7, deposed only on the basis of so-called injury report which is not proved and exhibited. 9. The injury report having not been proved and exhibited the Court is not permitted to take into account the same as supporting material or documentary evidence. It appears that the medical officer, PW 7, deposed only on the basis of so-called injury report which is not proved and exhibited. It may be noted that PW 7 appeared before the trial Court for evidence on 17.07.2001 i.e.after more than 1 year and it is difficult to accept that he could remember everything in details about the injuries received by the victim. The evidence of the medical officer is required to be supported by documentary evidence i.e injury report. In the present case, the injury report is nonexistent in the eye of law for not being proved and exhibited. The prosecution committed a serious lapse by not proving the injury report before the trial Court. 10. Moreover, there is no evidence to the effect that the injured remained in hospital for treatment. No release certificate from hospital has been produced and proved by the prosecution during trial. Has there been such certificate, it would have lent supporting value to the oral evidence of Medical Officer, PW 7. It is quite natural that if a person receives two grievous injuries on his person he would have been under treatment for a certain period of time. There is no evidence for treatment of the injured in a hospital or under any private physician. Under such circumstances, the prosecution cannot claim that it has been able to prove the charge of committing assault on the injured causing even simple injury; not to speak of causing grievous injuries. The charge of committing the alleged offence under Section 324/326IPC has not been proved by the prosecution beyond all reasonable doubt as required under the law. The conviction and sentence imposed under the accused/petitioner is, therefore, not sustainable under the law. Accordingly, the impugned judgement and orders convicting and sentencing the convict/petitioner are hereby set aside and quashed. The convict/petitioner is acquitted on benefit of doubt. Petition stands allowed. 11. It is stated at the Bar that the convict/ petitioner is on bail and both the convict/ petitioner and the injured, being son and father, are living peacefully maintaining good relation. The bail bond stands discharged. 12. Send down the LCRs forthwith. _____________