JUDGMENT Iqbal Ahmed Ansari, J. 1. This is an appeal directed against the judgement and order, dated 30.06.2005, passed, in Sessions Case No. 49(K)/2005, by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Ad hoc), Kamrup, Guwahati, convicting the accused-appellant, Mukul Ali, under Section 324 IPC and sentencing him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of 2 (two) years. The prosecution's case may, in brief, be described thus: On 29.01.2998, at about 7-00 P.M., when PW2, nephew of the informant (PW3), was standing in front of a pharmacy, called Bania Pharmacy, for the purpose of extending invitation to the owner of the said pharmacy on the occasion of Eid, accused, Mukul Ali, gave blows by means of dao, on the right hand of PW2 from behind and, as a result thereof, PW2 was severely injured. The injured was, immediately, taken by the informant and some others to a nearby nursing home, namely, Eastern Nursing Home and, on the advice of the doctor of the said nursing home, the injured (PW2) was shifted to Down Town Hospital, Guwahati, where he (PW2) remained under treatment for about five days. On the information being lodged by PW3, with regard to the occurrence of assault on PW2, Chandmari Police Station Case No. 22/98, under Section 341, 326 and 307 IPC, was registered against the accused, Mukul Ali. 2. During investigation, police visited the place of occurrence, examined the witnesses and submitted a charge-sheet, under Section 326/307 IPC, against the accused. 3. When charges, under Section 326 and 307 IPC, were framed, at the trial, against the accused, he pleaded not guilty thereto. 4. In support of their case, prosecution examined altogether 6 (six) witnesses. The accused was, then, examined under Section 313 CrPC and, in his examination aforementioned, the accused denied that he had committed the offences, which he was alleged to have committed, the case of the defence being that of denial. No evidence was adduced by the defence. 5. On conclusion of the trial, the learned trial Court came to the conclusion that the offence, under Sections 326 and 307 IPC, had not been proved beyond all reasonable doubt and, accordingly, acquitted the accused of the said two charges. Having, however, found the accused guilty of the offence, under Section 324 IPC, the learned trial Court convicted him accordingly and passed sentence against him as mentioned above. Having, however, found the accused guilty of the offence, under Section 324 IPC, the learned trial Court convicted him accordingly and passed sentence against him as mentioned above. Aggrieved by his conviction and the sentence, which has been passed against him, the accused has preferred this appeal. 6. I have heard Mr. A. Choudhury, learned counsel for the accused-appellant, and Mr. K.A. Majumdar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Assam, appearing for the State. 7. Before dealing with the evidence of the informant (PW3) and the injured (PW2), let me, first, deal with the evidence of the doctor (PW4), whose evidence is that PW2 was admitted in Down Town Hospital, on 29.01.1998, and was found to have suffered severe cut injury, measuring 13 cm X 7 cm, on the right fore-arm and dorsal aspect of the arm with the wrist dropped. 8. Considering the fact that the medical evidence on record has not been seriously challenged by the defence, it logically follows that PW2 had, indeed, suffered the cut injury, as described above, the injury having been caused by a sharp-cutting weapon. 9. The question, therefore, which arose for determination, at the trial, was as to whether it was the accused-appellant, who had caused the injury, which PW2 had suffered? 10. While considering the question, posed above, it needs to be noted that as far as PW1, owner of the said pharmacy, is concerned, his evidence is that the occurrence took place between 6-00 P.M. and 7-00 P.M., in front of his pharmacy, at Railway Colony, when he was present inside the pharmacy and, at that point of time, two doctors were attending to patients at his pharmacy and his pharmacy being full of patients, he did not see the person, who had injured PW2, but his attention was attracted by hearing hulla and, when he enquired from the people present there, he came to know that PW2 had been assaulted and injury had been caused on the right hand of PW2. It is also the evidence of PW1 that, at that point of time, the injured (PW2) was crying for help and the injury, which PW2 had suffered, was bandaged by the compounder of the said pharmacy and, then, several persons took the injured to a nursing home. PW1 has clarified, in his evidence, that he knew PW2, because PW2 used to visit his pharmacy for purchase of medicine. 11. PW1 has clarified, in his evidence, that he knew PW2, because PW2 used to visit his pharmacy for purchase of medicine. 11. From a bare reading of the evidence of PW1, what becomes clear is that PW2 sustained injury in front of the pharmacy of PW1, but who had caused the injury on PW2 was neither seen by PW1 nor was PW1 reported by anyone as to who had assaulted and caused injury to PW2. The evidence of PW1, thus, does not help the prosecution in proving that the accused-appellant was the one, who had caused the injury, which PW2 suffered. 12. Keeping in view what is indicated above, when one turns to the evidence of PW3, one can notice that so far as PW3 is concerned, he, too, had not seen the present appellant giving blow, by means of dao, on PW2 inasmuch as PW3 has deposed that, on the day of the occurrence, at about 7-00 P.M., he, accompanied by PW2, had gone to one pharmacy and, when they were present in front of the said pharmacy, a boy came and gave a blow, by means of dao, on PW2, but he (PW3) did not see as to who had given the blow, though he (PW3) concedes, even in his examination-in-chief, that he was standing, at that point of time, behind PW2, when PW2 was given the blow. 13. From the description of the occurrence, which PW3 has given, it is clear that if PW3 was, admittedly, standing behind PW2, yet had not seen as to who had assaulted PW2 from behind, it would be frightfully difficult, if not impossible, to confidently believe the assertion of PW2 that it was the accused-appellant, who had given him the blow, by means of dao, unless the evidence of PW2 reflects that he had seen the assailant. 14. With the above position of the evidence on record in view, when I come to the evidence of the injured (PW2), I notice that, according to him, on the day of the occurrence, at about 7-00 P.M., he had gone to Bania Pharmacy and, while he was standing in front of the said pharmacy, a boy came from behind and gave him a blow by means of dao and, then, people from Bania Pharmacy and others took him to Down Town hospital. Though PW2 has asserted, in his evidence, that it was the accused, Mukul Ali, who had given him blow by means of dao, neither the prosecution has elicited from PW2, nor has PW2 himself clarified, as to how he came to know that it was the accused, Mukul Ali, who had given the blow by means of dao. Even in the light of the evidence of PW2, the blow was given by a person from behind. 15. Situated thus, one has no escape from the conclusion that the evidence, adduced by the prosecution, was not adequate to hold, confidently and boldly, that the accused-appellant was the one, who had injured PW2 by giving him blow by means of a dao. In the light of such nature of evidence on record, the learned trial Court could not have convicted the accused-appellant and ought to have given him, at least, benefit of doubt. 16. In the result and for the foregoing reasons, this appeal succeeds. The conviction of the accused-appellant and the sentence, passed against him, by the impugned judgment and order, are hereby set aside. The accused-appellant is held not guilty of the offence under Section 324 IPC and is acquitted of the same under the benefit of doubt. 17. Bail bond of the accused-appellant stands cancelled and his sureties stand discharged. 18. With the above observations and directions, this criminal appeal stands disposed of. Send back the LCR.