ORDER Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the State. 2. The petitioners are aggrieved by the Judgment dated 21.2.2000 passed by Sri S. K. Mishra, learned Additional Sessions Judge, Seraikella, in Cr. Appeal No. 1 of 1998, whereby, the appeal filed against the Judgment of conviction and Order of sentence dated 28.1.1998 passed against the petitioners by Sri Ajit Kumar, learned Judicial Magistrate , 1st class, Seraikella, in G.R Case No. 320 of 1993 / T.R No.166 of 1998, convicting the petitioners for the offences under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323 of the I.P.C., and sentencing them for the same, was dismissed by the learned Appellate Court below with the modification in the sentence, giving them the benefit of the Probation of Offenders Act and directing the petitioners to enter into the probation bonds of Rs.5,000/-each with one surety of the like amount to maintain peace and be of good behaviour for a period of one year. 3. The petitioners have been made accused in Nimdih P.S. Case No. 23 of 1993 corresponding to G.R. No. 320 of 1993 on the allegation that the accused petitioners came variously armed in front of the house of the informant and assaulted the informant. It is alleged that the informant was injured by arrow shot by the accused persons, causing bleeding injury to the informant. With the said allegation, the police case was instituted and investigation was taken up. After investigation, the charge-sheet was submitted against the petitioners. 4. It appears from the Judgments passed by the learned Appellate Court below, that the I.O and the doctor have not been examined. The case has been supported only by four witnesses who are the informant and his family members. No other person of the locality has come forward to support the case of the prosecution, even though, admittedly, the occurrence had taken place outside the house, in which, the informant was injured by arrow. On the basis of the evidence of the informant and his family members, the petitioners were found guilty for the offence under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323 of the I.P.C., and they were convicted and sentenced for the same. The learned Appellate Court below, however, set aside the sentence and gave the benefit of Probation of Offenders Act to the petitioners. 5. The learned Appellate Court below, however, set aside the sentence and gave the benefit of Probation of Offenders Act to the petitioners. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the petitioners have been falsely implicated in this case. It has further been submitted that the impugned Judgments passed by the Courts below are absolutely illegal, inasmuch as, even though the occurrence had taken place outside the house, no person of the locality has come forward to support the prosecution case and only on the evidence of the informant and his family members, the petitioners have been convicted and sentenced by the Court below. It has also been submitted by the learned counsel that even though, it is the prosecution case that bleeding injury was caused to the informant which was treated by the doctor, but neither any injury report was proved nor the doctor was examined by the prosecution and even the I.O. was examined in this case, which has caused serious prejudice to the defence. Learned counsel for the petitioners has accordingly, submitted that the impugned Judgments cannot be sustained in the eyes of law. 6. Learned counsel for the State, on the other hand, has submitted that there is no illegality and / or irregularity in the impugned Judgments, worth interference in the revisional jurisdiction. 7. After having heard the learned counsels for both sides and upon going through the record, I find that there was previous enmity between the parties due to some murder caused in the family of the petitioners. The informant himself admitted in his cross-examination that the informant and the defence sides were in inimical terms. In that view of the matter, I am of the considered view that as no independent witnesses has come forward to support the case of the prosecution, as also in view of the fact that the I.O and the doctor have not been examined in this case, the petitioners ought to have been given the benefit of doubt, in view of the admitted enmity between the parties. 8. For the foregoing reasons, the impugned Judgment dated 28.1.1998 passed by Sri Ajit Kumar, learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st class, Seraikella, in G.R Case No. 320 of 1993 / T.R No. 166 of 1998, as also the Judgment dated 21.2.2000 passed by Sri S. K. Mishra, learned Additional Sessions Judge, Seraikella, in Cr. 8. For the foregoing reasons, the impugned Judgment dated 28.1.1998 passed by Sri Ajit Kumar, learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st class, Seraikella, in G.R Case No. 320 of 1993 / T.R No. 166 of 1998, as also the Judgment dated 21.2.2000 passed by Sri S. K. Mishra, learned Additional Sessions Judge, Seraikella, in Cr. Appeal No. 1 of 1998 are, hereby, set aside. The petitioners are given the benefit of doubt and they are acquitted of the charges. This application is, accordingly, allowed.