JUDGMENT Sheema Ali Khan, J. The appellants of these two appeals have been found guilty for offences under Section 307/34 of the Indian Penal Code by the 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Begusarai, and have been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years and to pay a fine of Rs.5000/-, or in the alternative, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months. 2. The prosecution case was instituted with the fardbeyan of Ramashish Singh on 25.6.93 for an occurrence that had taken place in the night of 24/25th June 1993 in an orchard situated in village Porjana. The informant learnt in the morning that his son Paramanand Singh and his nephew Shiv Shankar Singh who had gone to the orchard, which they had reportedly taken on lease, were badly assaulted and were found lying in the orchard. It is the case of the informant that his son, nephew and one Vijay Singh had taken the orchard on lease. The documents of the lease were with Vijay Singh and it was looked after by the aforesaid two injured persons. On learning of the injury when the informant went to the place of occurrence, he found that several villagers including the brother of Shiv Shankar and Ram Briksh Singh had gathered at the place of occurrence. They were taken to Nazarath Hospital (which is at Mokama) in a Tata Mini Truck. It has been specifically stated that both the injured persons were unconscious as they had received several injuries on their person and were unable to disclose the names of the persons who had injured them. It is stated that the aforesaid two persons would give description of the assailants after regaining consciousness. 3. In this case, unfortunately, the Investigating Officer has not been examined. His examination would be very important in this case as the names of the appellants have been disclosed for the first time on 19.07.1993 by Shiv Shankar Singh at the private hospital of Dr. Nalini Ranjan Singh of Begusarai. Shockingly, there is no report from the Patna Medical College and Hospital, Patna or Begusarai Hospital, although it is the specific case of the prosecution that the injured were referred to the Patna Medical College Hospital, where they remained for about 10-14 days. They were then taken to the private clinic of Dr. Nalini Ranjan Singh. Shockingly, there is no report from the Patna Medical College and Hospital, Patna or Begusarai Hospital, although it is the specific case of the prosecution that the injured were referred to the Patna Medical College Hospital, where they remained for about 10-14 days. They were then taken to the private clinic of Dr. Nalini Ranjan Singh. During this interim period, the Investigating Officer has not bothered to visit Nazarath Hospital or the Patna Medical College and Hospital, Patna to learn details regarding the occurrence. This missing link in the investigation and subsequently during the trial remained a mystery and has not been explained by the prosecution. This is one of the cases in which non-examination of the Investigating Officer has caused prejudice to the prosecution, specifically after the injury report of Shiv Shankar is taken into consideration. 4. The prosecution has examined five witnesses, out of which P.W. 5 is the formal witness. P.W. 4 is the doctor, whereas P.W. 1 and P.W. 2 are injured persons, and P.W. 3 is the informant. Two witnesses have also been examined as court witnesses to indicate that the orchard which was supposedly leased out to P.W. 1 and P.W. 2, actually belonged to Sanjat College and it was leased to C.W. 1 the court witness. 5. Shiv Shankar has been examined as P.W.1. According to his case, he alleged that appellants Ashok Singh and Sunil Singh had inflicted `chhura’ blows on his head, eyes and face. He also alleges that the others had thrashed him and assaulted him on several parts of his body. In cross-examination, the defence has tried to show that Shiv Shankar was closely associated with one Manoj Singh. Initially in his evidence he denies even knowing who Manoj Singh is, but later admits that Manoj Singh is the brother-in-law (sala) of his son. At paragraph-4 it has been stated that P.W.1 along with P.W.2 and one Vijay Singh had taken settlement of the ghat in the year 1992. The document for settlement had been prepared in the name of Vijay Singh. It is also stated in the cross-examination that the orchard was also taken by him by way of settlement. At paragraph-4 it has been stated that P.W.1 along with P.W.2 and one Vijay Singh had taken settlement of the ghat in the year 1992. The document for settlement had been prepared in the name of Vijay Singh. It is also stated in the cross-examination that the orchard was also taken by him by way of settlement. He denies the suggestion that he had taken the help of Manoj Singh to take the possession of the orchard, although no document was produced by the prosecution to substantiate that the ghat or the orchard was settled in his favour. P.W.1 also denies the suggestion that Bhadohi and his brother Ram Briksh were on inimical term as Bhadohi had filed a case under section 436 against Ram Briksh. He also denies the suggestion that Ram Briksh his brother was constructing a road under the Jawahar Yojana in front of the land of appellant Gopal Singh which had caused discord between them. According to P.W.1, he does not remember how long he remained at Nazarath Hospital at Mokama and he cannot say when he was sent to the Patna Medical College and Hospital, Patna. According to P.W.1, he remained at Patna Medical College and Hospital, Patna for about 8-10 days. After remaining for about 8-10 days at Begusarai the Investigating Officer had come to take his statement. 6. It would appear from the evidence of P.W.1 that he claims that he was in unconscious state and therefore he could not disclose the names of the persons who had assaulted him. He does not recall details regarding his stay at Mokama hospital or the Patna Medical College and Hospital, Patna nor has he produced any documentary evidence showing the prescription/treatment chart of the doctor who examined him at Patna Medical College and Hospital, Patna. It is also apparent that P.W.1 along with P.W.2 were operating the ghat for which they had taken settlement in the year 1992. His specific case is that no settlement was made in the year 1993. Regarding the identification this witness has stated that he could identify the accused persons by means of a torch, which was not shown or produced before the Investigating Officer. The accused persons are said to have taken away the torch. His specific case is that no settlement was made in the year 1993. Regarding the identification this witness has stated that he could identify the accused persons by means of a torch, which was not shown or produced before the Investigating Officer. The accused persons are said to have taken away the torch. On being questioned regarding this plea taken by this witness, he has admitted that he has not disclosed this fact to the Investigating Officer when he was examined by him. 7. PW 2 Parmanand Singh had appeared for his examination. The comment of the Court regarding this witness is that he was partially invalid. His right hand was not working properly. His speech was also not clear and he spoke with great difficulty in Court. This witness has supported the prosecution version regarding the assault and has also alleged that all the appellants had assaulted him. He has frankly stated that he cannot give details as to which of them had assaulted him on which part of his body. Since, he was in a very bad condition, it appears that he has not been able to state or give details regarding the period of time spent in each of the hospitals i.e. Nazrath Hospital and Patna Medical College and Hospital, Patna He denies that he has involved the appellants because of any former enmity. 8. PW 3 Ramashish Singh is the informant of this case. He is admittedly not an eye-witness to this occurrence and thus, is not able to disclose the names of the appellants, as according to him, his son and nephew were both unconscious after the occurrence, as such, they were not able to give him details regarding the assailants. In the cross-examination, he has stated that he had visited them at the hospital on two occasions. Surprisingly, he has stated that he does not know whether his son and nephew were treated at Patna. According to his version, the injured were brought to the clinic of Dr. Nalini Ranjan Singh at Begusarai after about 15-16 days of the occurrence. He denies the suggestion that the appellants have been involved in the case because of enmity regarding the settlement of the ghat and the orchard. 9. According to his version, the injured were brought to the clinic of Dr. Nalini Ranjan Singh at Begusarai after about 15-16 days of the occurrence. He denies the suggestion that the appellants have been involved in the case because of enmity regarding the settlement of the ghat and the orchard. 9. The oral evidence discussed above on behalf of the prosecution indicates that an occurrence took place at mid-night in the orchard of village Porjana in which PWs 1 and 2 were badly injured. It is also apparent that the injured initially were not in a position to disclose the names of the assailants. It is only after about 24 days when the Investigating Officer visited them in the private clinic of Dr. Nalini Ranjan Singh when Shiv Shankar Singh disclosed the names of the appellants as the assailants and described the manner in which they were assaulted. 10. The oral evidence has to be tested with the medical evidence of Dr. Nalini Ranjan Singh, PW 4. Counsel for the appellants emphasized the evidence of the doctor on the ground that the doctor was a private one and he has submitted the medical report after examining the injured on 19.08.1993, the requisition was made by the Investigating Officer on 14.07.1993, the injured were examined on 07.07.1993 and the following injuries were found on their persons, which is quoted hereinbelow:- “Parmanand Singh received the following injures:- 1. Stitched wound 6” x 1/2” over the scalp just left to mid-line. At the back of the wound, a penetrated wound of 1” diameter and 1/2 of depth which passed through the skull bone. On X-ray, the skull bone was found fractured at multiple size. 2. Incised would (stitched) 4” long over left cheek just below the out angel of left eye. 3. Incised would about 1” in size (stitched) over the pinna of left ear. 4. Incised (stitched) would about 1’2” in size over left eye-brow. 5. Diffused bruises with swelling over left dorsome of hand with fracture of the 4th metarcarpal bone. 6. Crushed and mutilated dorsome of right hand. 7. Complete loss of sense 8. Paralysis of right side of body, i.e. right upper and lower limb 9. Pain with loosening lower second incisor tooth right side with its lateral side broken. Shiv Shankar Singh received the following injuries:- 1. Deferred lower jaw on X-ray App. 6. Crushed and mutilated dorsome of right hand. 7. Complete loss of sense 8. Paralysis of right side of body, i.e. right upper and lower limb 9. Pain with loosening lower second incisor tooth right side with its lateral side broken. Shiv Shankar Singh received the following injuries:- 1. Deferred lower jaw on X-ray App. Lower jaw multiple fractures of the mandible were detected. 2. Incised would 2” x 1/2” over the left cheek 1” below lower eye lid. 3. Incised would about 1” x 1/2” over left side of forehead 1” above left eye brow. 4. Incised would 1” x 1/2” over the right cheek longitudinally down from angle of mouth. 5. Incised wounds multiple in number of varying size over scalp from 1/2” to 3” sizes. All above wounds were stitched. 6. Multiple bruises deep livid (old) of varying size over head. 7. Incised would of inner side of lower lips. 8. Multiple bruises over upper back. 9. Bruises about 1/2” x whole chest and front of the transversely placed.” 11. In the cross-examination, the doctor has stated that he did not receive any reports either from the Patna Medical College and Hospital, Patna or the Nazrath Hospital, Mokama. According to him, the injured had produced some papers, but he did not remember what were the contents of those papers. According to the doctor, the injuries sustained by Shiv Shankar Singh were simple in nature. He has given an opinion that injury no. 1 was grievous considering that Shiv Shankar had fractured his mandables. The X-ray report on the basis of which the doctor has concluded that Shiv Shankar had fractured his mandables has not been produced by him in Court. 12. The argument on behalf of the appellants is that even if it is presumed that the injury report is correct, the doctor has not stated that Shiv Shankar Singh was not in a position to make a statement because of the injuries he had received. The other injuries of Shiv Shankar Singh were incised wounds, but the depth of the said wounds were not mentioned in the injury report, which would lead this Court to conclude that they were dangerous to life or grievous in nature which would indicate whether they were bone deep or just superfluous. 13. The other injuries of Shiv Shankar Singh were incised wounds, but the depth of the said wounds were not mentioned in the injury report, which would lead this Court to conclude that they were dangerous to life or grievous in nature which would indicate whether they were bone deep or just superfluous. 13. The Trial Court has examined two witnesses for the purpose of testing the prosecution case as to whether PWs 1 and 2 had any right over the orchard by virtue of being the settlees. CW 1 Sitaram Yadav has deposed that the orchard belongs to the college and that he had taken the settlement from the college. He had also produced the paper signed by the Principal of the College to indicate that the settlement was granted in his favour. The handwriting on the said document has been proved by CW 2 Sudhir Kumar, who is the student of the college and is familiar with the handwriting of the Principal of the College. 14. On the basis of the evidence of the Court witnesses, Counsel for the appellants submits that the case of the prosecution that they had taken the settlement of the orchard from a source which has not been mentioned by them in their deposition falls to the ground. It is submitted that the appellants by virtue of being associated with Manoj Kumar, who was a known criminal of the area, as also a relation of the son of PW 1, they were in illegal possession of the orchard and after the death of Manoj Kumar, they have been ousted from the possession of the ghat and the orchard by some other interested person. It is submitted that due to enmity, the names of these appellants have been dragged in this case. As discussed above, the oral evidence as well as the medical evidence would indicate that an occurrence had taken place in the manner described by PWs 1 and 2, however the involvement of these appellants cannot be accepted by this Court as a doubt has been raised by virtue of the fact that the evidence regarding their involvement has surfaced after about 20-25 days of the occurrence. The conduct of the Investigating Officer in not noting the injuries or taking steps to visit the injured persons when they were admittedly at Patna Medical College and Hospital, Patna for a period of about 10 days is also a circumstance which favours the appellants. There is also lack of evidence to indicate that PW 1 was not in a position to make a statement regarding the assailants. Last, but not the least, the conduct of the informant who is the father of PW 2, also raises doubt with regard to the veracity of the statements made by PW 1 with respect to the involvement of these appellants. 15. For the reasons discussed above, this Court, therefore, finds that it would not be safe to convict the appellants on the basis of the evidence led in this case. Accordingly, the appellants are acquitted of the charges levelled against them giving them the benefit of doubt. They are also discharged from the liabilities of the bail bonds furnished by them earlier in this case. 16. In the result, this appeal is allowed. Appeal allowed.