ORAL JUDGMENT On repeated calls none turned up on behalf of the appellants on whose prayer yesterday the hearing of this appeal was adjourned for today. 2. Under the facts and circumstances perused the record. Heard learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State. There appears no need to appoint Amicus Curiae in view of decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in a case “K.S. Panduranga Vs. State of Karnataka” reported in “ 2013(2) PLJR 276 (SC)”. 3. Both the appellants have preferred this appeal against their conviction for the offence under Sections 324/34 and 341 of the Indian Penal Code, wherein, appellant no. 2 was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years with fine of Rs. 500/- and in default to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code and was also awarded one month sentence under Section 341 of the Indian Penal Code and appellant no. 1 was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six month with fine of Rs. 500/- and in default to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months under Section 324/34 of the Indian Penal Code and was also awarded one month sentence under Section 341 of the Indian Penal Code by 6th Additional Sessions Judge, Rohtas at Sasaram on 08th July, 1994 in Sessions Trial No. 560 of 1989 arising out of Nokha P.S. Case No. 100 of 1988, G.R. No. 1122 of 1988. All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. 4. Since in the appeal there is very limited question, it is needless to go in further details except stated below. 5. Both the appellants have been facing trial for the offence under Sections 307/34 and 341 of the Indian Penal Code for allegedly stabbing the brother of the informant, Gopal Tiwary (PW-7). 6. From the perusal of the record and finding recorded by the court below, it appears that there is no eye-witness to the occurrence and the witnesses examined, except PW-7 (the injured), have got information about the account of occurrence from the injured only. He was examined by the doctor at nearest Public Health Centre (PHC) and the injury report is on record, but in absence of any X-ray report no final opinion to the nature of injury was possible to be given, consequently, it was treated as simple in nature by the trial court itself. 7. He was examined by the doctor at nearest Public Health Centre (PHC) and the injury report is on record, but in absence of any X-ray report no final opinion to the nature of injury was possible to be given, consequently, it was treated as simple in nature by the trial court itself. 7. Under the above facts and circumstances, remained unexplained, due to non-examination of the Investigating Officer, that how and under what circumstances the statement of the injured (PW-7), who was even available initially at Nokha Public Health Centre where he got initial treatment or even at any point thereafter was not recorded, rather the injured, for the first time, appeared as an witness, PW-7 before the trial court itself. The circumstance unexplained creates doubt against the entire prosecution story, benefit of which, the appellants deserves. Consequently, the conviction of the appellants is not sustainable for its becoming doubtful, so their conviction and sentence deserves to be set-aside. Accordingly, the appeal is hereby allowed.