ORDER 1. Both these appeals have been preferred against the judgment and order of acquittal dated 21.2.2012 passed by learned Additional District & Sessions Judge II, Godda, in Sessions Case No. 107 of 1997 (T.R. No. 133 of 2011), whereby and whereunder the learned Additional Sessions Judge has acquitted sole appellant Kapildeo Yadav from the charges punishable under Sections 307/324, IPC and discharged him from liabilities of the bail bond. 2. Prosecution case, in short, as appearing from the fardbeyan of Arun Kumar Yadav (appellant in Cr. Appeal No. 585 of 2012) is that on 11.9.1996 at about 7.30 p.m. while the informant had been to the house of Nagina Yadav in order to provide tuition to the children of Nagina Yadav, accused Kapildeo Yadav who happens to be younger brother of Nagina Yadav, inflicted farsa blow on the head of the informant causing him bleeding injuries. The informant was removed to Primary Health Centre (PHC) Mehrama, where his fardbeyan was recorded on 12.9.1996 at about 9.00 hours. 3. On the basis of the said fardbeyan of the informant Mehrama P.S. Case No. 103 of 1996 dated 12.9.1996 under Sections 307/324, IPC against the accused Kapildeo Yadav was registered. The accused remained absconding, but the police after investigation submitted charge-sheet under Sections 324/307 of the Indian Penal Code and, accordingly, cognizance was taken. After the case was committed to the Court of Sessions, it was registered as Sessions Case No. 4 of 2001. Charges were framed against the accused/respondent on 20.5.2002 and he was put on trial under Sections 307/324 of the Indian Penal Code. 4. Prosecution has examined altogether six witnesses to substantiate the charges. Fulo Devi (PW 1), Jitendra Yadav (PW 2); Girisih Yadav (PW 3) are eye-witnesses and they have supported the prosecution case as made out by the informant. They have deposed that on the date of incident while the informant Arun Yadav had been to their house to give tuition, accused Kapildeo Yadav suddenly appeared and caused injuries to the informant by means of farsa on his head. Sachidanand Yadav (PW 4), Rajendra Yadav (PW 5) and Srikant Yadav (PW 6) are the witnesses who had reached to the place of occurrence on hearing hulla. They had seen the injured and learnt about the incident from the informant and other witnesses. 5. Sachidanand Yadav (PW 4), Rajendra Yadav (PW 5) and Srikant Yadav (PW 6) are the witnesses who had reached to the place of occurrence on hearing hulla. They had seen the injured and learnt about the incident from the informant and other witnesses. 5. Learned trial Court after considering the materials available on record has recorded order of acquittal on the ground that the informant/injured Arun Kumar Yadav was not examined, nor the fardbeyan has been improved. Neither the investigating officer, nor the doctor was examined. In absence of these important witnesses, evidences of six prosecution witnesses are of no use. 6. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant has submitted that the accused was irregular in attendance before the trial Court and that was the reason the informant could not be examined as and when he appeared before the APP for his evidence in Court. No attendance on his behalf was filed nor he was produced before the Court below for his examination in Court. He was told that the accused is absconding. Hence his evidence cannot be recorded. Likewise, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State in Acquittal Appeal No. 6 of 2013 has submitted that now the investigating officer who conducted investigation and the doctor who examined the injured have been located and they may be examined under Section 391, Cr. PC. The prosecution witnesses (PWs 1 to 3) who had witnessed the occurrence have fully supported the prosecution case. There are cogent materials available on record for conviction of the respondent, but the learned Additional Sessions Judge has committed gross error by acquitting the accused/respondent. 7. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the accused/respondent has vehemently opposed the argument and submitted that present appeal is required to be decided on the basis of the materials available on record. He has pointed out that the informant did not appear even after issuance of warrant of arrest (non-bailable) issued against him. DO letters had also been issued to the authorities concerned for examination of the doctor as well as the investigating officer, but those two witnesses did not appear. Fardbeyan on the basis of which case has been instituted has not been proved. In absence of examination of the informant and that too, when FIR has not been proved, evidence of other witnesses is of no use. Fardbeyan on the basis of which case has been instituted has not been proved. In absence of examination of the informant and that too, when FIR has not been proved, evidence of other witnesses is of no use. When the aggrieved/injured has come before the Court to support his case, question of corroborating evidence does not arise. 8. We have, gone through the impugned judgment and the evidence available on record. It is not in dispute that the informant conducting investigating officer and the doctor who had examined the informant/injured have not come forward to give their evidence. Since informant has not been examined, contention made in the fardbeyan has not been proved. The scribe of fardbeyan has also not been examined. In absence of examination of the informant/injured, corroborating evidence of PWs 1 to 3 are of no use. Medical report has not been proved, nor the doctor has been examined to show that the informant Arun Kumar Yadav had sustained injuries on his person. Non-examination of the investigating officer is also fatal to the prosecution case. 9. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant has raised a point that the informant/inured, the doctor and the investigating officer were not informed in time and therefore they did not appear for their examination in Court. Had they been given opportunity, they could have deposed. We find from the impugned judgment that all efforts had been made by the trial Court to get these witnesses examined, but they did not appear even after issuance of warrant of arrest (non-bailable). Learned Additional Sessions Judge has given detail of events and the steps taken to secure attendance of these witnesses. It is made clear that Section 391 Cr. PC is not to be used to fill up lacuna of the prosecution case. It is evident that the informant/injured never remained present on any date on which the case was pending for his evidence. Thus, the appeal could be decided on the basis of the materials available on record, which indicate that even after best efforts by the trial Court, the informant/injured the doctor and the investigating oft1cer did not appear and they have not been examined. Learned Additional Sessions Judge has rightly recorded the order of acquittal in absence of these witnesses. So far as stage of Section 391 Cr. Learned Additional Sessions Judge has rightly recorded the order of acquittal in absence of these witnesses. So far as stage of Section 391 Cr. PC is concerned, it is to be invoked during pendency of appeal and we have considered these appeals preferred against order of acquittal at the stage of admission. Section 391 Cr. PC gives power to the appellate Court, to take additional evidence, if necessary and for that, reasons may be recorded. We are of the considered opinion that in these cases, where the informant, investigating officer and the doctor did not appear even after all coercive steps taken by the Court, their examination, if permitted to be recorded, under Section 391 Cr. PC would be nothing, but to fill up lacuna of the prosecution case and therefore we do not find any merit in these appeals and the finding given by the learned Additional Sessions Judge does not warrant any interference by this Court. 10. For the reasons aforesaid both these appeals are dismissed. Appeals dismissed.