JUDGMENT : AKHILESH CHANDRA, J.:–Heard the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the parties. 2. The solitary appellant has preferred this appeal against his conviction for the offences punishable under Sections 307, 379 and 353 of the Indian Penal Code and sentence to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code and six months each under Sections 353 and 379 of the Indian Penal Code as awarded by 5th Additional Sessions Judge (F.T.C.), Patna in Sessions Trial No. 166 of 1989 arising out of Danapur G.R.P.S. Case No. 12 of 1987 (G.R. Case No. 968 of 1987) vide judgment of conviction dated 07th May, 2002 and order of sentence dated 09th May, 2002. 3. The prosecution side has come out with a case based on the Fardbeyan of P.W.3, namely, Raghubansh Prasad Singh, Incharge, Bihta Rail C.R.P., that while he was on duty, he heard about some sort of disturbances at the hands of appellant and his associates in the Chamber of A.S.M., Bihta. He alongwith his group arrived there and intervened into the matter, but A.S.M. was assaulted, specifically, the appellant gave him several dagger blows and took out his wrist watch and his associates also assaulted and one of them, namely, Manoj Kumar Singh (non-appellant) took out some cash from his pocket. Then the A.S.M. was initially provided treatment at local hospital and then brought to Danapur. 4. During trial, the prosecution has produced altogether five witnesses besides producing Fardbeyan (Exhibit-1). Out of total five prosecution witnesses examined, P.Ws.1 & 2, namely, Basu Paswan, and Nand Kumar Pandey, the two constables, as well as P.W. 4, namely, Gajadhar Yadav, parcel potter (Railway Bihta), since not supported the prosecution version, have been declared hostile. P.W.5, namely, Bashishth Narayan Singh, is not an eye-witness, but states what he could derive from others. The only witness left is P.W.3, namely, Raghubansh Prasad Singh, the informant himself, who too failed to narrate the case as stated in his own Fardbeyan. 5. There is neither any injury report nor the doctor has been examined in spite of assertion that the injured was provided treatment at two different places, in absence whereof, the offence under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code or even under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code cannot be sustained. 5. There is neither any injury report nor the doctor has been examined in spite of assertion that the injured was provided treatment at two different places, in absence whereof, the offence under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code or even under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code cannot be sustained. Likewise, taking into consideration the inconsistency in the statement of the solitary prosecution witness appearing as an eye-witness, who is non-else than the informant, in absence of any corroboration, the conviction of the appellant for remaining two offences, i.e., Sections 353 and 379 of the Indian Penal Code appears also not sustainable. 6. In the result, the judgment of conviction and order of sentence, as recorded by the trial court, is set-aside and the appeal is hereby allowed. The appellant is set free from the liabilities of the bail-bonds furnished on his behalf. ?