JUDGMENT : The present appeal under the proviso to Section 372 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (For short “Cr. P.C.”) has been filed by the appellant against the order dated 03.09.2012 passed by the learned Additional District & Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge, Sitamarhi in SC & ST Case No. 140/2008 arising out of Bajpatti P.S. Case No. 71 of 2006 registered under Sections 341, 323, 324 of the Indian Penal Code and 3(1)(x) of the SC and ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. 2. Bajpatti P.S. Case No. 71 of 2006 was registered on the basis of fardbeyan of the appellant recorded by A.S.I. of Police, namely, S. P. Singh of the present case. In the FIR, he has stated that on 10.11.2006 at about 7:00 p.m. while he was at his house one Rajkali Devi (respondent no. 2) came at his house and told him that her husband Ram Babu Mahto (respondent no. 3) was calling him. He told her that he would come and meet him on the next day, but she insisted that the meeting was urgent. Believing upon her words, he accompanied her and when they reached near embankment of the Adhwara river, respondent nos. 3, 4 and 5, namely, Ram Babu Mahto, Budhan Mahto and Ganesh Mahto and one Jai Shankar Mahto being variously armed with lathi, danda and dagger surrounded him. They enquired from him as to why he was not coming for cultivating their land. He replied that since they failed to pay proper wages, he had decided not to work for them. Upon this, the accused persons started abusing him by taking his caste name as “chamarwa”. They also assaulted him indiscriminately. When he protested they disrobed him of his “kurta” and “dhoti” and stripped him naked. It is further stated that respondent no. 3 Ram Babu Mahto assaulted him with dagger as a result of which he caused serious bleeding injury. He immediately went to the house of co villager Laxmi Mahto and after borrowing clothe from him, he covered himself and went to the Sadar Hospital, Sitamarhi, where his fardbeyan was recorded by an Assistant Sub-Inspector of town police station namely, S. P. Singh. He immediately went to the house of co villager Laxmi Mahto and after borrowing clothe from him, he covered himself and went to the Sadar Hospital, Sitamarhi, where his fardbeyan was recorded by an Assistant Sub-Inspector of town police station namely, S. P. Singh. The fardbeyan recorded by S.P. Singh at 10:10 p.m. on 10.11.2006 was forwarded to the Officer-incharge of Bajpatti Police Station on the same day by the officer of Sitamarhi Town Police Station and, thereafter, Bajpatti P.S. Case No. 71 of 2006 was registered on 13.11.2006 at 8:15 a.m. 3. After registration of the first information report, the police investigated the case and on completion of investigation submitted charge-sheet against the opposite parties no. 2 to 5 and one Jai Shankar Mahto under Sections 341, 323, 324 of the Indian Penal Code and 3(1)(x) of the SC & S.T. (P.O.A.) Act, pursuant to which cognizance was taken by a court of Magistrate and subsequently, after complying with the mandatory requirements of Section 207 of the Cr. P.C., the case was committed to the Court of Sessions for trial. The trial court framed charges under Sections 341, 323, 324 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3(1)(x) of the SC & ST (P.O.A.) Act against opposite parties no. 2 to 5 to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 4. Let it be noted here that since one of the accused namely, Jai Shankar Mahto was a juvenile in conflict with law, his case was sent to the Juvenile Court. 5. During trial, altogether 4 witnesses were examined on behalf of the prosecution. They are P.W. 1 Laxmi Mahto, P.W. 2 Ramu Mukhiya, P.W. 3 Shivji Mahto and P.W. 4 Ram Nandan Ram (informant). 6. P.W. 4 Ram Nandan Ram (appellant) has corroborated the prosecution case as alleged in the FIR in his examination-in-chief. In cross-examination, he has stated that he was treated at Sitamarhi Sadar Hospital. According to him, accused Ganesh Mahto (respondent no. 5) owns and possesses one and a half bigha land. He has four sons and his son Ram Babu Mahto (respondent no. 3) does not live together with his other brothers. He has stated that three of his sons earn their livelihood by doing some private job at Kolkata. According to him, accused Ganesh Mahto (respondent no. 5) owns and possesses one and a half bigha land. He has four sons and his son Ram Babu Mahto (respondent no. 3) does not live together with his other brothers. He has stated that three of his sons earn their livelihood by doing some private job at Kolkata. He states that the accused persons struck him with lathi 6-7 times causing injury upon his waist, thigh and back on the relevant date of occurrence. He has further stated that due to the injury caused by dagger, his clothe was torn and stained with blood. He further stated that he had given the blood stained clothe to the investigating officer of the case. In cross-examination, he admits that daughter-in-law of the Ganesh Mahto, namely, Rajkali Devi (respondent no. 2) had instituted a case of rape against one Pragas Mahto and one Shivji Mahto. However, he has denied the suggestion that he has been set up by Pragas Mahto for instituting a false case. 7. P.W. 1 Laxmi Mahto is the person to whose house the informant had rushed after the occurrence had taken place. He has not corroborated the prosecution case as alleged by the informant of the case. He has given description of place of occurrence in his examination-in-chief which is different from the place of occurrence described by the informant of the case. He has stated that when he went to the place of occurrence, he found that the “dhoti” and “kurta” worn by the informant were carrying blood marks because of the wound sustained by the informant. He admitted that no other injury apart from the injury caused by dagger was noticed by him on the person of Ram Nandan Ram. He has also denied the defence suggestion that the informant was set her by Pragas Mahto who is facing prosecution in a case of rape instituted by accused Rajkali Devi. 8. P.W. 2 Ramu Mukhiya has also deposed like P.W. 1 Laxmi Mahto. The place of occurrence described by him matched the place of occurrence described by P.W. 1. 9. Another witness who has been examined in this case (P.W. 3 Shivji Mahto) is non else, but son of P.W. 1 Laxmi Mahto. 8. P.W. 2 Ramu Mukhiya has also deposed like P.W. 1 Laxmi Mahto. The place of occurrence described by him matched the place of occurrence described by P.W. 1. 9. Another witness who has been examined in this case (P.W. 3 Shivji Mahto) is non else, but son of P.W. 1 Laxmi Mahto. He has categorically stated in his deposition that on the date of occurrence when the informant came to his house, there was no injury on his person. He has stated that the accused Ganesh Mahto is a very old person and the accused Ram Babu Mahto and Budhan Mahto earn their livelihood by doing some private job in Kolkata. He further stated that the accused Rajkali Devi is a very poor lady and she does not possess much land. 10. Apart from oral evidences, the prosecution has also proved the written report and the formal FIR which have been marked as Ext.1 and Ext. 2. 11. After scrutinizing and appreciating the evidence led on behalf of the prosecution, the trial court has come to a finding that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and acquitted the accused persons vide impugned judgment dated 3rd September, 2012. 12. Assailing the judgment of acquittal, learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the trial court has not appreciated the evidence on record in proper perspective. The witnesses examined during course of trial have fully corroborated the prosecution case, but the trial court has recorded the judgment of acquittal merely on the ground of minor contradictions in the evidence led on behalf of the prosecution. He has submitted that non-examination of the investigating officer and the doctor of the case cannot be said to be fatal to the prosecution case as the injured himself had deposed before the court and supported the allegation. 13. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the materials available on record. 14. I find that while recording the judgment of acquittal, the court below had elaborately discussed the evidence led by the witnesses examined during trial. After analyzing their deposition, the trial court has recorded its finding that witnesses examined on behalf of the prosecution are neither consistent nor reliable. 15. On scrutiny of evidence, I find that the allegation of assault has not been proved by producing any medical report. After analyzing their deposition, the trial court has recorded its finding that witnesses examined on behalf of the prosecution are neither consistent nor reliable. 15. On scrutiny of evidence, I find that the allegation of assault has not been proved by producing any medical report. The informant has stated that he was treated at Sadar Hospital, Sitamarhi, but no chit of paper has been filed to corroborate the same. The doctor who is said to have treated him has not been examined during trial. I further find that neither the police officer who recorded the fardbeyan nor the Officer-in-charge of town police station who forwarded the farbdeyan to the Bajpatti Police Station nor the investigating officer of the case has been examined on behalf of the prosecution during trial. Further, P.W. 3 Shivji Mahto has given death blow to the case of the prosecution. He has categorically stated that when the informant came to his residence, he had not seen any injury on his person. The prosecutor did not request the Court to declare him as hostile. Thus, the prosecution would be bound by the evidence adduced by P.W. 3 Shivji Mahto. Though the informant has alleged that the accused persons disrobed him of his “dhoti” and “kurta” and stripped him naked whereafter he rushed to the house of Laxmi Mahto and covered himself by borrowing clothe from him, neither P.W. 1 Laxmi Mahto nor his son P.W. 3 Shivji Mahto has corroborated these facts. I further find that though there is allegation that the “dhoti” and “kurta” worn by the informant were drenched with blood neither the blood-stained clothe nor the blood-stained earth was produced by the prosecution as material exhibit during trial. To top it all the witnesses have contradicted each other on the point of place of occurrence. 16. Regard being had to the evidence led before the court, I am of the opinion that the trial court has rightly acquitted the accused persons. 17. Accordingly, the appeal, being devoid of any merit, is dismissed.