JUDGMENT : J.P. Das, J. - The appeal is directed against the order dated 31.01.1992 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Bhadrak in Sessions Case no.16/79 of 1991 convicting the appellants under Sections 148 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC in short) read with Section 149 of the I.P.C. sentencing each of them to undergo R.I. for one year on each count with concurrent running of sentences. 2. The prosecution case is that on 06.07.1990 at about 10 a.m. the informant one Panchanan Panda heard that the accused persons being armed with different weapons had been to one hamlet of the village to assault one Bijay. The informant rushed to the spot and found the accused persons standing in front of his house being armed with different weapons and hurling abuses were calling the said Bijay to come out of the house. Since Bijay was not there, the informant went near the accused persons and tried to pacify them but the accused persons started assaulting him. Seeing the occurrence other persons nearby including the family members of the informant came running and they were also assaulted by the accused persons sustaining injuries. On the same day immediately after the occurrence, the F.I.R. was lodged at Dhusuri Police Station pursuant to which concerned P.S. Case No.46 of 1990 was registered under Sections 147/148/149/323/324/325/326/294 of the I.P.C. and investigation was taken up. In course of investigation, the injured persons were medically examined, the accused persons were arrested and were also medically examined since there was a counter case registered for the same occurrence wherein the present accused persons also sustained serious injuries. Some of the accused persons were arrested and forwarded to court. After completion of investigation, charge sheet was placed against the five appellants under Sections 147/148/149/323/324/294, I.P.C. 3. Since the counter case was committed to the Court of Sessions having offences triable by the said court, the present case was also committed to the Court of Sessions for analogous trial. 4. The learned trial court framed charges only under Sections 148/323/324/294, I.P.C. read with Section 149 of the I.P.C. against all the five accused persons. The accused persons pleaded not guilty to the charge with a further plea that they were assaulted by the informant group. 5. The prosecution examined 11 witnesses as against non-preferred on behalf of the defence. 4. The learned trial court framed charges only under Sections 148/323/324/294, I.P.C. read with Section 149 of the I.P.C. against all the five accused persons. The accused persons pleaded not guilty to the charge with a further plea that they were assaulted by the informant group. 5. The prosecution examined 11 witnesses as against non-preferred on behalf of the defence. Considering the materials placed before the court, the learned trial court reached the impugned findings of conviction and awarded consequential sentences. 6. It has been submitted in the appeal that the learned trial court casually put aside serious discrepancies and deficiencies in the prosecution case and also ignored the material contradictions and improbabilities in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses. In course of hearing, it was also submitted on behalf of the appellants that the learned trial court closed its eyes to the injuries including grievous injuries sustained by the accused group which have gone totally un-explained on behalf of the prosecution. It was further submitted that although there has been a mention regarding the counter case, nothing has been discussed while considering the probabilities of the prosecution case by the learned trial court. 7. As against this, the learned counsel for the State supported the impugned judgment and conviction. 8. In course of hearing, learned counsel appearing for the appellants painstakingly took me through the oral evidence led on behalf of the prosecution. It was further submitted that the observations made by the learned trial court in paragraph-11 of the impugned judgment are itself sufficient to set aside the prosecution case as unbelievable and concocted. 9. It has been observed by the learned trial judge that all the prosecution witnesses described the occurrence in a parrot like manner with a lot of exaggerations and have also tried to justify the injury sustained by the accused appellant Mahendra Panda telling that the blow fell on him dealt by another accused while it was aimed at one of the informant group. It has also been observed that such a situation was not stated by the witnesses before the Police in course of their examination during investigation. It has also further been mentioned that the statement of the witnesses regarding the injuries sustained by them did not tally with regard to the gravity of the injuries, since as per the medical reports the injured persons sustained some simple injuries. The learned Addl. It has also further been mentioned that the statement of the witnesses regarding the injuries sustained by them did not tally with regard to the gravity of the injuries, since as per the medical reports the injured persons sustained some simple injuries. The learned Addl. Sessions Judge has also observed that there was inefficiency on the part of the Investigating Officer showing his interestedness which was apparent from the materials placed before the court. After observing so many deficiencies and discrepancies in the prosecution case, the learned trial court concluded that those do not go to the root of the case of the prosecution and held that the accused persons were responsible for the injuries on the prosecuting parties. Therefore, the accused persons were found guilty under Sections 148 and 323 of the I.P.C. read with Section 149 of the I.P.C. only. 10. Suffice it to say that when admittedly there was a counter case and the accused persons also sustained injuries in course of the same occurrence it cannot be said that the accused persons voluntarily caused hurt to the prosecuting parties so as to be liable under Section 323 of the I.P.C. Although admittedly there was a counter case triable by Court of Sessions and this case was committed to the Court of Sessions for analogous trial, still nothing has been discussed regarding the counter case in the impugned judgment so as to hold that the present appellants were aggressors or exceeded the limit of exercising their right to self defence in course of the alleged occurrence. It was more so required since the allegations were more serious against the informant group in the counter case. 11. The details of the injuries sustained by the accused persons have been narrated in paragraph-10 of the impugned judgment. There was absolutely no explanation on behalf of the prosecution as to how the accused persons sustained injuries and on the other hand as mentioned in the judgment it was tried to be stated that one of the accused sustained injuries when one blow aimed at one of the prosecuting witness fell on him. There was absolutely no explanation on behalf of the prosecution as to how the accused persons sustained injuries and on the other hand as mentioned in the judgment it was tried to be stated that one of the accused sustained injuries when one blow aimed at one of the prosecuting witness fell on him. It needs no citation that un-explained injuries sustained by the accused persons create doubt in the prosecution case, especially when allegation of offence is only under Section 323 of the I.P.C. It has also been observed in the impugned judgment that the investigation was not proper and the prosecution witnesses tried to exaggerate the occurrence. 12. Considering all these facts and circumstances, I am unable to concur with the findings of the learned trial court that the prosecution was able to prove the charges beyond all reasonable doubts to hold that the accused persons were guilty of the offences punishable under Sections 148 and 323 of the I.P.C. read with Section 149 of the I.P.C. Accordingly, the impugned judgment passed in Sessions Case No.16/79 of 1991 is set aside and the accused appellants are set at liberty being discharged of their bail bonds furnished at the time of admission of the appeal. Accordingly, the criminal appeal stands disposed of. Final Result : Disposed Off