JUDGMENT : 1. No one appears on behalf of the petitioner. However, Mr. Shekhar Sinha, learned A.P.P. for the State is present. 2. Since, this matter is pending for more than a decade, the same is being disposed of based on the materials available on record. 3. This application is directed against the judgment dated 22.12.2004 passed in Cr. Appeal No. 15 of 1987/382 of 2001 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge 4, FTC, Jamtara whereby and where under the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 20.12.1986 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st class, Jamtara in T. R. No. 1276 of 1986 by which the petitioner has been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 147 & 323 of I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo S.I. for 3 months has been affirmed. 4. The prosecution story in brief is that on 13.02.1984 while the informant was going to attend in a case under Section 107 of Cr.P.C., the petitioner no. 1 had accosted him and the petitioner no. 5 ordered to break his legs. It is alleged that all the accused persons assaulted the informant with lathi, fists and legs due to which he suffered some injury. It has also been submitted that the bicycle and other articles were taken away. On the basis of the aforesaid allegation, G. R. No. 45 of 1984 was instituted. Investigation resulted in submission of charge sheet and after cognizance was taken charge was framed and thereafter trial proceeded. 5. In course of trial, 5 witnesses were examined on behalf of prosecution. P.W. 1 – Bijendra Singh is a formal witness. P.W. 2 – Vinod Mondal stated that he along with others informed the police that the accused persons were assaulting the informant. This witness in cross-examination has stated that litigation is going on between the petitioner no. 1 and the informant for the last 5-6 years and a case under Section 107 was also instituted by the petitioner no. 1. P.W. 3 – Kailash Mondal had stated that he had seen the informant in an injured condition and the informant had disclosed about the persons who had assaulted him. P.W. 4 Fatik Mondal has stated that he has seen the occurrence and he along with P.W. 2 and 3 had informed the police. This witness has also seen the injuries on the person of the informant. P.W. 4 Fatik Mondal has stated that he has seen the occurrence and he along with P.W. 2 and 3 had informed the police. This witness has also seen the injuries on the person of the informant. P.W. 5 – Birbal Mondal is the informant who has supported the prosecution case and has also stated about the previous enmity existing between both the sides. 6. It appears that most of the prosecution witnesses are hearsay witnesses as it is said that informant had disclosed about the act of the petitioners of committing assault upon him. Most of the witnesses have stated about the injury sustained by the informant on account of the assault. However, neither any injury report has been brought on record nor the doctor who had treated the informant had been examined. Moreover, the Investigating Officer of the case has also not been examined and the place of occurrence could not be established as although it has been stated that the occurrence had taken place in front of the shop of Mahabir Mahli, but the said witness was also not examined by the prosecution. The conviction of the petitioners is based upon the testimony of the prosecution witnesses including the informant P.W. 5 and so-called eye witness Fatik Mondal (P.W. 4). It is an admitted fact that there is previous enmity existing between the parties and such fact situation cannot rule out the false implication of the petitioners in the criminal case. In absence of the injuries having been proved by the prosecution, the place of occurrence having not been established by the prosecution and the previous enmity existing between the parties leads to a conclusion that the prosecution has not been able to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubt. This aspects have not been considered either by the learned trial court or by the learned appellate court. 7. In such circumstances therefore, this application is allowed and the impugned judgment dated 20.12.1986 and 22.12.2004 are hereby set aside. The petitioners are discharged from the liabilities of their bail bonds.