JUDGMENT : 1. Heard Mr. Shree Nivas Roy, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Mr. Shekhar Sinha, learned A.P.P. 2. This application is directed against the judgment dated 18.11.2002 passed by the learned IInd Additional Sessions Judge, Giridih in Criminal Appeal No. 30 of 1991 whereby and where under the judgment and order of conviction passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Giridih in Bagodar P.S. Case No. 112 of 1984 convicting the petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code has been affirmed and the sentence has been modified and reduced from rigorous imprisonment for three months to simple imprisonment for one month. 3. It is the case of the prosecution that while a Panchayati was going on 20.08.1984 there was hot exchange of words between Deglal Gope and Narayan Gope which resulted in assault and thereafter on the order of Deglal Gope the petitioner no. 1 gave Lathi blow to the informant on his leg whereas Deglal Gope gave one Lathi below on the head. It is alleged that the daughter-in-law of the informant had come to rescue him but she was also assaulted by the petitioner no. 1. Further allegation has been levelled that one Mohini Devi and Tukani Devi were also assaulted by the petitioner no. 4. 4. Based on the aforesaid allegations Bagodar P. S. Case No. 112 of 1984 was instituted for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 325/34 of the Indian Penal Code. Investigation resulted in submission of charge-sheet and after cognizance was taken, charge was framed and trial proceeded. In course of trial four witnesses were examined on behalf of the prosecution. 5. P.W. -1, Bhudeo Choudhary, is a formal witness. P.W.-2, Radhia Devi, is the daughter-in-law of the informant who had stated about the petitioner no. 1 assaulting with Lathi on the left hand. This witness had also stated that she had seen the accused persons assaulting Bala Gope by Lathi. She had further stated that the leg of the father-in-law was fractured. This witness had further deposed that her mother-in-law was assaulted by the petitioner no. 4 and the petitioner no. 1 and 2 had assaulted her sister-in-law. P.W–3, is Mohani Devi, who had stated about the involvement of the accused persons in committing assault upon her husband as well as the other persons. This witness had further deposed that her mother-in-law was assaulted by the petitioner no. 4 and the petitioner no. 1 and 2 had assaulted her sister-in-law. P.W–3, is Mohani Devi, who had stated about the involvement of the accused persons in committing assault upon her husband as well as the other persons. This witness also claims to have suffered some injuries and she was treated at Bagodar. P.W.-4, Lukhani Devi, is also one of the injured persons who had deposed that all the accused persons had assaulted her father-in-law and thereafter this witness was also assaulted by Girdhari and Kishun. She has further stated that she was treated in the hospital and the assault had taken place at the time when the Panchayati was held. 6. It has been stated by Mr. Shree Nivas Roy, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, that neither the informant was examined nor the doctor and the Investigating Officer were examined. Learned counsel submits that the injury report was also not brought on record. It has further been stated that the entire prosecution case is based on the evidence of P.W.s 2, 3 and 4 who all are interested witnesses. Learned A.P.P. has opposed the prayer made by the petitioners. 7. It appears that P.W.s 2, 3 and 4 have stated about the assault committed by the petitioners upon the informant and these witnesses. However, the injury report has not been brought on record by the prosecution which leads this Court to disbelieve their testimony with respect to the assault committed by the petitioners. It has been alleged that the informant had suffered fracture injury but in absence of the injury report or the evidence of the doctors who are alleged to have treated the informant and P.W.s-2, 3 and 4, the prosecution, therefore, had been unable to prove the fracture injury sustained by the informant. The place of occurrence also could not be established on account of non-examination of the Investigating Officer. P.W.s 2, 3 and 4 are all related to each other and are interested witnesses. Although the incident is said to have been taken place at the time of holding of Panchayati but no independent witness had turned up to depose on behalf of the prosecution. Such circumstance, therefore, entitles the petitioners from being acquitted in the criminal case. 8. P.W.s 2, 3 and 4 are all related to each other and are interested witnesses. Although the incident is said to have been taken place at the time of holding of Panchayati but no independent witness had turned up to depose on behalf of the prosecution. Such circumstance, therefore, entitles the petitioners from being acquitted in the criminal case. 8. Accordingly, in view of what has been stated above, this application is allowed and the judgment dated 18.11.2002 passed by the learned IInd Additional Sessions Judge, Giridih in Criminal Appeal No. 30 of 1991 and order of conviction passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Giridih in Bagodar P.S. Case No. 112 of 1984 convicting the petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code are, hereby, set aside. The petitioners are discharged from the liability of their bail bond.