ORDER : This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction dated 25th September, 2003 and order of sentence dated 27th September, 2003 under Section 324/34 of the Indian Penal Code sentencing to rigorous imprisonment for two years as well as to pay the fine of Rs. 500/- each and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for two months. 2. The prosecution story, as per written report of Nanku Oraon that he alongwith his brothers Sahdeo Oraon, nephew Sani Ram Oraon, niece Parmil Kumari and grand daughter Pati Kumari were cutting away paddy crop then about 08:00 A.M. accused persons armed with Danda tried to prevent them from cutting the crop. The accused persons started assaulting with Balua and Lathi causing bleeding injury. When the alarm was raised, villagers came there and accused persons fled away. The injured were taken to the hospital. The reasons for the occurrence was the dispute between the parties relating to the land for which the case was also going on in the Civil Court. 3. The prosecution side has examined altogether six witnesses whereas the defence has not examined any witness but some documents were admitted which were marked without objection. The Court below found the accused persons guilty under section 324/34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced them two years rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs. 500/- each and in default they have to serve two months simple imprisonment. 4. Learned counsel for the appellants assailing the judgment submitted that the informant of this case was not examined due to his death but the doctor and the investigating officer were also not examined in this case. The medical report prepared by the doctor was brought on record through a formal witness Kuldeep Singh PW-6. He further submitted that the judgment suffers with various contradictions and actually it is a case of no evidence. The bare reading of written report shows that the informant party with a view to oust the accused persons from the land which were in their occupation led to the occurrence, so it is not a case of assault which were pre-planned, rather they exercised their right of private defence. Even if the injuries are looked into, all were simple in nature caused by hard and blunt substance. The witnesses have admitted that they were trying to clear the land which were not in their occupation. Even if the injuries are looked into, all were simple in nature caused by hard and blunt substance. The witnesses have admitted that they were trying to clear the land which were not in their occupation. There was case and counter case between the parties. The learned counsel also submitted that the trial court had committed illegality in recording the judgment of conviction and order of sentence against the appellants and hence, it is fit to be set aside. 5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State submitted that the injury reports were proved by P.W.6 and prosecution has able to prove the case and the court below has rightly convicted the appellants. 6. From the Lower Court Record, it appears that P.W.1 Sani Ram Oraon deposed in favour of prosecution and narrated the incident and cause of assault to get the possession of the land for which his father has lodged a criminal case upon accused persons. The evidence of this witness supports the defence plea that land in question was in their possession and they had sowed the crop. Likewise P.W.2-Sanichara Oraon and P.W.3–Mangal Oraon also admitted that the disputed land was in cultivating position of appellant Michra Oraon. In this case, the doctor and the investigating officer was not examined by the prosecution but the first information report, endorsement on fardbeyan and injury reports as well as case diary were brought on record by a formal witness Kuldeep Singh, who was examined as P.W.6. This witness is actually an Advocate Clerk and no documents were prepared before him nor has any occasion to work with those officials. 7. Considering the above submission of the parties and on perusal of the Lower Court Records, it further appears that prosecution has examined six witnesses but no witness was examined on behalf of the defence. It also appears that informant of this case Nanku Oraon was not examined in this case due to his death. The doctor and I.O. were also not examined. The injury report Exhibit 3 series were brought on record through P.W.6. This witness being Advocate Clerk proved the injury reports which were neither prepared before him nor this witness was cited in the charge sheet as one of the witness. The doctor and I.O. were also not examined. The injury report Exhibit 3 series were brought on record through P.W.6. This witness being Advocate Clerk proved the injury reports which were neither prepared before him nor this witness was cited in the charge sheet as one of the witness. In case of Tibra @ Tibroo Marandi Versus The State of Jharkhand reported in (2014) 3 East.Cr.C 379 [: 2014 (3) JLJR 388 ] as well as Tala Dada @ Ramjit Murmu Versus State of Jharkhand reported in (2015) 3 East.Cr.C 55 . This Court has deprecated this method of examination of Advocate Clerk as witness to prove fardbeyan or seizure list or the post mortem report etc. It is the lapse on the part of prosecution in proving those documents beyond the scope of Evidence Act. Here in this case the injury reports Exhibit 3 series was not brought on record as per the established principles of law. Although the witnesses have admitted the disputes going on between the parties regarding the lands in question and the assault caused due to it. Even if the injury reports are looked into, all the six injured persons had received simple injuries. Therefore, in such circumstances, the finding arrived at by the trial Court is held to be perverse. Accordingly, accused appellants are given the benefit of doubt in view of non-examination of doctor as the injury reports not proved as per provisions of law. Even the investigating officer was also not examined so it has bearing on the case. 8. In the result, the conviction and sentence passed against the appellants in Sessions Trial No.225 of 1996 is set aside. The appellants are discharged from the liabilities of their bail bonds.