JUDGMENT : Heard Mr. Sanjay Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. A.S. Dayal, learned counsel appearing for the opposite parties No. 2 to 4. 2. This application is directed against the judgment/ order dated 20.05.2000 passed in S.T. No. 105 of 1998 by learned Additional Sessions Judge-II, Bokaro, whereby and whereunder, the opposite parties No. 2 to 4 have been acquitted from the charges u/s 307/34, 341, 323 and 324 of the Indian Penal Code (I.P.C.). 3. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that several witnesses including PW 2 have clearly stated about the assault committed by opposite parties No. 2 to 4 upon the informant. It has also been submitted that the petitioner had suffered injuries and injury report has also been duly proved. Merely because of some discrepancies in the statement of Investigating Officer, the same by itself could not lead to acquittal. 4. Mr. A.S. Dayal, learned counsel appearing for the opposite parties No. 2 to 4 has stated that even from the statement of PW 2 to 4 it appears that several persons were present from the locality, but the informant could not seek help from the persons present. He further submits that there were two reports, but the prosecution had not brought another report on the record. It has been further submitted that although the Investigating Officer (PW 5) claimed to have recorded the Fardbeyan of the petitioner, but the petitioner was not able to speak, which makes the Fardbeyan doubtful. There was a previous enmity existing between the father of the informant and the father of the opposite party No. 2 with respect to use of a drain which had led the petitioner to falsely implicate the opposite parties No. 2 to 4. He further adds that as a matter of fact the instant incident had taken place some where else, as the petitioner is in the habit of eve- teasing the girls of the locality. 5. It appears that an F.I.R. was instituted being B.S. City P.S. Case No. 427/1997 wherein it was alleged that the informant along with his friend Goutam Kumar and others had gone to City Park to picnic. After celebrating picnic all the friends left except one Goutam Kumar. 5. It appears that an F.I.R. was instituted being B.S. City P.S. Case No. 427/1997 wherein it was alleged that the informant along with his friend Goutam Kumar and others had gone to City Park to picnic. After celebrating picnic all the friends left except one Goutam Kumar. It has further been stated that at about 5.30 in the evening all the accused persons surrounded them and took them to lonely place and the accused Alok Thakur had caught him and accused Santosh Kumar Thakur gave a dagger blow on is neck causing bleeding injury. On the basis of the aforesaid, the F.I.R. was instituted. Consequent to the institution of the F.I.R., investigation culminated in submission of charge-sheet against the accused persons and after cognizance was taken, the case was committed to the court of sessions. The case was tried by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-II, Bokaro, wherein charges u/s 307/34, 341, 323 and 324 of the Indian Penal Code have been framed and after conclusion of trial, the opposite parties No. 2 to 4 were acquitted of the charges levelled against them, since the prosecution failed to establish its case beyond all reasonable doubt. 6. It appears that the prosecution had examined as many as five witnesses in support of its case including two Doctors, PW 3 and 4 as well as PW 5 (I.O.) PW 1, namely, Dipak Kumar Chaudhary is the informant injured of this case, who stated about celebrating picnic and subsequent arrival of the accused persons who had taken to them to lonely place and the accused Alok Thakur had caught him and accused Santosh Kumar Thakur gave a dagger blow on is neck causing bleeding injury. PW 2 Goutam Kumar is the person present with the informant when the alleged incident had taken place. Although this witnesses had taken the name of the opposite party No. 2 and had stated that he had given a dagger blow on the neck of the informant, but there appears to be several discrepancies in his statement. PW 3 and 4 are the Doctors in Bokaro General Hospital who had treated the informant. Although this witnesses had taken the name of the opposite party No. 2 and had stated that he had given a dagger blow on the neck of the informant, but there appears to be several discrepancies in his statement. PW 3 and 4 are the Doctors in Bokaro General Hospital who had treated the informant. Although the Investigating officer who has been examined as PW 5 has stated that the Fardbeyan was recorded in his presence at 6.30 p.m., but the said contention is contrary to what has been stated by PW 5, the Doctor who had categorically stated that the petitioner was not in a position to speak. it further appears that the incident is alleged to have taken place at 5.30 p.m. in the City Park, but the police remained on duty till 6.00 p.m. as per PW 5 (I.O.). It is improbable to conclude to believe that although the police was present in City Park, the informant had gone to the S.P. Office of the S.P. residence for recording Fardbeyan. The evidence of PW 1, the informant further reveals that the father of the opposite party No. 2 as well as the father of the petitioner were on inimical term with respect to use of a drain for which a proceeding u/s 107 Cr.P.C. was also initiated. PW 5, the I.O. has also stated about the recording the statement of opposite party No. 3 in jail on 28.02.1998, but the opposite party No. 3 was already released on bail on 23.02.21998 which belies the statement of the I.O. The learned Trial Court on appreciation of the entire evidences and materials as well as the entire factual scenario, came to a finding that probability of the defence version that the informant sustained injury some where else at some other place and due to previous admitted enmity the petitioner had falsely implicated the opposite party No. 2 to 4. Since the initiation of the criminal prosecution and the involvement of the opposite party No. 2 to 4 in inflicting injuries upon the petitioner appears to be on the basis of concocted facts, the learned trial court had rightly given the benefit of doubt to the opposite party No. 2 to 4 while acquitting them of the charges u/s 307/34, 341, 323 and 324 of the Indian Penal Code. 7. 7. There being no reason to conclude otherwise, no interference in the impugned judgment/ order dated 20.05.2000 passed in S.T. No. 105 of 1998 by learned Additional Sessions Judge-II, Bokaro, whereby and whereunder, the opposite parties No. 2 to 4 have been acquitted from the charges u/s 307/34, 341, 323 and 324 of the Indian Penal Code is necessitated and accordingly having found no merit in this application, the same is hereby dismissed.