JUDGMENT : The instant Criminal Appeal has been preferred against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence, both dated 16.12.2003, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, F.T.C., IInd, Bokaro in Sessions Trial No. 224/02, Suppl. Sessions Trial No. 49/03., whereby the appellant has been convicted by the learned Trial Court for offence punishable under Sections 323 and 324 of the Indian Penal Code and awarded rigorous imprisonment for three months and six months respectively and both the sentences are directed to run concurrently. 2. The instant criminal appeal has been preferred on 16.01.2004 and the provisional bail granted to the appellant has been confirmed on 09.04.2004, by this Hon’ble Court, since then the Cr. Appeal is pending before this Court. 3. The prosecution case is based upon the fardbeyan of Ravi Ranjan Kumar (P.W. 6), recorded by S.I. R.A. Singh of Bokaro Steel City Police Station on 16.12.2000 at 11.45 a.m., at Bokaro General Hospital, where the informant has alleged that, while informant along with his friend Sagar Suman were going to their school, at around 9.45 a.m. on a bicycle and reached near Sector- II/A, Kali Mandir, suddenly 7-8 boys came in front of them, forming unlawful assembly and with common intention of assault. They caught hold of both the persons, out of which, the informant could identify Mantosh Kumar Jha, Pakistani @ Ali Imam and Ranjay Kumar @ Rana. Informant has further alleged, that Mantosh Kumar Jha took out bhujali from his waist and on the order of Ranjay Kumar @ Rana, Mantosh Kumar, indiscriminately assaulted the informant by bhujali and other accused persons assaulted by fists and slaps. It is alleged that Mantosh Kumar Jha assaulted Ravi Ranjan Kumar on his head causing head injury. It is further alleged that Sagar Suman was also assaulted by bhujali but he saved himself by putting his right hand and thus, sustained injury on palm, of the right hand. It is further alleged that Pakistani @ Ali Imam has snatched silver chain from the neck of the informant. The informant has alleged, that on brawl, co-students Abhishek Daniel and the brother of the informant Sanjay Kumar came there, thereafter the accused persons fled away. The cause of occurrence is that on 15.12.2000, while the informant was going on his bicycle, some altercation took place between Mantosh and the informant on overtaking speed of the bicycle. 4. The informant has alleged, that on brawl, co-students Abhishek Daniel and the brother of the informant Sanjay Kumar came there, thereafter the accused persons fled away. The cause of occurrence is that on 15.12.2000, while the informant was going on his bicycle, some altercation took place between Mantosh and the informant on overtaking speed of the bicycle. 4. On the basis of the fardbeyan, police has registered Bokaro Steel City P.S. Case No. 339 of 2000, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 341, 324, 323, 307, 379 of the Indian Penal Code. The police after investigation has submitted chargesheet vide no. 72 of 2001 dated 12.04.2001 under Sections 147, 148, 149, 341, 323, 307, 379 of the Indian Penal Code, against all three named accused persons. That cognizance of the offence has been taken on 09.05.2001 and the case was committed to the court of sessions on 01.08.2002. The charge has been framed against all three accused persons including the appellant, Mantosh Kumar under Sections 323/149, 307/ 149, 379, 147, 148, 149 of the Indian Penal Code, to which the accused persons including the appellant have pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 5. The prosecution to prove its case has examined altogether eight witnesses and also exhibited and proved a number of documents. Sagar Suman, one of the victim of the case, has been examined as P.W. 1, Sanjay Kumar (elder brother of the informant-victim) has been examined as P.W. 2, Abhishek Daniel has been examined as P.W. 3, Mukesh Singh has been examined as P.W. 4, Basant Thakur has been examined as P.W. 5, Ravi Ranjan Kumar (informant and one of the victim) has been examined as P.W. 6, Ram Awadh Singh (Investigating Officer of the case) has been examined as P.W. 7, Dr. Shrawan Kumar has been examined as P.W. 8. 6. The signature of Sagar Suman (P.W.1) and Ravi Ranjan Kumar (P.W. 6) on the fardbeyan has been marked as Exhibit 1 and 1/1, fardbeyan has been marked as Exhibit 1/2 and the injury report of Ravi Ranjan Kumar has been marked as Exhibit-2. 7. After closure of the prosecution evidence, the statement of the appellant and other accused persons have been recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C., on 17.11.2003. 7. After closure of the prosecution evidence, the statement of the appellant and other accused persons have been recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C., on 17.11.2003. The learned Trial Court, after hearing the parties passed the impugned judgment of conviction against Mantosh Kumar Jha @ Mantosh Jha under Sections 323 and 324 of the Indian Penal Code but acquitted Pakistani @ Ali Imam and Ranjay Kumar @ Rana under Sections 307/149, 379, 147, 148, 149, 341/149 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code. Being aggrieved, the appellant has preferred the present criminal appeal before this Hon’ble Court. 8. Learned counsel for the appellant, Mr. Sanjay Kumar has submitted that the conviction of the appellant, Mantosh Kumar Jha @ Mantosh Jha cannot sustain both under the fact and under the law, both under Sections 324 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code. Learned counsel for the appellant has drawn the attention of this court towards the evidence of P.W. 1, Sagar Suman and P.W. 6, Ravi Ranjan Kumar. Both the victims have stated that, it was Mantosh (which has been wrongly mentioned by the learned Trial Court as ‘Santosh’), who has assaulted Ravi Ranjan Kumar by bhujali causing bleeding injury, on his head and also caused injury, on the right hand of Sagar Suman and other accused persons have assaulted them by fists and slaps. Sagar Suman (P.W.1) has proved his signature and the signature of Ravi Ranjan Kumar, on the fardbeyan as Exhibit- 1 and 1/1/. 9. During cross-examination, this witness (P.W.1) has stated in paragraph 19, that Ravi Ranjan was assaulted by Mantosh Kumar Jha, by means of chaku which was 10 inch in length and further in paragraph 20, during cross-examination, this witness (P.W. 1) has stated that he (P.W. 6) was assaulted once, causing bleeding injury. 10. Learned counsel for the appellant, Mr. Sanjay Kumar has submitted, that from perusal of the First Information Report, the prosecution case is that, Mantosh Kumar Jha has assaulted Ravi Ranjan Kumar, on his head by bhujali. Bhujali and knife are two different instruments. The bhujali can cause a sharp cut wound, whereas knife can cause a stabbing or penetrating wound. Learned counsel for the appellant has drawn the attention of this court towards the evidence of P.W. 8. Dr. Shrawan Kumar, who has found three injuries on the person of Ravi Ranjan Kumar. Bhujali and knife are two different instruments. The bhujali can cause a sharp cut wound, whereas knife can cause a stabbing or penetrating wound. Learned counsel for the appellant has drawn the attention of this court towards the evidence of P.W. 8. Dr. Shrawan Kumar, who has found three injuries on the person of Ravi Ranjan Kumar. The injuries are:- (i) Lacerated wound on scalp 1 ½” x 1/4”. (ii) Abrasion on right big toe. (iii) Abrasion right side of clavicle. Learned counsel for the appellant has further submitted, that none of the injuries can be caused either by the Bhujali or by the knife, as alleged by the informant (P.W. 6) in his fardbeyan or Sagar Suman (P.W. 1) in his cross-examination, during trial. Learned counsel for the appellant has drawn the attention of this court towards paragraph 3 of the cross-examination, of Sagar Suman and has submitted that the father of Ravi Ranjan Kumar was posted as a sub-inspector in the district of Bokaro and further in paragraph-9 of cross-examination, this witness (P.W. 1) has admitted that apart from this witness and Ravi Ranjan, no other witnesses were present at the place of occurrence, thus, learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that conviction of the appellant under Sections 324 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code is not sustainable in the eyes of law, as Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code is not made out from perusal of the injury report and there is no confirmation with regard to assault made by Mantosh Kumar Jha, which has resulted in conviction of the appellant under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code. Such allegations are against unknown persons, as the appellant, who was specifically alleged to have assaulted Sagar Suman (P.W. 1) and Ravi Ranjan Kumar (P.W. 6), once by bhujali cannot be convicted under Sectiona 323 and 324 of the Indian Penal Code, when conviction under section 324 of the Indian Penal Code is not made out because of Injury report (Exhibit-2). 11. Mr. 11. Mr. Sudhir Kumar Rai, Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State has vehemently argued the case and has submitted, that Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code is made out, as the victim was assaulted by the accused persons and from perusal of the records, it appears that Mantosh Jha is the person, alleged to have assaulted Ravi Ranjan Kumar (P.W.6) and Sagar Suman (P.W. 1), once by bhujali and as such, the learned Trial Court was justified in convicting the appellant under Sections 323 and 324 of the Indian Penal Code. Learned counsel for the appellant, Mr. Sanjay Kumar has drawn the attention of this court towards the evidence of the informant (P.W. 6- Ravi Ranjan Kumar). Ravi Ranjan Kumar has proved his signature along with signature of his friend as Exhibit- 1/1 and Exhibit- 1. This witness (P.W. 1) has categorically stated in paragraph-5 of his cross-examination, that Abhishek Daniel and his brother Sanjay Kumar, reached there, during the occurrence. Ravi Ranjan Kumar (P.W. 6) has further stated in paragraph- 6 of his cross-examination that Sagar Suman (P.W. 1) and Abhishek Daniel (P.W. 3) were earlier sent to jail in a case of murder. This witness has categorically stated in paragraph-13 of his cross-examination, that, he was assaulted by Mantosh Jha on the order of Ranjay Kumar @ Rana and he is identifying Mantosh Jha and Ranjay Kumar @ Rana. He is not knowing Ranjay Kumar prior to occurrence but he could know his name as the accused persons were talking by taking his name. This witness (P.W. 6) has further stated at para 14 of his cross-examination that he was assaulted by the bhujali, which was of 10 inch length and Sagar Suman was also assaulted by the same bhujali between his thumb and finger, on his palm for which, both were treated in the Bokaro General Hospital, where the informant was admitted for one day. This witness has admitted, that his father was posted in the department of police in the district of Bokaro and further in para- 20 of his cross-examination, he has admitted that both informant Ravi Ranjan Kumar and Sagar Suman (P.W. 1) have sustained 1-1 injury. This witness has admitted, that his father was posted in the department of police in the district of Bokaro and further in para- 20 of his cross-examination, he has admitted that both informant Ravi Ranjan Kumar and Sagar Suman (P.W. 1) have sustained 1-1 injury. Learned counsel for the appellant has further submitted that from perusal of the evidence of P.W. 6 (informant and victim of the case) particularly in para- 20, no such injury report has been brought on record, rather the injury report of Ravi Ranjan Kumar suggests three injuries, which are simple in nature, caused by hard and blunt substance, as the same has been proved and marked as Exhibit-2 and the doctor (P.W. 8) has categorically stated that, these injuries are simple in nature caused by hard and blunt substances and as such, the statement of the informant belies the prosecution case and it is only because his father is a police officer, posted in Bokaro and his friends are criminals, these innocent persons are made accused and the learned Trial Court has wrongly convicted the appellant Mantosh Kumar Jha @ Mantosh Jha vide the impugned judgment of conviction. Mr. Sudhir Kumar Rai, learned Additional Public Prosecutor has submitted that, if conviction under Section 324 is not sustainable, at least conviction under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code is made out but from perusal of the record, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor could not satisfy this court that why these three injuries are not there and no injury report of Sagar Suman has been brought, the discrepancy in injury report could suggest, what the informant (P.W. 6) has categorically stated in paragraph-20 of his cross-examination that both Sagar Suman (P.W. 1) and Ravi Ranjan Kumar (P.W. 2) has sustained 1-1 injury is not true. 12. Sanjay Kumar (brother of the informant and a chance witness) has been examined as P.W. 2 and friend Abhishek Daniel (being a chance witness) has been examined as P.W. 3, if their evidence are taken together, both are contradictory to each other, as much as that Sanjay Kumar (P.W. 2) has said that he was along with Abhishek Daniel, on a maruti car, whereas Abhishek Daniel examined as P.W. 3 has categorically said that, he brought Ravi Ranjan Kumar on tracker to Bokaro General Hospital (BGH). While taking on tracker, Ravi Ranjan Kumar fell unconscious, who had been made conscious by sprinkling water and thereafter he was hospitalized and he has not stated that he was accompanied by Sanjay Kumar (P.W. 2). The evidence of P.W. 2 and P.W. 3 are fit to be dis-believed as they are the related and interested witnesses of the informant. Mukesh Singh has been examined as P.W. 4, and he has been declared hostile by the prosecution. 13. Ram Awadh Singh (Investigating Officer) of the case has been examined as P.W. 7. This witness has stated that he went to the hospital without lodging any station diary entry or informing the Officer-in-charge. This witness has stated in paragraph-4, 5, 6 and 7 of his cross-examination, regarding the initial treatment given to the victim but no such entry was found at hospital nor he has taken the statement of the victim in presence of the doctor. This witness has also stated that Abhishek Daniel has never stated before him that while Ravi Ranjan was taken on tracker, he was unconscious. This witness has admitted in paragraph-8 of his cross-examination that doctor has opined that the injuries are simple in nature caused by hard and blunt substances. The fatal blow to the prosecution case came when in paragraph-10 of his cross-examination, the Investigating Officer said that, he did not found any weapon or blood stain, at the place of occurrence. Learned counsel for the appellant, Mr. Sanjay Kumar has submitted that from perusal of the evidence of P.W. 1, Sagar Suman P.W. 6, Ravi Ranjan Kumar, P.W. 7, Ram Awdesh Singh and P.W. 8 Dr. Learned counsel for the appellant, Mr. Sanjay Kumar has submitted that from perusal of the evidence of P.W. 1, Sagar Suman P.W. 6, Ravi Ranjan Kumar, P.W. 7, Ram Awdesh Singh and P.W. 8 Dr. Shrawan Kumar, contradictory evidences are brought by the prosecution, which are not consistent and co-related with each other, that is the reason that why at the place of occurrence, no blood stain was found by the Investigating Officer and since the victim is the son of a police officer, without lodging any station diary entry, the Police Officer went to the Bokaro General Hospital and without having any document of Bokaro General Hospital, a fardbeyan was recorded and on the basis of such, a police case has been instituted, against whom the appellant has some grievance, since the chargesheet was submitted, the learned Trial Court without scrutinizing the materials, convicted the appellant under Sections 323 and 324 of the Indian Penal Code, whereas other two co-accused persons, Pakistani @ Ali Imam and Ranjay Kumar @ Rana, have been acquitted by the learned Trial Court by the same impugned judgment. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that only on the ground that Mantosh Kumar Jha has assaulted Ravi Ranjan and Sagar Suman, the learned Trial Court ought to have inquired about the place of occurrence and manner of occurrence, weapon used which caused injury upon Ravi Ranjan Kumar and Sagar Suman and without examining the same, the conviction of the appellant under Sections 323 and 324 of the Indian Penal Code cannot sustain in the eyes of law and the facts, as stated above. 14. Dr. Shrawan Kumar has been examined as P.W. 8. This witness has found three injuries on the person of the Ravi Ranjan Kumar and proved the injury report of injured Ravi Ranjan Kumar only, as Exhibit-2, which are simple in nature. The doctor has further stated during cross-examination in paragraph-5, that since the printed from of injury report was not available in the Bokaro General Hospital and as such, the injury report was submitted but in whose presence such injury report was submitted that has not been mentioned. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that from perusal of the evidence of P.W. 8 (doctor). It is apparent that a false, fabricated, frivolous injury report has been brought on record. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that from perusal of the evidence of P.W. 8 (doctor). It is apparent that a false, fabricated, frivolous injury report has been brought on record. Learned counsel has further submitted that under the influence, the injury report has been prepared at 8.30 a.m on 16.12.2000, whereas, the occurrence took place at sector II/A at 9.45 a.m on 16.12.2000 and as such, the entire injury report is a false document and the learned Trial Court has wrongly convicted the appellant, on the basis of such injury report. 15. Learned counsel for the State has submitted, that 8.30 am on injury report may be a mistake because of the slip of pen but injury report cannot be prepared before the occurrence and as such learned counsel for the State has submitted that there is no infirmity in the injury report. The doctor has found lacerated wound but learned counsel for the State, is unable to explain from the record, that how these three injuries are caused upon the victims, which are contrary to the prosecution case. 16. Heard Learned counsel for the appellant Mr. Sanjay Kumar and learned counsel for the State, Mr. Sudhir Kumar Rai, Additional Public Prosecutor and from perusal of the record, i.e. the F.I.R., depositions and exhibits, this court is of the opinion that the prosecution has miserably failed in proving its case beyond all reasonable doubts, as per the prosecution case. The P.W. 1 and P.W. 6 has been assaulted once by bhujali, whereas P.W. 1. has said, that he was assaulted by knife but from perusal of the Exhibit-2 and evidence of P.W. 8 (doctor), no such injury was found on the body of the informant, which has been brought on record. It also appears from the evidence of P.W. 6 at para-20 of his cross-examination that both Ravi Ranjan and Sagar Suman have been assaulted once by bhujali, as alleged, but no such injury report has been brought on record rather injury report of Ravi Ranjan shows three wounds caused by hard and blunt substances not in consistent with the prosecution case and there is no injury report of Sagar Sumar (P.W.1). Further, it appears that Sanjay Kumar (P.W.2) and Abhishek Daniel (P.W. 3) are related and interested witness, as both have given contradictory statement. Mukesh Singh (P.W. 4) and Basant Thakur (P.W. 5) are hostile witnesses. Further, it appears that Sanjay Kumar (P.W.2) and Abhishek Daniel (P.W. 3) are related and interested witness, as both have given contradictory statement. Mukesh Singh (P.W. 4) and Basant Thakur (P.W. 5) are hostile witnesses. Ram Awadh Singh, police officer (P.W. 7), who was so much interested, that without having recorded the station diary entry, he went to record the fardbeyan of informant, Ravi Ranjan Kumar, son of his colleague. This Investigating Officer has further submitted that, he has recorded the fardbeyan of the injured in absence of the doctor and he could not say, on which part Ravi was assaulted. P.W. 6, Ravi Ranjan Kumar, has stated, that he was admitted for his treatment for one day in Bokaro General Hospital but the prosecution has not brought admission slip of the hospital, mentioning of bed number and ward number of the injured. The evidence of Sagar Suman (P.W. 1) and Ravi Ranjan Kumar (P.W. 6) are also contradictory regarding weapon used. Under such background, this court is of considered view that benefit of doubt shall be granted in favour of appellant. 17. Thus, the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence, both dated 16.12.2003, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, F.T.C., IInd, Bokaro in Sessions Trial No. 224/2002, Suppl. Sessions Trial No. 49/2003, in connection with Bokaro Steel City P.S. Case No. 339 of 2000, consequent to G. R. No. 1317 of 2000 is set aside and the appellant is acquitted of the offence committed under sections 323 and 324 of the Indian Penal Code. 18. The appellant, who is on bail is discharged from liability of his bail bond. 19. In the result, the appeal is allowed. 20. Let the lower court record be sent along with a copy of this judgment to the court concerned, at once for necessary action.