JUDGMENT : 1. Heard, Mr. Shekhar Prasad Sinha, learned counsel appearing for the appellants and Mr. Tapas Roy, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor appearing for the State. 2. The instant Criminal appeal is directed against the Judgment of conviction and order of sentence both dated 03.12.2003, passed by the learned District and Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.Vth, Dhanbad, in S.T. No.196 of 2000 whereby, all the three appellants, Nanhu Mahto, Ramautar Mahto and Lakhan Mahto have been convicted for the offence committed under Sections 324 and 324/34 of the Indian Penal Code. The appellant no.1 (Nanhu Mahto) has been sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for one year under Section 324 IPC and appellant nos. 2 and 3, Ramautar Mahto and Lakhan Mahto have been sentenced to undergo one year simple imprisonment under Section 324/34 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. Being aggrieved by the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence, the appellants have preferred present Criminal Appeal before this Hon'ble Court. 4. The prosecution case is based upon 'fardbeyan' of the informant, Banshi Lal Sahu (P.W.7) recorded on 19.07.1999 at 11.45 a.m. by A.S.I., Md. Jamaluddin Khan in ward No.2, Bed No.14 at Tilatanr Hospital, stating therein that on 19.07.1999 at 5:30 a.m. in the morning, while he was washing his face at the village pond, in the meantime, co-villagers, namely, Nanhu Mahto, Ramautar Mahto and Lakhan Mahto came there and they have asked about the interest of the amount, as the informant has taken loan of Rs.10,000/-from the accused person, at the time of marriage of his daughter. The interest amount is calculated to Rs.3,000/-. The accused persons demanded the same, upon which the informant said, that he will return the same after having money with him. Upon this, the accused persons started abusing the informant. Subsequently Ramautar Mahto and Lakhan Mahto caught both the hands of the informant and Nanhu Mahto assaulted the informant by means of tangi, on his head causing two cuts bleeding injuries on the left side of his head. In the mean time, the other persons came at the pond, brought him to the Hospital, where his treatment is going on. Subsequently Ramautar Mahto and Lakhan Mahto caught both the hands of the informant and Nanhu Mahto assaulted the informant by means of tangi, on his head causing two cuts bleeding injuries on the left side of his head. In the mean time, the other persons came at the pond, brought him to the Hospital, where his treatment is going on. On the basis of the aforesaid 'fardbeyan' of the informant, the Police instituted First Information Report bearing Baghmara P.S. Case No. 152 of 1999 (dated 19.07.1999) corresponding to G.R. No.2121 of 1999 under Sections 341, 323, 324, 307/34 of the Indian Penal Code. 5. After investigation, the Police submitted charge-sheet vide No.186 of 1999, dated 16.09.1999 under Sections 341, 323, 324, 307/34 of the Indian Penal Code against all the three accused persons/ appellants. The cognizance of the offence has been taken vide order dated 12.10.1999 and the case has been committed to the Court of Sessions vide order dated 14.07.2000. The charge has been framed against the accused/ appellants under sections 341, 307/34 I.P.C. and accused/appellant, Nanhu Mahto has been separately charged under Section 324 IPC, to which the appellants have pleaded their innocence and thus, they were put under trial. 6. The prosecution, in support of its case, has examined altogether nine witnesses and also adduced a number of documents up-to exhibit 5. Vijay Mahto, a hearsay witness, has been examined as P.W.1, Mannu Mahto, another hearsay witness has been examined as P.W. 2, Fatik Chandra Dan has been examined as P.W.3 but he has been declared hostile by the prosecution, Chhotu Mahto has been examined as P.W.4 and he has also been declared hostile by the prosecution, Babu Lal Mahto, also a hearsay witness, has been examined as P.W.5, Bhim Mahto has been examined as PW 6 and he is also a hearsay witness, Banshi Lal Sahu (informant-cum-victim of the case) has been examined as P.W.7, Dr. Randhir Kumar Krishna, Medical Officer has been examined as P.W.8, who has examined the informant (Banshi Lal Sahu-P.W.7) and proved the injury report and the same has been marked as Exhibit-2 and Md. Randhir Kumar Krishna, Medical Officer has been examined as P.W.8, who has examined the informant (Banshi Lal Sahu-P.W.7) and proved the injury report and the same has been marked as Exhibit-2 and Md. Jamaluddin Khan (investigating officer of the case) has been examined as P.W. 9 and has proved the signature of Banshi Lal Sahu (Informant-P.W.7), on fardbeyan and the same has been marked as Exhibit-3 and the endorsement made by the officer-in-charge has been proved and marked as Exhibit 4 and the forwarding letter has been proved and marked as exhibit 4/1 and the formal First Information Report has been proved and marked as Exhibit 5. 7. After closure of the prosecution evidence, the appellants have been examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. on 15.09.2003, where the appellants have categorically stated that because of case filed by them, the present case has been filed against them by the informant, in their defence. 8. After the recording the statement of the appellants under section 313 Cr.P.C., defence has examined Dr. Amar Nath Singh as D.W.1 and he has proved the injury report of injured-Nanhu Mahto which has been marked as Exhibit-A, Jagarnath Mahto has been examined as D.W.2 and he has proved the signature of Nanhu Mahto on the written report with objection and marked as Exhibit-B, Certified copy of G. R. no.2123/1999 has been proved and marked as Exhibit-C, charge-sheet of G.R. No.2123/99 has been proved and marked as Exhibit-D and a slip regarding receipt of Rs. 4,000/-by Banshi Lal Sahu has been marked ‘X’ for identification. 9. After hearing the parties, the learned trial court has passed the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence, which has been assailed before this Court by the appellants. 10. Heard, Mr. Shekhar Sinha, learned counsel appearing for the appellants and Mr. Tapas Roy, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor appearing for the State. Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted, that the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence is bad in law, as the prosecution has not brought the true picture before the Court. There is a case and counter case between the parties, which has been proved and admitted by Banshi Lal Sahu (informant -PW7), as it appears from his (P.W.7) deposition in para-5. Learned counsel for the appellants has further submitted, that Nanhu Mahto has also sustained injuries and the injury report has been proved by D.W.1 (Dr. There is a case and counter case between the parties, which has been proved and admitted by Banshi Lal Sahu (informant -PW7), as it appears from his (P.W.7) deposition in para-5. Learned counsel for the appellants has further submitted, that Nanhu Mahto has also sustained injuries and the injury report has been proved by D.W.1 (Dr. Amar Nath Singh) and marked as Exhibit-A. Learned counsel for the appellants has further submitted, that P.W.1 (Vijay Mahto), PW 2 (Mannu Mahto) are not the eye-witness to the occurrence. PW 3 (Fatik Chandra Dan) and P.W.4 (Chhotu Mahto) have been declared hostile by the prosecution. PW5 (Babu Lal Mahto) and PW 6 (Bhim Mahto) are also hearsay witnesses. So, the entire case revolves upon the statement of only sole eye-witness and victim-cum-informant, Banshi Lal Mahto (P.W.7), but P.W.7 (Banshi Lal Mahto) in his 'fardbeyan' has never disclosed that in the occurrence, Nanhu Mahto has also sustained injuries. Learned counsel for the appellants, in support of his submission, has relied upon a decision rendered in the case of Subramani and Others Vrs. State of T.N., reported in (2002) 7 Supreme Court Cases 210, wherein it has been held that “failure to explain injuries on accused-That injuries were simple, held, does not relieve the prosecution of its obligation – On failure, court can draw inference that prosecution has not presented the true version of the occurrence”. Mr. Tapas Roy, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor appearing for the state has submitted, that there is free fight between the parties and there is a case and counter case owing to some financial transactions. Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted, that receipt of money, which has been marked as 'X' for identification, does not mentioned about the interest and the prosecution has not proved the case, that they have licence to lend money and take interest from them. Under such background, learned counsel for the appellants has submitted, that in view of the above, the appellants deserve to be acquitted under Sections 324 and 324/34 I.P.C. respectively. Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that appellants have no criminal antecedents and because of the dispute of interest of the loan amount, the case and counter case have been filed. Mr. Tapas Roy, learned Addl. Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that appellants have no criminal antecedents and because of the dispute of interest of the loan amount, the case and counter case have been filed. Mr. Tapas Roy, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor appearing for the State has submitted that from perusal of records, it appears that there is case and counter-case between the parties and in the counter-case filed by Nanhu Mahto, the prosecution party have already been acquitted by the learned trial court, which established, that the accused of the present case are aggressors and they have assaulted the informant, while the informant was washing his face at the village pond. Learned counsel for the State, Mr. Tapas Roy, Addl. Public Prosecutor has further submitted, that it is true that none of the witnesses have examined in the case are eye-witness to the occurrence and they are witnesses, who have heard hot exchange or word going in between the parties and soon after assault, they reached the place of occurrence and as such, learned trial court has rightly convicted the appellants under Sections 324 and 324/ 34 I.P.C. Learned counsel for the State has further submitted, that though injuries are simple in nature, but the informant remained in hospital for 21-22 days and on bed rest for one month, as such, the learned trial court has rightly passed the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence which does not require any interference by this Hon’ble Court. 11. Heard, Mr. Shekhar Prasad Sinha, learned counsel for the appellants and Mr. Tapas Roy, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor appearing for the State and from perusal of the record, such as, First Information Report, framing of charge, evidence of nine prosecution witnesses, exhibits upto Exhibit-5, statement of the appellants recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C., the depositions of D.W. 1 and D.W.2 and Exhibits 'A' to 'C' and Exhibit-'X' has been marked for identification, this Court is of the opinion, that the there is case and counter case between the parties for the same occurrence. The learned trial court has not considered, that both the cases ought to have been tried together, in view of the judgment as reported in 2003 (9) SCC 426 , in the case of State of M.P. Vs. Mishrilal (Dead) & Ors. The learned trial court has not considered, that both the cases ought to have been tried together, in view of the judgment as reported in 2003 (9) SCC 426 , in the case of State of M.P. Vs. Mishrilal (Dead) & Ors. and in view of the judgment as reported in 1990 (Supp.) SCC 145, in the case of Nathi Lal Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh. From perusal of the record, it appears that the informant has not disclosed the injuries caused upon the appellant, Nanhu Mahto, who was examined by D.W.1 (Dr. Amar Nath Singh) and it appears that the prosecution has not brought the case with clean hand, rather there is suppression of material facts and in view of the judgment reported in (2002) 7 SCC 210 Subramani and Others (supra), this Court is drawing adverse interference, that the prosecution has not presented true version of occurrence. Further from perusal of the injury report, which has been marked as Exhibit-2, both injuries are simple in nature, caused by hard and sharp object, Dr. Randhir Kumar Krishna (PW 8) has been examined in this case and proved injury report as Exhibit-2 and it appears that the both the injuries can not be caused by single assault by the same weapon. It appears from the evidence the PW7-Banshi Lal Sahu (informant-cum-victim of the case), who has proved the signature, on the First Information Report and marked the same as Exhibit-1 and has admitted about the counter case vide G.R. No.2123/99, filed against them (informant-Banshi Sahu, Sagar Mahto, Barhu Mahto and Jethu Mahto). He has proved the receipt granted by him to Nanhu Mahto with respect to returned of amount of Rs.4,000/-on 04.03.1995 with his signature, has been marked-'X' for identification. This witness (P.W.7) has admitted, that after he regained his consciousness in the hospital, he could not know, subsequently, he could know, that Bhim Mahto and Fatik Chand Dan have brought him to the Hospital. This witness (P.W.7) has admitted that Nanhu Mahto has filed a case, which has been registered as Baghmara Police station Case No.53 of 1993. The investigating officer (Md. Jamaluddin Khan) has proved the signature of the informant on fardbeyan and same has been marked as Exhibit3 and other documents up-to Exhibit-5. This witness (P.W.7) has admitted that Nanhu Mahto has filed a case, which has been registered as Baghmara Police station Case No.53 of 1993. The investigating officer (Md. Jamaluddin Khan) has proved the signature of the informant on fardbeyan and same has been marked as Exhibit3 and other documents up-to Exhibit-5. This witness has admitted in Paras 10, 11, 12 and 13 of his cross-examination, that occurrence took place between the parties, filed case against each other, which were registered as Baghmara P.S. Case No.152/99 dated 19.7.99 and 153/99 dated 19.07.1999 and in both the cases, the Investigating officer (P.W.9) has submitted charge-sheet. In Baghmara P.S. Case No.153 of 1999 under Section 307 I.P.C. against Banshi Sahu and others and the litigation was with respect to the land. This witness (P.W.9-Md. Jamaluddin Khan) in Para-29 of his cross-examination, has categorically stated that on inspection of the place of occurrence, he does not found blood spot on the ground nor any sign was found nor any thing which could have been seized. 12. Under the aforesaid background, where the contradictory statements are recorded by learned trial court and both the cases are not being tried together by the same court, it is very difficult to say that, who is the aggressor of the incident. Under the aforesaid background and in view of the judgment passed by Hon'ble the Supreme Court, as referred above, the case of the prosecution is not the true version of the occurrence and in the counter-case, the prosecution party has already been acquitted by the learned trial court, it would be appropriate in the interest of justice, the appellants shall also be granted benefit of doubt. 13. Accordingly, the appellant, Nanhu Mahto who has been charged and convicted under section 324 IPC and appellants, Ramautar Mahto and Lakhan Mahto have been charged and convicted under Sections 324/34 IPC are acquitted by giving benefit of doubt. 14. Thus, the judgment of conviction and order of sentence both dated 03.12.2003, passed by the learned District and Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.Vth, Dhanbad, in S.T. No.196 of 2000 is not sustainable in the eyes of law and thus, the same is hereby, set aside. 15. Accordingly, the instant appeal stands allowed. 16. The appellants who are on bail are discharged from liability of the bail bonds. 17. 15. Accordingly, the instant appeal stands allowed. 16. The appellants who are on bail are discharged from liability of the bail bonds. 17. Let L.C.R. along with a copy of this judgment be sent to the court concerned at once.