JUDGMENT : Heard, learned counsel for the appellant, Mr. A.K. Chaturvedi assisted by Mr. Amit Kumar Choubey, Advocates, and Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pandey, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, appearing for the State. 2. The instant criminal appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence, both dated 24.07.2003, passed by learned Additional District & Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.1, Jamshedpur (East Singhbhum), in Sessions Trial No. 211 of 1999, whereby the sole appellant has been convicted for the offence committed and punishable under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code and awarded rigorous imprisonment for two years. Other co-accused persons namely Jasbir Singh and Niranjan Singh have been acquitted by the learned trial Court, by the same impugned judgment. 3. The prosecution case is based upon written report of Jagtar Singh, P. W. 1, recorded by T. Pandey, Sub-inspector of Golmuri Police Station, Jamshedpur (East Singhbhum), at about 11.55 P.M. on 18.09.1998, where the informant has alleged, that at about 11.15 P.M., on 18.09.1998 when he came out of his house after having his dinner, in the meantime, the accused Charan Singh @ Toti Singh (appellant), Jasbir Singh and Niranjan Singh along with one or two other persons restrained the informant and the accused Charan Singh with an intention to kill him inflicted a Bhujali blow upon him, consequent to which informant has sustained injury on his abdomen. When his elder brother Awtar Singh rushed over there to rescue the informant, the accused Charan Singh (appellant) inflicted a Bhujali blow on him also, as a result of which informant's brother also sustained injury on his abdomen. The other co-accused persons Jasbir Singh and Niranjan Singh along with their other associates caught hold of the informant and assaulted him as well as his bother Awtar Singh. The persons present at the spot namely Hardeep Singh, Durga Singh and Mohan Singh are said to have seen the occurrence. The reason behind such incident as stated in the written report was that there had been some differences on the point of Gurudwara Election in between the informant and the accused persons. 4. On the basis of the written report of the informant, Police instituted First Informant Report bearing Golmuri P. S. Case No. 207 of 1998, dated 18.09.1998, under Sections 341, 323, 324 and 307/34 of the Indian Penal Code. 5. 4. On the basis of the written report of the informant, Police instituted First Informant Report bearing Golmuri P. S. Case No. 207 of 1998, dated 18.09.1998, under Sections 341, 323, 324 and 307/34 of the Indian Penal Code. 5. After investigation, the police submitted charge sheet vide charge sheet no. 155 of 1998, dated 31.10.1998, under Sections 341, 323, 324 and 307/34 of the Indian Penal Code, against all three named accused persons, namely Charan Singh, Jasbir Singh and Niranjan Singh. 6. The cognizance of the offence has been taken vide order dated 16.11.1998 and the case has been committed to the court of Sessions vide order dated 05.04.1999. The learned trial Court has framed charge against the three accused persons namely Charan Singh, Jasbir Singh and Niranjan Singh, on 22.05.2001, under Sections 341, 323, and 307 of the Indian Penal Code, to which the accused persons have pleaded their innocence and thus, they were put under trial. 7. The prosecution, in order to prove its case, has examined altogether four witnesses and also exhibited a number of documentary evidences. Jagtar Singh (informant of the case) has been examined as P.W.1, Awtar Singh (elder brother of Jagtar Singh and another injured of this case) has been examined as P.W.2, Mohan Singh has been examined as P. W. 3 who has been declared hostile by the prosecution, Dr. Milind Kumar Sinha, who has treated both the injured, has been examined as P.W.4. 8. The signature of Jagtar Singh (P.W.1) on the fardbeyan, has been proved and marked as exhibit 1 and the injury report of Jagtar Singh has been proved and marked as exhibit 2. 9. After closure of the prosecution evidence, the statement of the appellant has been recorded under Section 313 Cr. P. C. on 08.07.2003, to which the appellant has stated that he has been falsely implicated in this case. 10. After hearing the parties and after perusal of record, the learned trial Court passed the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence, both dated 24.7.2003, in S.T. Case No. 211 of 1999. Being aggrieved at and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence, appellant has preferred the instant criminal appeal, assailing the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence. 11. Heard, learned counsel for the appellant, Mr. A.K. Chaturvedi assisted by Mr. Amit Kumar Choubey, Advocates. Being aggrieved at and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence, appellant has preferred the instant criminal appeal, assailing the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence. 11. Heard, learned counsel for the appellant, Mr. A.K. Chaturvedi assisted by Mr. Amit Kumar Choubey, Advocates. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that, the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence is bad in law and contrary to material available on record. Learned counsel for the appellant has further submitted that, the informant has not come up with clean hands by not disclosing the injury, which has been caused upon the accused Charan Singh @ Toti Singh which has been found by the police officer, who has arrested the said Charan Singh @ Toti Singh on the next day of the occurrence i.e. on 19.9.1998. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that in view of the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Subramani and others Vs. The State of Tamil Nadu as reported in (2002) 7 SCC 210 , 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. Learned counsel for the appellant has further submitted that, in view of the judgment as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and in view of the material lacuna in the prosecution case that, the injury report of Awtar Singh has not been brought on record and the independent witness Mohan Singh (P.W.3) has been declared hostile by the prosecution, the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence is not sustainable in the eyes of law. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that, investigating officer of this case has not been examined which has caused serious prejudice to the appellant as appellant could not get an opportunity to elucidate the fact with regard to place of occurrence and manner of occurrence by cross-examining the Investigation officer in order to prove his innocence. Learned counsel for the appellant has further submitted that the injury which has been found on the persons of the victim, caused by the Bhujali is simple in nature. Learned counsel for the appellant has further submitted that the injury which has been found on the persons of the victim, caused by the Bhujali is simple in nature. Learned counsel for the appellant has further submitted that on the sole testimony of Jagtar Singh, the appellant has been convicted, who has animosity with the appellant and a counter case has also been filed by Charan Singh @ Toti Singh injured accused and the same fact has been suppressed by the prosecution. Learned counsel for the appellant has further submitted that, Awtar Singh has not sustained any injury as the same has not been shown before the Court and as such benefit of doubt may be given in favour of the appellant, in the fact and circumstance of this case. Learned counsel for the appellant has further submitted that, the prosecution case is doubtful as Jagtar Singh (informant of the case) who has been examined as P.W.1, has stated about injury on his right elbow but the same has not been mentioned either in the First Information Report or in the injury report of Jagtar Singh (Exhibit-2) and as such testimony of Jagtar Singh, the informant of the case is also under cloud as the same is not in consonance with injury report (medical evidence). Learned counsel for the appellant has further submitted that, doctor Milind Kumar Sinha, who has been examined as P. W.4, has proved the injury report of Jagtar Singh, which has been marked as exhibit 2. 12. Heard, Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pandey, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, appearing for the State has submitted that, the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence is well founded and is based on material available on record. Learned counsel for the State has further submitted that Jagtar Singh informant of the case, who has been examined as P.W.1 and his deposition in the Court is consistent to his fardbeyan. Learned counsel for the State has further submitted that it is a case where the appellant has been rightly convicted by the learned trial Court as the appellant has assaulted the informant by means of Bhujali. Learned counsel for the State has further submitted that it is a case where the appellant has been rightly convicted by the learned trial Court as the appellant has assaulted the informant by means of Bhujali. Learned counsel for the State has further submitted that, learned trial Court has rightly acquitted two co-accused persons and has only convicted this accused/ appellant, Charan Singh @ Toti Singh under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code and this Court may not interfere the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence at this stage. 13. Heard, Learned counsel for the appellant, Mr. A.K. Chatuvedi assisted by Mr. Amit Kumar Choubey, Advocates and Learned counsel for the State, Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pandey, Additional Public Prosecutor and from perusal of the record, i.e. First Information Report, charge sheet, framing of the charge, evidence of four prosecution witnesses and two exhibits and the statement of the appellant recorded under Section 313 Cr. P. C. as well as impugned judgment, this Court has taken Judicial notice of the fact that, Charan Singh @ Toti Singh, who is appellant in the present criminal appeal, has also sustained injury as it has been mentioned in the forwarding letter of the Police regarding Charan Singh @ Toti Singh, which has been submitted before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate. The prosecution has not explained the injury, which has been caused upon appellant Charan Singh @ Toti Singh and as such the judgment cited by the learned counsel for the appellant as reported in (2002) 7 SCC 210 Subramani and others Vs. The State of Tamil Nadu is well applicable in this case. This Court has also found that the independent witness, Mohan Singh (P.W.3) has been declared hostile by the prosecution and P.W.2, Awtar Singh (elder brother of the informant) and injured witness has been examined as P.W.2 but his injury report has not been brought on record. This Court is of the opinion that injury which was found on the person of the victim is simple in nature and the patient has been accompanied by Sanat Singh father of the injured but said Sanat Singh has not been examined. This Court is of the opinion that injury which was found on the person of the victim is simple in nature and the patient has been accompanied by Sanat Singh father of the injured but said Sanat Singh has not been examined. This Court has found that injury found on the elbow of the informant has not been explained by the prosecution and as such considering above submissions, this Court has found that evidence of P.W.1 is not reliable and the prosecution has not come up with clean hands as they have not disclosed about the injury caused upon the accused/appellant and as such, in view of the judgment and facts of the case this Court is extending benefit of doubt in favour of the appellant. The appellant is acquitted of the charge and conviction under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code. 14. From the aforesaid reasons, we are of the considered view that the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence, both dated 24.07.2003 passed in S.T. No. 211 of 1999 by learned Additional District & Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.1, Jamshedpur (East Singhbhum), is not sustainable in the eyes of law and thus, the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence is hereby set aside. 15. The appellant, who is already on bail is discharged from the liability of his bail bonds. 16. Accordingly, the instant appeal stands allowed. 17. Let L.C.R. along with a copy of this judgment be sent to the court concerned at once.