JUDGMENT : 1. Heard, Mr. Bijay Kumar Sinha, learned counsel appearing for the appellants and Mr. Vikas Kishore, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State. 2. The instant Criminal appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction dated 28.01.2004 and order of sentence dated 29.01.2004, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, F.T.C. 3rd, Bokaro, in S.T. Case No.13 of 1999, whereby Pasu Mandal (appellant No.1) has been convicted for the offence committed and punishable under Section 323 I.P.C. and awarded to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and Fagu Mandal (appellant No.2) has been convicted for the offence committed and punishable under Sections 326/34 I.P.C. and awarded rigorous imprisonment for seven years and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/-and in default of payment of fine amount, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months. 3. The prosecution case, is based upon the ‘fardbeyan’ of the informant, Dhiren Mandal (P.W.4) recorded by Sub Inspector of Police, Sarfuddin Ahmad of Pindrajora Police Station, at 12.10 hours, on 20th October 1998, at Ideal Nusing Home, Chas. The informant has alleged, that today, in the morning at about 8 a.m., on 20.10.1998, while the wife of Ganesh Mandal was abusing in the passage, his younger brothers, Manindar Mandal (P.W.1) and Biren Mandal (P.W.3) asked her that, why she is abusing them, as the land dispute is pending before the Court and the judgment will be followed by them. In the meantime, Ganesh Mandal having lathi, son of Ganesh Mandal, namely, Fagu Mandal (appellant No.2) having sword, came there and without asking anything, assaulted brother of the informant, Biren Mandal causing grievous bleeding injury. His entire body was stained with blood. When the informant went for rescue, then Ganesh Mandal assaulted the informant on the palm of right hand, causing fracture on the same. Brother of the informant, namely, Biren Mandal (P.W.3) was assaulted by sword with intention to kill, on the right palm, right leg near knee, back side of the thigh of left leg and middle finger of right hand was chopped up. The informant has further alleged, that the occurrence took place because of the land dispute, which is pending before the Court and on brawl, the other persons came, thus both the accused persons fled away and thereafter accused, Pasu Mandal, another son of Ganesh Mandal, also came there and assaulted the informant with lathi. 4. The informant has further alleged, that the occurrence took place because of the land dispute, which is pending before the Court and on brawl, the other persons came, thus both the accused persons fled away and thereafter accused, Pasu Mandal, another son of Ganesh Mandal, also came there and assaulted the informant with lathi. 4. On the basis of the ‘fardbeyan’ of the informant, the Police registered First Information Report bearing Pindrajora P.S. Case No.59 of 1998 dated 20.10.1998, corresponding to G.R. No.1396 of 1998, under Sections 341/323/324/325/326 and 307/34 of the Indian Penal Code against the three named accused persons, namely, Ganesh Mandal, Pasu Mandal and Fagu Mandal. . 5. After investigation, the Police submitted charge-sheet bearing No.51 of 1998, dated 13.11.1998, under Sections 341/323/324/325/326 and 307/34 of the Indian Penal Code against all the three named accused persons. The cognizance of the offence has been taken vide order dated 17.11.1998, and the case has been committed to the Court of Sessions vide order dated 27.02.1999. 6. The charge has been framed against all the three accused/ appellants on 04.12.2000, under Sections 341/34, 323/34, 324/34, 325/34, 326/34 and 307/34 I.P.C., to which the appellants have pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried and thus, they were put under trial. 7. The prosecution, in order to prove its case, has examined altogether six witnesses and also exhibited a number of documents up-to Exhibit-4. Manindra Mandal, brother of the informant and an eye-witness to the occurrence, has been examined as P.W.1, Sumant Kumar Mandal, son of the informant, has been examined as P.W.2, Biren Mandal, an injured of the case and brother of the informant, has been examined as P.W.3, Dhiren Mandal, informant and injured of the case, has been examined as P.W.4, Dr. T.M. Mallik, who has examined both the injured and proved their injury reports and marked as Exhibit-2 and 2/a, has been examined as P.W.5 and Sarfuddin Ahmad, Investigating officer of the case has been examined as P.W.6. T.M. Mallik, who has examined both the injured and proved their injury reports and marked as Exhibit-2 and 2/a, has been examined as P.W.5 and Sarfuddin Ahmad, Investigating officer of the case has been examined as P.W.6. Signature of the informant, Dhiren Mandal, on the fardbeyan, has been proved and marked as Exhibit-1, signature of witness, Shakti Pado Mandal, on the fardbeyan, has been proved and marked as Exhibit-1/1, Injury report of Biren Mandal has been proved and marked as Exhibit-2, Injury report of Dhiren Mandal has been proved and marked as Exhibit-2/a, fardbeyan has been proved and marked as Exhibit-3 and the formal First Information Report has been proved and marked as Exhibit-4. All these exhibits have been proved without objection from the defence. 8. After closure of the prosecution evidence, the statement of accused/appellants have been recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. on 18.03.2002, to which the accused/appellants have denied the allegation levelled against them and stated, that they will file paper in support of their innocence. 9. Thereafter, the defence has also examined Malti Devi as D.W.1 and Sudhir Sonar as D.W.2. D.W.2 (Sudhir Sonar) is an Advocate Clerk being a formal witness, has proved the Police requisition for three injury reports, in writing and signature of Sarfuddin Ahmad (Investigating officer), from the defence side and the same have been proved and marked as Exhibits-A, A/I, and A/II. Three injury reports which have been written by Dr. Chandreshwar Choudhury in his writing as well as signature and the same have been identified, proved and marked as Exhibits-B, B/I and B/II. 10. Ganesh Mandal, father of the appellants and a co-accused subsequently died during trial on 15.07.2002, as such, his case has been dropped vide order dated 27.09.2002. 11. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the records, the learned trial court has passed the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence against the appellants. Being aggrieved at, and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence, the appellants have preferred the present Criminal Appeal before this Hon’ble Court, assailing the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence. 12. Heard, Mr. Bijay Kumar Sinha, learned counsel for the Appellants. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants has submitted, that impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence is bad in law and cannot sustain in the eyes of law. 12. Heard, Mr. Bijay Kumar Sinha, learned counsel for the Appellants. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants has submitted, that impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence is bad in law and cannot sustain in the eyes of law. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants has further submitted, that there is material contradiction in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses and none of the independent witnesses have been examined in this case, though they are being named by the other prosecution witnesses during trial. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants has further submitted, that because of the land dispute between the parties, pending before the learned Civil Court. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants has further submitted, that there is free fight between the parties, as such, the appellants cannot be said to be responsible for the same. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants in support of his submission has put reliance in the case of Subramani and Ors. Vs. State of Tamil Nadu, as reported in (2002) 7 SCC 210 , wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held 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 appellants has further submitted that daughter of Ganesh Mandal, namely, Malti Devi has been examined as D.W.1. She has proved the enmity prevailing between the parties and she has stated, that for the same occurrence, ‘sanha’ entry was made and on that basis, First Information Report was lodged, which was lodged subsequently after lodging of the present First Information Report. She has further stated, that she went before the Doctor, on the basis of the requisition issued by the Sub Inspector of Police. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants has further submitted, that there is injury on the person of Malti Devi, on the basis of the requisition of the police officer, dated 20.10.1998. Malti Devi has been examined by Dr. Chandreshwar Choudhary and found the following injuries :- (1) About 1/2” x1/4” x up to skin deep lacerated wound on back of head. (2) A small abrasion on right hand near wrist joint. Injuries caused by hard and rough substances and all injuries are simple in nature caused within six hours. Malti Devi has been examined by Dr. Chandreshwar Choudhary and found the following injuries :- (1) About 1/2” x1/4” x up to skin deep lacerated wound on back of head. (2) A small abrasion on right hand near wrist joint. Injuries caused by hard and rough substances and all injuries are simple in nature caused within six hours. Bhawani Devi, wife of Ganesh Mandal, has also been examined on the basis of police requisition by the Dr. Chandreshwar Choudhary, on 20.10.1998 and Doctor has found two injuries:- (1) About 1/3”x 1/4”x up to skin level lacerated wound on right side of head. (2) About 1/3”x 1/4”x up to skin level lacerated wound on first phalanges of middle finger of Right hand, caused by hard and blunt instruments, all the injuries are simple in nature and time of injury is about 6 hours. Ganesh Mandal, one of the co-accused, who died during trial on 15.07.2002, has also been examined on the basis of Police requisition by the Dr. Chandreshwar Choudhary on 20.10.1998 and Doctor has found one injury :- (1) About 1/2” x 1/3”x up to skin level lacerated wound on front part of forehead, caused by hard and blunt instruments, injury is simple in nature and time of injury is about 6 hours. All the injury reports have been proved and marked as Exhibits-B, B/I, B/II and police requisitions have been proved and marked as Exhibits -A, A/I and A/II. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants has placed evidence of P.W.6 (Safruddin Ahmad), as made in Para-6 of his cross-examination, wherein this witness (P.W.6) has stated after perusing Para-6 of the case diary, that Ganesh Mandal has filed an application which has been registered as Sanha No.526 dated 20.10.1998, but no First Information Report has been lodged. This suggests that for the same occurrence, Ganesh Mandal has filed an application before the Police but the same has not been registered as a Police case, though a cognizable offence has been disclosed before the Police officer (Sarfuddin Ahmad), who has been examined as P.W.6 and has issued medical requisition for examination of Ganesh Mandal, his wife, Bhawani Devi and daughter, Malti Devi. The injuries reports of these three persons have been proved and marked as Exhibit-b Series and Medical requisitions issued by Police officer have been proved and marked as Exhibit-A series. The injuries reports of these three persons have been proved and marked as Exhibit-b Series and Medical requisitions issued by Police officer have been proved and marked as Exhibit-A series. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants has further submitted that the occurrence took place and the appellants have suffered rigours of trial, since 20.10.1998 approximately 20 years long, as such, lenient view may be taken against the appellants and may be acquitted. 14. Heard Mr. Vikash Kishore, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State. Mr. Vikash Kishore, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State while supporting the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence, has submitted that the same has been passed upon the material available on record, as such, the learned trial court has rightly convicted the appellants. Learned counsel appearing for the State has further submitted, that the injury reports of Biren Mandal (P.W.3) and Dhiren Mandal (P.W.4), which have been proved by Dr. T.M. Mallik (P.W.5) and marked as Exhibits-2 and 2/a respectively, are consistent with the evidence of the prosecution case. Learned counsel appearing for the State has drawn attention of this Court towards the evidence of P.W.5 (Dr. T.M. Mallik), who has examined Biren Mandal (P.W.3) and Dhiren Mandal (P.W.4), whose injuries were found to be grievous in nature. Biren Mandal (P.W.3) has sustained injuries caused by sharp-cutting weapon, whereas Dhiren Mandal (P.W.4) has sustained grievous injuries caused by hard and blunt substances. The injuries found on the person of injured, Biren Mandal (P.W.3) and Dhiren Mandal (P.W.4) are being reproduced herein-below :- P.W.5 (Dr. T.M. Mallik) examined Birendral Mandal on 20.10.1998 and found the following injuries : (i) Sharp cut injury over his right Palm 3.8”x1”x3¾ bleeds profusely, fracture detected over the right second matical bone showed in x-ray. (ii) Through and through cut over the right distal part of right middle finger and distal portion is missing and wound bleeds. (iii) Sharp cut injury over the left thigh 3.5”x1.3”x1” bleeds from the wound. (iv) Cut injury over the back side of the right knee 3”x1”x½ “with bleeding. The age of injuries were within six hours, all grievous in nature caused by sharp cutting substances. P.W.5 (Dr. (iii) Sharp cut injury over the left thigh 3.5”x1.3”x1” bleeds from the wound. (iv) Cut injury over the back side of the right knee 3”x1”x½ “with bleeding. The age of injuries were within six hours, all grievous in nature caused by sharp cutting substances. P.W.5 (Dr. T.M. Mallik) examined Dhirendra Mandal on the same day and found the following injuries :- (i) Swelling over his right Palm, pain and tenderness, fracture over the distal part of second Metacal bone, detected in x-ray also. (ii) The age of injury with six hour grievous in nature caused by hard blunt substances. Both injury reports are in his pen and signature marked as Exhibit.2 and 2/a respectively. If Birendra Mandal @ Biren Mandal is not treated in time, he may died. It appears from perusal of the injury report of Birendra Mandal that he has sustained four injuries, whereby distal portion of his right middle finger is missing and Dhiren Mandal has sustained fracture over the second Metacal bone of right palm. Learned counsel appearing for the State has further submitted, that evidence of Manindra Mandal (P.W.1) is consistent to the prosecution case as well as evidence of Biren Mandal (P.W.3) and Dhiren Mandal (P.W.4) are supported by Medical evidence, which have been proved by Dr. T.M. Mallik (P.W.5) and marked as Exhibits -2 and 2/a. Sumant Kumar Mandal (P.W.2) is the son of the informant and an eye-witness to the occurrence. Biren Mandal (P.W.3) is an injured of the case and brother of the informant, who was assaulted by Fagu Mandal by means of sword. Dhiren Mandal (P.W.4), informant of the case, has been assaulted by Pasu Mandal by means of lathi, causing fracture on his second Metacal bone of his right palm. Dr. T.M. Mallik, who has examined both the injured persons and has proved their injury reports and the same have been marked as Exhibits-2 and 2/a, has been examined as P.W.5. Sarfuddin Ahmad (P.W.6) is the Investigating officer of the case. These all prosecution witnesses have been cross-examined by the defence at length, but nothing has been elucidated to disbelieve the prosecution case. 15. Heard, Mr. Bijay Kumar Sinha, learned counsel appearing for the appellants and Mr. Vikash Kishore, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the Sate. Sarfuddin Ahmad (P.W.6) is the Investigating officer of the case. These all prosecution witnesses have been cross-examined by the defence at length, but nothing has been elucidated to disbelieve the prosecution case. 15. Heard, Mr. Bijay Kumar Sinha, learned counsel appearing for the appellants and Mr. Vikash Kishore, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the Sate. Perused the record including the First Information Report, the charge framed against the appellants and the evidence of all the prosecution witnesses, exhibits and statement of accused recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C., defence witnesses and defence exhibits. This Court is of the opinion, that the prosecution evidence is not consistent to the prosecution case, as the prosecution has not come up with true version of the case. The prosecution has not disclosed the injuries caused upon the accused, during transaction and non-explanation by the prosecution with respect to the injuries caused upon the accused as Exhibits-A & B Series and admitted by Investigating officer (P.W.6), though simple in nature, does not relieved the prosecution from its obligation to do so, as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Subramani and Ors. Vs. State of Tamil Nadu, as reported in (2002) 7 SCC 210 (supra). Thus, this Court is of the opinion that the prosecution has not brought the true version of the case, as such, the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence is not sustainable in the eyes of law. 16. Accordingly, the charge and conviction of the appellant No.1, Pasu Mandal under Section 323 I.P.C. is hereby set aside and the charge and conviction of the appellant No.2, Fagu Mandal under Sections 326/34 I.P.C. is also hereby set aside. 17. Thus, the judgment of conviction dated 28.01.2004 and order of sentence dated 29.01.2004, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, F.T.C. 3rd, Bokaro, in S.T. Case No.13 of 1999, is hereby set aside by giving benefit of doubt to the appellants. 18. In the result, the instant Criminal appeal stands allowed. 19. Consequently, the appellants, who are on bail, are discharged from the liabilities of their bail bonds. 20. Let L.C.R. along with a copy of this judgment be sent to the court concerned at once.