JUDGMENT B.B. Mangalmurti, J. - As both appeals arise out of same judgment of conviction passed in Sessions Trial No. 213 of 1999 by the court of Sessions Judge, Latehar, they were heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment. Heard learned counsel for the appellants and learned counsel for the State. 2. The appellants are aggrieved by the judgment of conviction dated 16.12.2002 and order of sentence dated 17.12.2002, passed by learned Sessions Judge, Latehar, in S.T. No.213 of 1999, holding the appellants guilty for the offences under Sections 448, 341, 380 and 307/34 of the Indian Penal Code. The appellants Ram Naresh Sao and Kewala Devi have been sentenced to undergo R.I. for three years under Section 307 I.P.C., R.I. for one year under Section 380 I.P.C., R.I. for one month under Section 341 I.P.C. and R.I. for three months under Section 448 I.P.C. Appellants Bijay Prasad and Sunil Prasad have been sentenced to undergo R.I. for five years under Section 307/34 I.P.C., R.I. for one year under Section 380 I.P.C., R.I. for one month under Section 341 I.P.C. and R.I. for three months under Section 448 I.P.C. All the sentences shall run concurrently. 3. The prosecution case in short is that the fardbeyan of Dilip Prasad was recorded by S.I. Jakaria Khan, on 29.08.1998 at 12.15 Noon at the verandah of Sadar Police Station, Palamau at Daltonganj that he is resident of village Saryu under Garu Police Station and his neighbour Naresh Sao, whose son Vijay Sao fell ill due to jaundice about nine months ago and thereafter his family members started calling his wife as Daain and due to this reason there was some quarrel between both the families few months ago. This matter was complained to Garu Police Station but no action was taken so the family members of Naresh Sao were causing nuisance. The further case is that on previous day i.e., on 28.08.1998 at around 10:00 P.M., his neighbour Naresh Sao, Vijay Sao, Sunil Sao and Kewala Devi knocked his door, when he opened the door, he recognized his neighbours Sunil Sao and Vijay Sao from their voice. He also saw that Naresh Sao along with his family members were holding lathi whereas Vijay Sao was holding gandasa and Kewala Devi was holding arwai (iron rod) and they assaulted them. He also saw that Naresh Sao along with his family members were holding lathi whereas Vijay Sao was holding gandasa and Kewala Devi was holding arwai (iron rod) and they assaulted them. Naresh Sao instigated Vijay Sao then Vijay Sao assaulted him from gandasa causing head injury due to which he fell on the ground. They also caused injuries to his son Raju and his wife Lilawati Devi on several places by lathi. Vijay Sao gave blow on the neck. Informant and others tried to escape, but were chased by accused persons for some distance but due to assembling of the villagers, accused persons returned. It is further alleged that Vijay took his wrist watch and Naresh Sao took Rs. 10,000/- from his shop and Sunil snatched golden chain from his wife and fled away. Due to the fear of accused persons and as there was much water in the river, they could not approach Garu Police Station and came here. They have also kidnapped his bhagina Mohan. On the basis of this fardbeyan, which was forwarded and was registered as Garu P.S. Case No.13 of 1998 dated 03.09.1998 under Sections 448, 341, 324, 307, 323, 379 and 364/34 of the Indian Penal Code, corresponding to G.R. Case No.268 of 1998. During investigation, the dead body of Mohan Prasad was recovered from a well and the same was sent for post-mortem, then Section 302/201 of the Indian Penal Code was also added. After investigation, the Police submitted the charge-sheet against all the appellants under Sections 448, 341, 324, 323, 307, 379, 364, 302 and 201/34 of the Indian Penal Code and accordingly cognizance of the offence was taken and the case was committed to the Court of Sessions. Charges upon all the four appellants were framed under Sections 448, 341, 380, 364/34, 302/34 and 307/34 of the Indian Penal Code upon which they denied the charge and claimed to be tried. Thereafter, the trial upon all the appellants proceeded. 4. In order to prove the prosecution case, ten witnesses including the I.O. and the Doctor were examined, whereas defence has examined three witnesses on their behalf and one Doctor was also examined as court witness. Thereafter, the trial upon all the appellants proceeded. 4. In order to prove the prosecution case, ten witnesses including the I.O. and the Doctor were examined, whereas defence has examined three witnesses on their behalf and one Doctor was also examined as court witness. The Trial Court convicted all the appellants under Sections 448/341, 380 and 307/34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced Ram Naresh Sao and Kewala Devi R.I. for three years under Sections 307/34 of the Indian Penal Code whereas Vijay Prasad and Sunil Prasad were awarded R.I. for five years. The Court also awarded R.I. for one year to all the four appellants under Sections 380 of the Indian Penal Code whereas all the appellants were awarded three months imprisonment under Section 448 of the Indian Penal Code and one month imprisonment under Section 341 of the Indian Penal Code. The Trial Court did not held guilty under Section 302/34 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code and has acquitted all the appellants under those sections. 5. P.W.-1 Dilip Prasad is informant of this case and has stated that the occurrence is of one year ago. He was sleeping in his house with family members then someone knocked as a customer. When he opened the door, suddenly four persons entered in his house and one of them assaulted with gandasa as a result of which he fell down and became unconscious. He further stated that after 4-5 hours he regained his consciousness and found that his bhagina and son are not present. After four days, the body of his bhagina was recovered from a well and his son was found with his grandmother in an injured condition. He further stated that he had given his statement when the Police came to his house. He has proved his signature on fardbeyan which has been marked as Ext.1. At this stage, this witness was declared hostile and prosecution was allowed to cross-examine him. 6. P.W.-2 Manju Kumari is daughter of informant and a minor child who also did not supported the prosecution case and was also declared hostile. 7. P.W.-3 Raju Prasad, son of informant Dilip Prasad, is also a minor and had stated that Mohan Sao was his cousin and is now dead. He further stated that he is not aware who had killed him. 7. P.W.-3 Raju Prasad, son of informant Dilip Prasad, is also a minor and had stated that Mohan Sao was his cousin and is now dead. He further stated that he is not aware who had killed him. He also stated that assault was made to him but he could not say who had assaulted him. This witness was also declared hostile and not supported the prosecution case. During cross-examination, he has stated that he had fled to the house of his grandmother and he had not recognized anyone. 8. P.W.-4 Bhuneshwar Oraon is a retired teacher who has been tendered by the prosecution. 9. P.W.-5 Ayodhyaya Prasad is a formal witness before whom inquestreport was prepared and he has proved his signature over it which was marked as Ext.2. He has also stated the he is not knowing who had committed murder of Mohan Prasad. This witness was also declared hostile. 10. P.W.-6 Md. Israr Beg is a formal witness who has proved his signature over inquest-report that has been marked as Ext.2/1. 11. P.W.-7 Md. Khalifa also denied about the knowledge of this case. This witness is also declared hostile. 12. P.W.-8 Lilawati Devi is wife of informant and is mami of deceased Mohan Prasad. She has stated that the occurrence is almost of 1 to 1 year ago on a Friday. At around 10:00 P.M. when they were sleeping in their house after reconciling the statement of the day''s trading of the shop, some persons knocked the door then her husband asked, then in reply they disclosed their names as Naresh Sao, Vijay Sao, Kewala Devi and Sunil Sao and asked for the supply of bidi and match box. Her husband opened the door then they started assaulting her husband. Vijay Sao assaulted her husband with gandasa on his head whereas Kewala Devi assaulted with Arwai (bhujali) to his son Raju Prasad on the right side of his eye. Due to fear her daughter Manju and son Raju concealed themselves in a box. Sunil Prasad assaulted Mohan and also took him on his shoulder. Kewala Devi assaulted to this witness through danda. She further stated that Naresh Sao snatched Rs. 10,000/- from her box and Vijay Sao snatched a torch and a wrist watch from the hands of her husband. Sunil Prasad assaulted Mohan and also took him on his shoulder. Kewala Devi assaulted to this witness through danda. She further stated that Naresh Sao snatched Rs. 10,000/- from her box and Vijay Sao snatched a torch and a wrist watch from the hands of her husband. While this witness was fleeing away, Kewala Devi snatched golden chain from her neck as well as silver payal. She fled to the bazar area where her husband had also reached. They spent their night at bazar area due to fear and in the morning they went to Latehar Police Station where they were advised to approach Garu Police Station. When they sat on a vehicle for going to Garu Police Station, Sunil and Vijay also sat on the same vehicle then due to fear they did not get down at Dubia Khand and came to Daltonganj. Her statement as well as statement of her husband were recorded at Daltonganj by darogaji. Darogaji read out the content of it on which her husband signed and she gave her thumb impression. She also stated that accused persons were calling her daain and due to that reason the assaults were made. They were telling to kill her. The dead body of Mohan was found in a well. She recognized all the four appellants present in court. Lastly she stated that in her absence accused persons had pressurized her husband and son for which she had complained to the Police and had also informed to the Garu Police Station. This witness was cross-examined at length. She supported the prosecution version and stood the test of cross-examination. 13. P.W.-9 is Dr. Ashok Kumar Das, Medical Officer, who had conducted post-mortem upon the dead body of Mohan Prasad aged about ten years and found following ante-mortem injuries :- (i) Fracture of left parietal part of the scalp leading to laceration of brain matter. This injury was sufficient to cause the death. (ii) Maggots all over body and decomposition of the internal organ. (iii) Face, nose and lip (partially lost and blackening due to ecchymosis. In his opinion, the cause of death was due to shock and haemorrhage. He proved the post-mortem report which is in his pen and signature and the same was marked as Ext.3. (ii) Maggots all over body and decomposition of the internal organ. (iii) Face, nose and lip (partially lost and blackening due to ecchymosis. In his opinion, the cause of death was due to shock and haemorrhage. He proved the post-mortem report which is in his pen and signature and the same was marked as Ext.3. During cross-examination he replied that injury No.1 is possible if a person accidently fell into a well or dashed with the wall of the well. 14. P.W.-10 Gauri Shankar Jha is the Investigating Officer of the case. He stated that he was posted at Garu Police Station as S.I. on 03.09.1998. He received a fardbeyan by Dilip Sao from Daltonganj Sadar Police Station. The fardbeyan was recorded by Jakaria Khan, S.I., Sadar Police Station on the basis of the statement of Dilip Sao. He recognized fardbeyan in the handwriting and signature of Jakaria Khan which has been marked as Ext.4. On the basis of this fardbeyan, formal F.I.R. was lodged which is in the handwriting of Ramashish Ram, the then Officer-in-charge, Garu Police Station and the handwriting and signature was recognized by this witness which has been marked Ext.5. During investigation he recorded the re-statement of informant as well as wife of informant Lilawati Devi, son Raju Prasad and daughter Manju Kumari at the Police Station. Thereafter he went for inspection of the place of occurrence. Firstly, he inspected the well in which the dead body of Mohan Prasad was found. He proved the inquest report prepared with a carbon process on which Md. Israr and Ayodhya Prasad had signed over it. He proved the carbon copy of inquest report as Ext.6. He inspected another place of occurrence which is situated at village Saryu, the house of informant, which is a khapdaposh house. He gave the details of the house. He found open wooden box and some rupees and coins were found scattered. It seems that after assault lootpaat was committed. He did not find any blood stain at this place of occurrence. It is said that from this place Mohan Prasad was kidnapped by the accused persons. He gave the details of the house. He found open wooden box and some rupees and coins were found scattered. It seems that after assault lootpaat was committed. He did not find any blood stain at this place of occurrence. It is said that from this place Mohan Prasad was kidnapped by the accused persons. He also recorded the statement of other independent witnesses and after finding the dead body, he made prayer for addition of Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code in the F.I.R. He received the injury-report and post-mortem report and after getting the instruction of the Senior Officer, submitted the charge-sheet in this case. He also proved confessional statement of Kewala Devi before the Police which was in his handwriting and signature and proved it as Ext.7. The prosecution has also taken some contradictions of the evidences of those witnesses who have became hostile before the Court. During crossexamination he has stated that he had recorded the statement of Kewala Devi while she was in custody. He also stated that Suman, the brother of the deceased was present at the place of occurrence and has suspected that Dilip Sao might be involved in the murder of his brother Mohan. He has also stated that the informant had not given any torch nor had shown any instrument of light in which accused persons were recognized. He has also stated that he had not recorded the statement of his brother Suman in the case-diary. He denied the suggestion that in connivance with the informant he had not investigated the case properly. He also denied the suggestion that he has falsely implicated the accused persons by submitting wrong chargesheet. 15. Dr. Ram Nath Choudhary has been examined as Court Witness No.1. He has stated that he was posted as Medical Officer, Sadar Hospital, Daltonganj on 29.08.1998 and on that day at about 12:45 P.M. he had examined Lilawati Devi wife of Dilip Sao and found the following : (i). Complain of pain on right arm. (ii). Complain of pain on the back. He has stated that the injuries were simple in nature caused by hard and blunt substance. Age of injury was within four hours. He proved the injury-report to be in his pen and signature which was marked as Ext.8. On the same day he had also examined Dilip Prasad and Raju Prasad. 16. (ii). Complain of pain on the back. He has stated that the injuries were simple in nature caused by hard and blunt substance. Age of injury was within four hours. He proved the injury-report to be in his pen and signature which was marked as Ext.8. On the same day he had also examined Dilip Prasad and Raju Prasad. 16. The statement of the accused persons were recorded under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. in which they have denied the evidence against them and claimed themselves to be innocent and their false implication in this case. 17. The defence has examined three witnesses out of which D.W.-1 is Suman Prasad, brother of deceased Mohan Prasad, has stated that he lodged a case in Garu Police Station. 18. D.W.-2 is Niru Devi, the step mother of the deceased. She has stated that after the death of her husband she has started living in her naihar. 19. D.W.-3 is Nageshwar Thakur, a formal witness, who has proved the fardbeyan of G.R. No.272 of 1998 recorded by Ramasish Ram, the then Officer-in-Charge of Garu Police Station and proved his signature, which has been marked as Ext.A. The fardbeyan of Suman Kumar was proved as Ext.A/1. During cross-examination he has stated that he has no personal knowledge about the case nor it was written before him. 20. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that conviction has been based on solitary evidence of P.W.-8 Lilawati Devi although her husband, who is informant of this case, her injured son Raju have been declared hostile, therefore, in absence of any corroboration, conviction is bad in law. He further submitted that out of ten prosecution witnesses, five have been declared hostile and one witness has been tendered besides the I.O. and the Doctor. He also submitted that the prosecution has not been able to prove the case beyond all reasonable doubts. He also submitted that the intent and ingredients of Section 307 I.P.C. have not been proved by the prosecution and even the injuries caused to Lilawati Devi is not on the vital parts of the body and in the opinion of the Doctor, the injuries were found simple in nature. In the alternative, he submitted that the conviction made under Section 307 can be converted into Section 326 of the Indian Penal Code, if at all, the conviction is found to be proved. 21. In the alternative, he submitted that the conviction made under Section 307 can be converted into Section 326 of the Indian Penal Code, if at all, the conviction is found to be proved. 21. Learned A.P.P. appearing on behalf of the State submitted that the occurrence took place in the night but the convicts were recognized and the reliability of the evidence is shown on behalf of the prosecution. P.W.-8 has given the actual account of the assault which has been amply corroborated by the evidence of Court Witness No.1 Dr. Ram Nath Choudhary who had examined all the three injured persons including P.W.-8 Lilawati Devi. 22. Having heard learned counsels for both the sides and upon scrutiny of the evidences adduced on behalf of the prosecution, it appears that P.W.-1 Dilip Prasad, P.W.-2 Manju Kumari, P.W.-3 Raju Prasad, P.W.-5 Ayodhya Prasad and P.W.-7 Md. Khalifa, all became hostile and not supported the prosecution case. P.W.-4 Bhuneshwar Oraon has been tendered by the prosecution. P.W.-9 Dr. Ashok Kumar Das who had conducted the postmortem examination on the dead body of Mohan Prasad is of no help as the Trial Court has acquitted the appellants on the charge under Section 302/34 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code. Therefore, only witness Lilawati Devi who has been examined as P.W.-8 has supported the prosecution case and she has given the detailed account of injury caused by the appellants to her, her husband, her son and daughter but her husband Dilip Prasad who has been examined as P.W.-1 and her son and daughter being P.W.-2 Manju Kumari and P.W.-3 Raju Prasad have not supported her version nor the injuries caused to them. Therefore, her evidence with regard to assault is not corroborated even by her close relatives. It further appears that P.W.-10 Gauri Shankar Jha, I.O. of this case has admitted in paragraph 17 that Suman, brother of the deceased, had suspected the informant to be involved in the murder of his brother Mohan. Although in the subsequent paragraph at paragraph 20 he has stated that statement of Suman was not recorded in the case diary. It further appears that P.W.-10 Gauri Shankar Jha, I.O. of this case has admitted in paragraph 17 that Suman, brother of the deceased, had suspected the informant to be involved in the murder of his brother Mohan. Although in the subsequent paragraph at paragraph 20 he has stated that statement of Suman was not recorded in the case diary. The brother of the deceased Suman was examined as D.W.-1 who has stated only about the lodgement of the case but the defence through D.W.-3 Nageshwar Thakur has brought on record Ext.A. Since the Trial Court had acquitted these appellants under Sections 302/34 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code, therefore, it is not necessary to go into this part of the evidence. Therefore, the prosecution case is only brought on record through P.W.-8 Lilawati Devi without any corroboration with other prosecution witnesses. Even assuming that she has been injured, then the injury found by the Doctor was simple, does not fall under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code. The appellants'' side has been able to create doubt on the prosecution evidence which has not been properly brought on record, therefore, benefit of doubt could be extended to the appellants. 23. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the judgment of conviction dated 16.12.2002 and order of sentence dated 17.12.2002, passed by learned Sessions Judge, Latehar, in S.T. No.213 of 1999 cannot be sustained in the eyes of law and the same is hereby set aside. 24. In the result, both these appeals stand allowed. 25. Since all the four appellants are on bail, therefore, they are discharged from the liabilities of their bail bonds. 26. Let the Lower Court Records be sent back to the Court concerned forthwith, along with the copy of this Judgment.