Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 1927 (JHR)

Sanatan Turu v. State Of Jharkhand

2018-08-23

RATNAKER BHENGRA

body2018
JUDGMENT Ratnaker Bhengra, J. - This Criminal Appeal has been preferred against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 29.4.2003 and 30.4.2003 respectively passed by Additional District & Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.7, Jamshedpur in connection with S.T. Case No. 188 of 1997 arising out of Potka P.S. Case no. 63 of 1995, G.R. no. 1498 of 1995 whereby and whereunder appellants have been convicted for the offence u/s 307/34 I.P.C. and have been sentenced to undergo R.I. for five years and to pay fine of Rs. 1000/- which was imposed upon each convicts and in default of payment of fine amount each convicts were further sentenced to undergo R.I. for two months. 2. Before moving forward it is pertinent to mention here that appellant no.1 Sanatan Turu died during the pendency of this Criminal Appeal as per letter dated 6.8.2016 sent by S.P. East Singhbhum, Jamshedpur to this Court. Hence, this criminal appeal against appellant Sanatan Turu stands abetted. 3. The case of the prosecution as per the fardbeyan of Umedanand Sharswati PW-3 given on 8.8.95 is that he had been making arrangement for Pooja at Mukteswar Dham temple situated at village Harina like he did so for last two years. Mukteswar Dham is situated at the distance of 1 k.m. from village Harina. Some persons namely Satish Chandra, Pase and others are also engaged to perform the Pooja. There were three orphan children residing in the temple and informant was looking after the orphan children. The further case of prosecution is that Umedanand Sharswati had been looking after organization run by the said temple. The organization compromises of several members. There is also a school which is run and controlled by the said organization. The head master of the said school is Bahara Majhi. The said Bahara Majhi wanted to make separate executive body compromising of the Adivasi people to run the school as well as the Mukteshwar temple, while, the school was constructed by general public with the help of public money for educating the children of weaker class. When Bahara Majhi was trying to make separate executive body for running the school the informant had opposed so because the school was running under the organization of temple and was made for educating the children of all classes. It is further alleged that all effort was made by the informant to save the organization. When Bahara Majhi was trying to make separate executive body for running the school the informant had opposed so because the school was running under the organization of temple and was made for educating the children of all classes. It is further alleged that all effort was made by the informant to save the organization. But on 7.8.95 at 6:30 p.m.in evening Bahara Majhi along with the school teachers and also with the help of Adivasis came to the temple accompanied with Narayan Murmu, Manka Majhi, Sanatan Tuddu, Kutlu Majhi and 5 to 6 persons who were in drunken state armed with lathi, spade, axe and other weapons. They came to the temple and they started to assault the informant saying that temple and school both are the property of Adivasi organization. They were also giving threat to the informant to leave at once the said organization. The accused persons were also pulling the informant by catching his ponytail. They took the informant to a distance of at least k.m. from the temple by pulling him on the ground. The informant had sustained injuries on his back. Accused persons also inflicted lathi blow on the head causing fracture on the head of the informant. Thereafter, the villagers came there and they caught hold of some of the appellants and they handed over them to the police. The informant was taken to the TMH by the members of the committee where he was treated. 4. On the basis of the fardbeyan of informant Umedanand Sharswati Potka P.S. case No. 63 of 1995 was registered. Investigation was conducted and charge sheet was submitted against the accused. Cognizance was taken and the case was committed to the court of Sessions. Thereafter charges were framed against seven accused U/Ss. 147, 148,342,120B and 307/34 IPC. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. On the conclusion of trial, the accused were convicted and sentenced as aforesaid. Hence, this appeal. 5. The prosecution in order to establish its case has examined altogether eight witnesses. PW-3 Umedanand Sharsawati is the informant of the case. PW-1 Krishna Nayak, PW-2, Azambar Nayak and Pw-6 Lal Mohan Patro are the students who were residing and studying in the Ashram. PW4 Subhash Chandra Nayak is the resident of village Harina. PW-5 was declared hostile, PW-7 Dr.A.P.Patro is the medical officer who examined the informant and PW-8 is Dr. PW-3 Umedanand Sharsawati is the informant of the case. PW-1 Krishna Nayak, PW-2, Azambar Nayak and Pw-6 Lal Mohan Patro are the students who were residing and studying in the Ashram. PW4 Subhash Chandra Nayak is the resident of village Harina. PW-5 was declared hostile, PW-7 Dr.A.P.Patro is the medical officer who examined the informant and PW-8 is Dr. Saroj Kumar Das who gave expert opinion regarding the injuries on the informant. Four witnesses were examined by the defence . Out of which D.W. 1 Narayan Murmu and D.W.2 Manka Manjhi are accused appellant in this case. The other two defence witnesses are D.W.-3 Kamal Kant Nayak and D.W.4 Balram Jee. 6. P.W.3 Mahanth Umedanand Sharswati is the informant of this case. He said that he had been residing at Mukteswar Dham Ashram at Harina since 1993. He used to manage the Ashram and he was performing his duty at Mukteswar Ashram as a "poojari". He further said that occurrence took place on 7.8.95, Monday, at 6 p.m. in the evening. Krishna Nayak PW-1, Ajambar Nayak PW-2 and Lal Mohan Patro PW6 had also been residing in the Ashram and they had been studying there at Mukteshwari Dham Ashram school. At the time of occurrence, he was present in the verandah of the Ashram. All of sudden four persons namely, Manka Majhi, Sanatan Tuddu, Kutlu Majhi and Narayan Murmu entered into the Ashram and 5 to 10 persons stood outside the Ashram. Narayn Murmu and other three accused were saying that you are taking confrontation with the Headmaster and they had also threatened to kill him. They were armed with stick, sword and pistol. They assaulted him with lathi and pierced sword on his left leg as a result blood oozed out. Then he was pulled outside the Ashram by pulling his ponytail. Persons standing outside also assaulted him. This witness further deposed that he raised alarm thereafter the villagers came at the place of occurrence after forty five minutes. He became unconscious and regained sense next day in the morning at TMH Hospital. He was admitted in TMH for three days and thereafter he underwent treatment in the Sidheshwar Nursing Home, Adityapur. He proved his signature on the fard-beyan which was marked as Ext.1. 7. Pw-1 Krishna Nayak is a student who was said to be living and studying in the Ashram. He was admitted in TMH for three days and thereafter he underwent treatment in the Sidheshwar Nursing Home, Adityapur. He proved his signature on the fard-beyan which was marked as Ext.1. 7. Pw-1 Krishna Nayak is a student who was said to be living and studying in the Ashram. He said that on the day of occurrence he was studying in Mukteswar Ashram at Harina. 4 to 5 persons came there and took "Baba Jee" (Umedanand Sharswati) to road by pulling his ponytail. 10 to 15 persons were standing outside the Ashram. This witness has also said that P.W.6 Lal Mohan and P.W.2 Ajambar and he himself fled to the village and they informed the villagers that some persons were assaulting Umedanand Sharswati. On returning from village he saw Babajee was wounded and bleeding. He also stated that the persons who had assaulted and dragged Umedanand Sharswati were Kutlu Majhi, Manka Majhi and Narayan Murmu.In his cross-examination, he said that distance between Harina village and temple is 2 k.m. and 20- 25 minutes time is taken to cover the distance by walking. 8. P.W.2 Azambar Nayak is also one of the student who was living and studying in the Ashram. He said on the day of occurrence Manka Majhi, Kutlu Majhi, Narayan Murmu and Sanatan Tuddu entered into the Ashram and they told Babajee as to why he was abusing the school''s teacher. Thereafter, they started assaulting Babajee and brought him on the road by pulling his ponytail. Then he along with Lalmohan PW-6 and Krishna Nayak PW-1 fled away to village and they informed the matter to the villagers who came there and caught hold of three accused persons namely Kutlu Majhi, Narayan Murmu and Manka Majhi. In his crossexamination, he deposed that dispute between the parties was going on from before as an amount of Rs. 2 lac was given from the M.P. fund to construct the building of school. Both parties were claiming to construct the building. 9. P.W.4 is Subhash Chandra Nayak is from village Harina. He said that on the day of occurrence three boys namely Krishna Nayak, Ajembar Nayak and Lal Mohan Patro came to the village and told him that some persons have been assaulting Sadhu Baba. Thereafter, he and at least 150 to 200 persons came to the place of occurrence and there he saw that Narayan Majhi,Kutlu Majhi, Manka Majhi. He said that on the day of occurrence three boys namely Krishna Nayak, Ajembar Nayak and Lal Mohan Patro came to the village and told him that some persons have been assaulting Sadhu Baba. Thereafter, he and at least 150 to 200 persons came to the place of occurrence and there he saw that Narayan Majhi,Kutlu Majhi, Manka Majhi. Narayan Majhi was lying at the gate of Ashram. Kutlu Majhi was tied to a tree and Manka was sitting at Chautal and Babajee was already taken to hospital. Chaukidar and other peoples were present. After some interval, police came there. 10. Pw-6 Lal Mohan Patro is the third student who was present at Mukteswar Dhan Ashram, on the day of occurrence. He said that three to four persons entered into the Ashram abusing Babajee. He along with other had fled away from there and they went to village Harina and informed the villagers about the occurrence. On returning he saw three persons and Babajee was bleeding. In his cross-examination, he deposed that Hrina village is about 2-3 k.m. away from the temple. As it was rainy season, so in going to Harina village, informing the people there and from returning there, it took 2 to 3 hours. On returning to the place of occurrence, no one was there. In the paragraph-4 he deposed that he only heard the abuses and had not seen any assault. 11. Pw-7 is Dr. A.P.Patro is the medical officer who examined Umedanand Sharswati on 8.8.95. He deposed that on 8.8.95, he was posted at TMH (emergency) as senior Medical Officer. On that date at about 12:05 a.m. he examined Umedanand Sarswati aged about 42 years and found following injuries: 1. Lacerated wound on vault 1"x1/2"x1/2" 2. Abrasion, contusion chest and abdomen. 3. Frictional injury, abrasion on back. 4. Contusion abrasion right side fore head. He said Weapon used to inflict injuries was hard and blunt. Age of injury was with fresh bleeding 6 hours. He proved the injury report which was marked as Ext.2. In his cross-examination, regarding injury No. (iii) he said that if some body had been dragged on the ground surface whole of the body will exhibit frictional injury and he had not mentioned size of that injury. He had not mentioned any injury on thigh or leg. He proved the injury report which was marked as Ext.2. In his cross-examination, regarding injury No. (iii) he said that if some body had been dragged on the ground surface whole of the body will exhibit frictional injury and he had not mentioned size of that injury. He had not mentioned any injury on thigh or leg. He also said that in the injury report it was not noted that injury no.1 had seen stitched. 12. P.W.-8 Dr. Saroj Kumar Das, is the surgeon who had given expert opinion regarding the injuries of the informant . He deposed in para 2 that patient had four injuries on his person. Injury Nos. i, ii and iii were simple in nature whereas injury No.iv fracture of 11th rib right side was grievous in nature. X-ray plate No.was 16997. The report was marked as Ext. 2/A. In his cross-examination, he had deposed that, injury No.1 was stitched and he had not mentioned its size. Injury no. ii was contusion abrasion chest and abdomen whereas injury No. iii was contusion with abrasion on fore head. Fourth injury was contusion chest. He had not mentioned in his injury report regarding any injury on the back. Regarding injury no. iv he had not indicated any side regarding this injury no. (iv). He had not handed over X-Ray plate, radiological examination report, history sheet of the patient to the police. The patient was discharged within 24 hours from the hospital. 13. D.W.1 Narayan Murmu and D.W.2 Manka Manjhi both are appellant in this case and are defence witness. D.W.1 Narayan Murmu, appellant deposed that he, Kutlu Manjhi and Manka Majhi were injured. He deposed that they were called on 7.8.1995, by Umedanand Sharaswati to the Harina mandir, where 7 to 8 criminals were present. Then a case No. 62 of 1995 was lodged in Potka Police Station on the basis of statement of Manka Manjhi D.w.-2. They were treated at Potka government hospital after which three of them were sent to jail. He had further deposed that Umedanand Sharaswati had illegally took the possession of the mandir and the village people had opposed this. Panchayati was also held. Umedanand Shraswati had raised serious situation with his friends and in this order about 150 persons had gathered. The village people had pacified the situation, during which Umedanand Sharaswati was injured. D.W.2 Manka Manjhi deposed same as D.W. 1. Panchayati was also held. Umedanand Shraswati had raised serious situation with his friends and in this order about 150 persons had gathered. The village people had pacified the situation, during which Umedanand Sharaswati was injured. D.W.2 Manka Manjhi deposed same as D.W. 1. 14. D.W.3 is Kamal Kant Nayak is the other defence witness. He is a local villager and he was secretary of the Mukteshwar Aashram Samiti. He has deposed that Umedanand came to the village in 1986 and he wanted to take over the possession of the land of the Aashram. He further deposed that the incident occurred 7 to 8 years ago. Umedanand had brought 8-10 men and beaten up Narayan, and Manka. He further deposed that on information he had gone with the others and saw 200 to 300 people there and in the midst of the incident Umedanand was injured. The accused had not assaulted Umedanand. In his cross-examination, he has deposed that Umedanand did not manage the Mukteshwar Dham Mandir and he was never a member of the mandir. He was in the Aashram. Dinesh Chandra was the priest of the mandir. 15. Dw-4 is Balram Jee is also a defence witness. He had come on order of the court with one register in which the injuries of Manka Manjhi, Putul Manjhi and Narayan Manjhi was written. These three persons were sent by the Potka Police Station for examination on 7.8.95 through a memo. The description of their injuries were written and had been done so by the then Medical Officer, Mithilesh Kumar Singh. He proved the signature of Mithilesh Kumar on the injury report of Narayan Manjhi which was marked as Ext-A. He also proved the signature on A/2 which pertain to the injury reports of Manka Manjhi. 16. Arguments CANVASSED ON BEHALF OF APPELLANTS: Learned counsel for the appellants has first highlighted what according to him was the inconsistencies or contradictions in the evidences of the prosecution witnesses. Referring to the evidence of PW-3, the informant Umedanand Sharswati counsel for the appellants submitted in his fardbeyan the informant said about four named persons and 5 to 6 persons to have entered the temple but in his evidence, he says four persons entered while 8 to 10 persons remained outside. Referring to the evidence of PW-3, the informant Umedanand Sharswati counsel for the appellants submitted in his fardbeyan the informant said about four named persons and 5 to 6 persons to have entered the temple but in his evidence, he says four persons entered while 8 to 10 persons remained outside. In the fardbeyan it was said that the accused were armed with lathi , danda, bhala and kulhari, while in the deposition informant had said that accused were armed with pistol and talwar (sword). Moreover, in the deposition informant says the sword was pierced in his left leg which is a new addition. 17. Regarding the injuries sustained by the informant, counsel submitted that informant had deposed that he was unconscious for forty five minutes, but then also contradicts himself by saying that he regained consciousness the next day. He has also deposed that his whole body was scalped, but there are no such injuries in the medical report. Again, he has deposed that his bone came out, but again no such injury has been evidenced in the medical report. He has deposed that he was admitted for three days which counsel says is a patent lie, because, as per evidence of PW-8, the doctor, the informant was discharged within 24 hours. If he was discharged within 24 hours, his injuries cannot be serious, or as alleged. Again, he has deposed that he was in treatment in a Nursing Home for one month, but there is no documentary evidence for such treatment. Counsel for the appellant then argued in his cross-examination the informant priest himself said that he came to the temple in 1993. So the temple was already in existence and now he has a vested interest in continuing it there as there is reference to M.P. funds and construction of school building from the said fund. 18. Learned counsel further submitted that PW-1 Krishna Nayak who was one of the students , who lived at the mandir in his cross-examination, deposed that he knew from before the names of the four persons. However, he did not tell the names of the four persons to the police since, they had not asked him. This witness, has only described the holding of the ponytail of the priest and he did not said about specific assault by the appellants. 19. However, he did not tell the names of the four persons to the police since, they had not asked him. This witness, has only described the holding of the ponytail of the priest and he did not said about specific assault by the appellants. 19. Referring to the evidence of PW-2 Azambar Nayak , who was also one of the students who lived in mandir, counsel for the appellants submitted that he in his deposition had not said about carrying any arms by the appellants. Referring to the cross-examination of PW-2, learned counsel submitted that at para 3 he deposed that the accused and the informant were in disputing terms from before. He has also said that from the M.P. funds, Rs. 2 lacs were given and this is why there was a dispute as both parties wanted to construct the school building. 20. Learned counsel for the appellants has then referred to the evidence of PW-6 or Lal Mohan Patro who was also a student studying and residing at the mandir. He has simply said that on the day of occurrence three to four persons entered the Ashram abusing Baba jee. Counsel submitted that PW-6 has not named any accused. This witness has also said that he went with others to the Harina village to inform the villagers about the occurrence. 21. Learned counsel further submitted that P.W.7 or Dr.A.P.Patro had examined Umedanand Sharswati on 8.8.95 at 12:05 a.m. Counsel says that he has only indicated laceration, abrasion and contusion and weapon used as being hard and blunt. Counsel said that as per the evidence of PW7, weapon is at the most a stick and the injuries are only abrasion, contusion and laceration, hence, no case for section 307 IPC is made out, and the appellants have been falsely implicated and harassed right from 1995. 22. Learned counsel has then referred to the evidence of another doctor P.W.8 or Dr. Saroj Kumar Das who had given expert opinion and argued that the evidence of PW-7 and PW8 do not totally correspond with each other. 22. Learned counsel has then referred to the evidence of another doctor P.W.8 or Dr. Saroj Kumar Das who had given expert opinion and argued that the evidence of PW-7 and PW8 do not totally correspond with each other. Injury No. 3 as per PW-7 is frictional injury /abrasion on back, but PW-8 in his cross-examination said that he had not mentioned in injury report regarding any injury on the back PW-8 had also said he has based his report on radiological report but had neither handed over the X-ray plate to the police nor the radiological examination report. Counsel says, PW-8 contradicts himself about injury no. 4 as he had not submitted the X-ray plate to the police during investigation. Hence, there is great unreliability in the evidences of the doctors. 23. Learned counsel for the appellants further submitted that the evidence of the defence witnesses has not been given the due importance that should have been given. He says it has come from the evidence of the defence witnesses that initially case was lodged which was Potka P.S. Case No. 62 of 1995 against Umedanand Saraswati and others therefore it has to be taken into account that this is a case of case and counter case. In the evidences of DW-1 and DW-2 it is deposed that they were called by Umedanand Saraswati to the Harina Mandir where 7 to 8 criminals were already present and they were then beaten up by the criminals on the instigation of Umedanand Saraswati. From the evidence of DW-4 who is Balram Jee it has been revealed that the appellants side also received injuries. Balram Jee was directed to come to the Court with one register in which injuries of appellants Manka Majhi and Narayan Majhi were written. These injured appellants were sent by the Potka Police Station for examination. According to the evidence of DW-4, the description of the injuries was indicated by medical officer Mithilesh Kumar Singh. Therefore, the injury report of person who belongs to the appellant side have also been proved and therefore, there was injuries on both sides. So, reasonable reasons for these injuries being received then it is difficult to establish or prove who was the aggressor and the appellants would have been within their rights to defend themselves because they had been called by Umedanand Saraswati and were beaten up on his instigation. 24. So, reasonable reasons for these injuries being received then it is difficult to establish or prove who was the aggressor and the appellants would have been within their rights to defend themselves because they had been called by Umedanand Saraswati and were beaten up on his instigation. 24. Regarding the weapons used in the assault learned counsel for the appellants submitted that even otherwise the assault upon the informant Umedanand Saraswati seems to be omnibus and general in nature. It has not been stated by the informant as well as by PW-1,2 and 6 as to what weapons were used to commit assault and who made the specific assault on whom and on which part of the body the specific assault was made by a particular person. Informant has also said that he had been dragged for a distance of half kilometer, in such a case there would have been immense scratches, bruises and bleeding on all over the body but this is not a case like that. In para 2 of his evidence the informant has also named seven persons who were standing outside had also assaulted and thus the injuries could be caused by these 5-6 other persons. The informant has also initially said in the fardbeyan that assault was made by lathi and danda and subsequently in his evidence added a sword but the students PW-1, PW-2 and PW-6 did not mention regarding any weapons or such weapons and do not specifically said that such and such accused assaulted on any specific part of the body. Informant in his deposition has said that sword was pierced in his left leg but on the other hand injury report refers to only hard and blunt substance being used. Counsel said there is much variation in the alleged weapons which have been used therefore, the offence may be mere allegation. 25. Learned counsel then submitted that there is reasonable variation regarding the number of persons apart from the appellants who were said to have been present in the place of occurrence during the assault, as per the evidence of PW-1,2 and 3. PW-1 said that there were 10-15 persons whereas PW2 said there was 30-40 persons and PW-3 said there was 8-10 persons, so there is much inconsistency on this point in the evidence of prosecution witnesses. PW-1 said that there were 10-15 persons whereas PW2 said there was 30-40 persons and PW-3 said there was 8-10 persons, so there is much inconsistency on this point in the evidence of prosecution witnesses. Learned counsel then pointed out that it has come in the record that Umedanand Saraswati was dragged for half kilometer but then he was seen at the temple. It is not mentioned that after being dragged for half kilometer, what happened there and how he returned to the temple as he would have been in an injured condition. Learned counsel further stated that if he was dragged away for half kilometer then the place where the dragging stopped that would also constitute as place of occurrence but this has not been proved and neither anybody else corroborated this aspect. 26. Learned counsel has relied upon a judgment rendered by the Hon''ble Supreme Court in the case of Y. Venkaiah vs. State of A.P. , (2009) 2 EastCriC 122 (SC) on the point of common intention and submitted that appellants had no common intention and there is no evidence to support the prosecution case. Counsel said that from the entire records of the case and from the evidence that seems to be forthcoming it does not make out a case for the offence u/s 307/34 IPC against the appellant. Learned counsel further argued on the point of oldness of case or the age of the case and pointed out that the case is of the year 1995 and about twenty three years have passed and the appellants are now in advance age. Therefore, he prayed that period already spent by them in jail, may be considered as sufficient. 27. Argumetns ON BEHALF OF STATE-APP Learned counsel for the State on the other hand submits that the case against the appellant stands fully proved and established. There are sufficient evidences as the injured who is informant himself as well as the eye witnesses who had sustained injury and the three students also witnessed the assault and the injuries were also corroborated by the doctor. The eye witnesses PWs. 1,2 and 6 apart from the informant have disclosed the place of occurrence which happens to be a temple and have also disclosed the name of the appellants who have assaulted the informant. 28. Learned counsel further submitted that according to evidence of the doctor PW-8, injury nos. The eye witnesses PWs. 1,2 and 6 apart from the informant have disclosed the place of occurrence which happens to be a temple and have also disclosed the name of the appellants who have assaulted the informant. 28. Learned counsel further submitted that according to evidence of the doctor PW-8, injury nos. 1,2 and 3 were simple while injury No. 4 was grievous. Counsel also argued that apart from the evidences of the three students and the informant the incident was subsequently also witnessed by many village people who subsequently gathered on the spot. Moreover, the informant Umedanand Saraswati happens to be a respectable person who is a priest and resides in Ashram as well as looking after the children and he had perfectly legitimate reason regarding the growth and development of the Ashram and temple and obstruction by the appellants to the role of the priest was simply uncalled for and wrongly motivated. Hence, learned counsel for the State submitted that judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the learned court below deserves to be upheld. FINDINGS: 29. After hearing both the parties having gone through the records of the case and in the facts and circumstances of the case it appears that there is a dispute between both the sides of the parties concerned regarding control of an organization which brings within its ambit a temple , Ashram and also a school. The temple is known as Muketshwar Dham and there is also a school which is controlled by it. It has also come in the evidence of PW-2 Azamber Nayak that M.P. funds was sanctioned for construction of the school building. Accordingly, the incident has to be seen in the background of vested interest for power, money and influence from both the sides. Further there was case and counter case from both the side i.e. Potka P.S. Case No. 63 of 1995 and Potka P.S. case no. 62 of 1995 and both sides sustained injury which is on record. So it would be useful to look at this case in the aforesaid background also. 30. In the fardbeyan of the informant as well as in his deposition a significant difference in the use of alleged weapons for assault is seen. 62 of 1995 and both sides sustained injury which is on record. So it would be useful to look at this case in the aforesaid background also. 30. In the fardbeyan of the informant as well as in his deposition a significant difference in the use of alleged weapons for assault is seen. It has been mentioned in the fardbeayn by the informant that appellants and other persons had come armed with lathi, spade, axe and other weapons while in his deposition informant said about stick, sword and pistol being used. So the using of sword and pistol by the appellants apparently seems to be a new development and particularly pistol because this is a different kind of weapon altogether though the informant or any of the witnesses did not say about it. 31. Next to be considered is the injuries as alleged by the informant and analysis of evidences of doctor PW-7 and Pw-8. (1) Informant has alleged that he was dragged for k.m. but PW-8 who is a doctor and who gave expert opinion regarding injuries on the informant said at para 3 that he had not mentioned in the injury report regarding any injury on the back. (2) Informant at para 5 deposed that he was admitted in TMH hospital for three days where as doctor PW-8 at para 3 said that informant was discharged within 24 hours. (3) It appears from the evidence of PW-7 Dr. A.P.Patro that he had referred to four injuries on the person of informant Umedanand Saraswati and these are basically lacerations, abrasions, contusion and also of frictional injuries. Another Dr. Saroj Kumar Das was examined as PW-8 and gave expert opinion on the injuries of informant said injury no. iv which pertains to fracture of 11th rib right side was grievous in nature. So comparison of the report of Dr. Das and Dr. Patro indicates there is no similarity to each other. PW-7 Dr. Patro has not indicated any fracture while PW-8 Dr. Das indicated injury No.4 as being fracture of eleven rib on right side. This suggests that medical report of doctors are differing and doubtful. 32. It appears that in order to make the entire allegation even more concrete informant Umedanand Saraswati in his evidence at para 2 said that accused pierced sword in his left leg. Das indicated injury No.4 as being fracture of eleven rib on right side. This suggests that medical report of doctors are differing and doubtful. 32. It appears that in order to make the entire allegation even more concrete informant Umedanand Saraswati in his evidence at para 2 said that accused pierced sword in his left leg. But in his cross-examination at para 13 he said that in a separate case being case no. 362 of 1999 of this case he had given evidence but he did not depose about piercing of sword in his leg in that case. This indicates doubtful and contradictory evidences of the informant. 33. Moreover, evidence of PW-1, PW-2 and PW-6 are also important as they are the students who were staying with the informant and claimed to be eye witness. But these so called eye witnesses have not described any specific assault made by any of the appellants on the informant. Therefore, allegation regarding holding of the ponytail of the priest and dragging him appears to be only allegation. So even from the evidences of these witnesses who deposed as eye witness to the occurrence, no clear cut case is made out against the appellants. 34. In summarizing up, I find that there was previous enmity between the parties, doubtful evidences of the informant , differing injury report of both the doctors PW-7 and PW-8 and not deposing about the specific assault made by appellant by PW-1, PW-2 and PW-6 renders the prosecution case doubtful and charges not proved. 35. Therefore, in view of the discussions made above and in the facts and circumstances of the case I find that no case is made out u/s 307/34 IPC against the appellants. Hence the judgment of conviction dated 29.4.2003 and order of sentence dated 30.4.2003 passed by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No. VII, East Singhbhum, Jamshedpur in S.T. Case No. 188 of 1997 is setaside. Accordingly, the appellants are acquitted of the charges u/s 307/34 IPC and discharged from the liabilities of bail bond. Accordingly appeal stands allowed.