JUDGMENT : 1. Heard learned counsel for the appellants and learned Addl. P.P. for the State. 2. Since both these appeals arise out of a common judgment, hence, both, these appeals are disposed of by this common judgment. 3. The appellants have filed these appeals being aggrieved by the Judgment of conviction and Order of sentence dated 09.01.2006, passed by the 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Jamtara in Sessions Trial No. 116 of 1997/ Sessions Trial No.29 of 2005 whereby and where under, the appellants have been convicted for the offence punishable under sections 147/148/452/323 of the Indian Penal Code and have been sentenced to undergo R.I. for one year each for the offence punishable under Section 147 of the Indian Penal Code, R.I. for two years each for the offence punishable under Section 148 of the Indian Penal Code, R.I. for one year each for the offence punishable under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code and R.I. for two years for the offence punishable under Section 452 of the Indian Penal Code. Further appellant-Biseswar Mondal was sentenced to undergo R.I. for two years for the offence punishable under Section 380 of the Indian Penal Code and also sentenced to undergo R.I. for three years for the offence punishable under Section 386 of the Indian Penal Code. Appellants Manik Routh and Suresh Bheel have been sentenced to undergo R.I. for five years each for the offence punishable under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code. 4. The case of the prosecution in brief as unfolded in the fardbeyan of the informant is that on 24.08.1995 at about 9.00 a.m., the accused-appellant-Ratu Mondal came to the informant and told him that the accused-appellant-Biseswar Mondal has sent him for demanding Rs.500/- from the informant. As the informant asked on which account the accused-appellant-Biseswar Mondal is demanding money, the accused-appellant-Ratu Mondal told him that the accused-appellant-Biseswar Mondal is demanding rangdari (extortion money). When the informant refused to pay the said money, the accused-appellant-Ratu Mondal went away, after threatening the informant. At about 2.00 p.m., the accused-appellant-Biseswar Mondal and Suresh Bheel came to the gate of the informant armed with pistol and challenged him to come out of the house and also gave threats that they would kill the informant. Out of fear, the informant did not came out of his house and the said accused-appellants went away. At about 2.00 p.m., the accused-appellant-Biseswar Mondal and Suresh Bheel came to the gate of the informant armed with pistol and challenged him to come out of the house and also gave threats that they would kill the informant. Out of fear, the informant did not came out of his house and the said accused-appellants went away. At about 9:30 p.m. on the same day again the accused-appellant-Biseswar Mondal armed with pistol and lathi, Manik Routh and Suresh Bheel armed with Bhala, Solen Das, Jojya Routh and Ratu Mondal armed with lathi forcibly entered inside the house of the informant. The accused-appellant-Biseswar Mondal threatened the informant with pistol and thereafter assaulted with lathi. Other accused persons also assaulted him with lathi and fist blows. Thereafter, Biseswar Mondal broke open the lock of the wooden Almirah kept in the room and took away Rs.16,500/-. The wife of the informant and the informant raised noise and the labourers working in the garden of the informant namely Duli Mondal, Giriraj Mondal, Md. Rustam, Dayal Mondal and Ramlal Mondal came there and protested. Manik Mondal assaulted Duli Mondal with Bhala. Suresh Bheel assaulted Giriraj Mondal with Bhala by which both Duli Mondal and Giriraj Mondal sustained injuries. On the basis of the fardbeyan, of the informant, police registered Jamtara P.S. Case No. 152 of 1995 and took up investigation of the case. 5. After completion of investigation, police submitted charge-sheet against the accused – appellants. Upon commitment of the case to the Court of Session, charges for the offence punishable under sections 147/148/149/386/452/380/324/326/323/307 of the Indian Penal Code were framed against the accused-appellant persons. Upon the accused-appellants pleading not guilty to the charges, they were put to trial. In support of its case, the prosecution altogether examined 7 witnesses besides proving the documents which have been marked as Exts. 1, 1/1 and 1/2. Ext. 1 is the injury report of Giriraj Mondal, Ext.1/1 is the injury report of Duli Mondal and Ext.1/2 is the injury report of Ashish Kumar Das. Ext. 2 is the signature of the officer-in-charge on formal F.I.R. and Ext.3 is the fardbeyan. No witness was examined by the defence. 6. P.W.1 –Duli Mondal is one of the injured persons of the case. He has stated that the occurrence took place about seven years prior to his examination in court. Ext. 2 is the signature of the officer-in-charge on formal F.I.R. and Ext.3 is the fardbeyan. No witness was examined by the defence. 6. P.W.1 –Duli Mondal is one of the injured persons of the case. He has stated that the occurrence took place about seven years prior to his examination in court. At about 11:30 p.m., he was working in the house of Probodh Babu. P.W.1 and Rasik were assaulted by Suresh Bheel, Manik and Jojya. Others were with them. They were demanding rangdari tax from Rasik Bengali. As money was not given, they assaulted. They assaulted with Bhala and lathi. P.W.1 received injuries on his head and right arm. The accused-appellant-Manik, Rustam and Hari were also there. They assaulted the Manager-Rasik after entering into the house. When the P.W.1 went to save him then the P.W.1 was also assaulted. He identified the accused-appellant-Suresh and Pocha. He further stated that Pocha has assaulted him but he does not know the other name of Pocha. In his cross-examination, P.W.1 has stated that now Rasik Bengali is residing at Kolkata. At the time of occurrence, the accused-appellants were not working under Rasik Bengali. After this case, a rape case was also instituted against his son by falsely implicating him. Suresh Bheel was a cook. Suresh Bheel was not employed as a cook by Rasik Bengali. P.W.1 was in jail in connection with Dacoity case about 30-35 years prior to his deposing evidence in court. His case was pending on the date of his examination in court. 7. P.W.2-Md. Rustam Mian is another alleged victim. He has stated that the occurrence took place about seven years before his deposing in court. At about 11.00 p.m. Ramlal darban(guard) came and informed the P.W.2 that Ashish Das Manager is calling him. P.W.2 went there. Duli, Vijoy, Hari also went there. At that time, Biseswar, Suresh Bheel, Manik, Solen Das, Jojya Routh also reached there. Suresh and Manik were armed with Bhala. Solen and Jojya were armed with lathi and they entered inside the office of Ashish Das and assaulted him with lathi and sticks and bhala. They were saying that though they were demanding money, the same was not paid by the informant. P.W.2 and others rescued the informant. Manik Mondal assaulted with bhala, Duli sustained injuries on his head and hand. Suresh Bheel assaulted Giriraj with bhala on his leg. They were saying that though they were demanding money, the same was not paid by the informant. P.W.2 and others rescued the informant. Manik Mondal assaulted with bhala, Duli sustained injuries on his head and hand. Suresh Bheel assaulted Giriraj with bhala on his leg. Both of them sustained injuries and thereafter the accused persons fled away. In his cross-examination, P.W.2 has stated that no payment register is maintained in their plantation nor any register is maintained in the said garden. 8. P.W.3-Giriraj Mondal is also an injured witness of the case. He has stated that he and his father Duli Mondal were working in the said garden of B.D. Thakur at Karmatand and Ashish Das was the manager of the garden. The occurrence took place eight years prior to his deposing in court. At 2.00 p.m. and 9:30 p.m. on 24.08.1995, Biseswar Mondal came to the said garden and demanded rangdari and challenged the manager to come out of the house but the manager did not come out of the house. Again at 9:30 p.m. Biseswar Mondal with four-five persons came there and at that time, the P.W.3 was talking with the manager inside the house. Biseswar Mondal entered inside the house with pistol and broke open the Almirah and took away the money from the Almirah. When the P.W.3 protested, he was assaulted. On noise being raised, the accused-appellants fled away. He could identify the accused-appellants in the light of lantern. In his cross-examination, he has stated that he was in jail for four months in connection with rape of Dulari Kumari. The name of the plantation was Swadit Plantation. 9. P.W.4- Dr. Lalit Kumar Lal is the doctor who examined the injured persons Giriraj Mondal, Duli Mondal and Ashish Kumar Das and has found the following injuries:- Victim-Giriraj Mondal i. One oblique incised wound ¾" x ¼" x muscle deep on left thigh. ii. One incised wound ¾" x 1/4” x skin deep on posterior lateral aspect of left index middle phalanx. iii. One horizontal abrasion 2” x 1/6” X just above left side of upper lips. All injuries were simple in nature and injury no.1 and 2 were caused by sharp cutting instrument and injury no.3 was caused by hard and blunt substance. The ages of injuries were within 12 hours before the medical examination. iii. One horizontal abrasion 2” x 1/6” X just above left side of upper lips. All injuries were simple in nature and injury no.1 and 2 were caused by sharp cutting instrument and injury no.3 was caused by hard and blunt substance. The ages of injuries were within 12 hours before the medical examination. Victim-Duli Mondal i. One oblique lacerated wound 1” x ¼” x scalp deep on right upper frontal scalp. ii. One oblique incised wound ½” x ¼” x muscle deep with underline tenderness and crepitation on right fore-arm. X-ray plate no.R-17 of “Chanchala X-ray” shows fractured of right ulna. The X-ray plate was with the patient. Injury no.1 was simple in nature caused by hard and blunt substance and injury no.2 was grievous in nature caused by heavy sharp cutting instrument. The ages of injuries were within 12 hours before the medical examination. Victim-Ashish Kumar Das i. One oblique abrasion ¾” x 1/2” on left elbow medially. ii. Complain of pain on chest and right upper thigh. Both the injuries were simple in nature caused by hard and blunt substance. He also deposed that the injury reports were in his pen and signature and on being proved by him, the injury reports were marked as Exhibits. 1, 1/1 and 1/2. In his cross-examination, the P.W.4 has stated that the X-ray plate of the injured person Duli Mondal was not before him. He has not done X-ray of Duli Mondal and he is not a radiologist 10. P.W.5-Hari Mondal has stated that he was working in the plantation of B.D. Thakur at Karmatanr. The occurrence took place between 8.00-9.00 a.m. Duli Mondal was assaulted by Manik Mondal, Solen Das and Jojya Routh. Suresh Bheel was standing there. Giriraj Mondal was also assaulted. Probodh Babu was the Owner and Ashish Babu was the Manager of the garden. In his cross-examination, he has stated that he cannot say whether Suresh Bheel was preparing food for the manager or not but he was not working there. At that time, thirty labourers were working in the said plantation. He cannot say the names of all the labourers working there. When Duli Mondal was assaulted, at that time, apart from P.W.5 no other labour was present. At that time he was earning Rs.25 per day. 11. P.W.6-Kasi Mondal has stated that Ashish Kumar Das was the Manager of Mango orchard of B.D. Thakur. He cannot say the names of all the labourers working there. When Duli Mondal was assaulted, at that time, apart from P.W.5 no other labour was present. At that time he was earning Rs.25 per day. 11. P.W.6-Kasi Mondal has stated that Ashish Kumar Das was the Manager of Mango orchard of B.D. Thakur. P.W.6 was working as a labourer. The occurrence took place nine years before his depositing in court. In the night, he was in his house. On the date of occurrence, Biseswar Mondal had gone to the informant to demand his wages but the informant did not pay him money. In the night, Biseswar Mondal quarreled with Ashish Das. Ashish Das called the P.W.6 in the night and informed the P.W.6 that Biseswar Mondal, Manik and Suresh has assaulted the informant. Biseswar was demanding Rs.500/-. In his cross-examination, he has stated that he has not seen the occurrence but heard about the same. Ashish Das was in the plantation for about 6 to 7 years. Duli Mondal is the maternal uncle of P.W.6 by relationship. Giriraj Mondal was in jail in connection with rape of Dulari Kumari. In that case, Biseswar and his brother were doing the pairvi. 12. P.W.7-Tahir Hussain is a formal witness. He is an advocates’ clerk. He has proved the formal F.I.R. which was marked as Ext.2 and on being proved by him, the fardbeyan was marked as Ext.3. In his cross-examination, he has stated that both the statements were not written in his presence. He never worked with the authors of the said two exhibits nor studied with them. Both the authors of Ext.2 and 3 were in Government Service at the time of his examination in Court. 13. After closure of the evidence of the prosecution, the statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. of the accused-appellants regarding the circumstances appearing in evidence against them were recorded wherein all the accused-appellants have stated that they went to demand their money which is due to them from the informant and hence this false case was instituted against them. 14. Learned court below after considering both, oral and documentary, evidence convicted and sentenced the accused-appellants as already indicated above. 15. Mr. 14. Learned court below after considering both, oral and documentary, evidence convicted and sentenced the accused-appellants as already indicated above. 15. Mr. Mahesh Tewari, learned counsel for the appellants submits that the learned court below failed to appreciate the evidence in the record in its proper perspective and failed to appreciate the facts that the appellants were the labourers and they had gone to demand their wages and hence they have been falsely implicated in this case. It is further submitted that the learned court below failed to take note of the fact that the informant-Ashish Das who has instituted this false case has been withheld from the witness box without any plausible reasons, to suppress the truth as the truth would certainly have come out, had he entered the witness box. It is further submitted that the P.W.7 was not a competent witness to prove the Ext.3 and the appellant-accused persons have been prejudiced by the non-examination of the I.O. as the place of occurrence has not been proved. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the appellants that in the absence of any evidence in the record of use of pistol though allegedly the alleged-appellant-Biseswar Mondal was armed with a pistol shows that there was no intention of the appellant-accused persons to kill the alleged victim. Hence, it is submitted that the evidence in the record is inadequate to establish the offence punishable under section 307 of the Indian Penal Code. It is further submitted that in the absence of any evidence that the informant or anybody has delivered any property or valuable security, or anything signed or sealed which may be converted into a valuable security, no offence punishable under section 386 of the Indian Penal Code is made out. It is further submitted that in the absence of any evidence that the informant or anybody has delivered any property or valuable security, or anything signed or sealed which may be converted into a valuable security, no offence punishable under section 386 of the Indian Penal Code is made out. The learned counsel for the appellants further submits that in the absence of any evidence of the exact currency notes allegedly taken by the appellant-accused persons, in the backdrop of the fact that even the P.W.6 being the prosecution witness himself has stated that the appellant-accused persons have gone to demand their wages coupled with the fact that their statement recorded under section 313 Cr.P.C., the accused-appellant persons have categorically stated that they had gone to demand their wages, the allegation of commission of theft by breaking open the almirah do not inspire confidence and has been made with an ulterior motive to aggravate the charge against the accused-appellant persons. Hence, it is submitted that as the evidence in the record is insufficient to establish any of the charges against the appellant-accused persons and the accused-appellant persons who are poor labourers working in the plantation of the farm of the informant be acquitted at least by giving them the benefit of doubt. 16. The learned Addl. P.P. on the other hand defended the impugned judgment and submitted that the P.Ws. 1, 2, 3 & 5 have categorically stated about the accused-appellant persons assaulting the victims - P.W.1 and P.W.5 as well as the informant who has not been examined in this case. Hence, it is submitted that the evidence in the record is sufficient to establish each of the charges for which the appellants have been convicted and sentenced and the learned court below having rightly convicted and sentenced the appellants, the same do not warrant any interference of this Court and this appeal being without any merit be dismissed. 17. Having heard the submissions made at the Bar and going through the evidences in the record, I find that the prosecution without any plausible reasons has withheld its star witness, the informant of the case from the witness box. The case of the prosecution suffers from exaggeration and improvisation and the evidence put forth by the prosecution are general and omnibus in nature. The case of the prosecution suffers from exaggeration and improvisation and the evidence put forth by the prosecution are general and omnibus in nature. P.W.1 who is one of the alleged victims of the case has failed to specifically mention as to who assaulted him on which part of his body, by which weapon. Though the case of the prosecution is that, first the informant was assaulted and in order to save him the P.W. 1 & 3 were also assaulted but the perusal of the injury report reveals that the informant has sustained only one abrasion of ¾”X ½ “ on left elbow and he complained of pain in chest and upper thigh, so apart from abrasion on the left elbow, no visible injury was seen though it is the case of the prosecution that he was assaulted by a number of accused-appellant persons. So far as the injury no.2 of P.W.1 Duli Mondal is concerned, it is apparent that his X-ray was conducted by one “Chanchala X-Ray”, the X-ray plate has not been brought in evidence. There is no evidence in the record that the doctor has recommended for X-ray examination of the P.W.1. The perusal of Ext.1/1 which is the injury report of the P.W.1 reveals that the doctor has categorically mentioned that the X-ray plate was lying with the patient. So it appears that by the time, the P.W.1 came to the doctor for medical examination, he came with the X-ray plate. Keeping in view the fact that the P.W.1 is an illiterate person, as is evident from his left thumb impression which he has affixed in his deposition instead of signing, it is highly improbable that an illiterate person will go to a doctor with X-ray plate before being examined by the doctor. So under such circumstances that the X-ray plate being manufactured for the purpose of the case cannot be ruled out and the basis upon which the doctor opined the injury to be grievous is not trustworthy. Though it is the case of the prosecution that the accused-appellant persons were armed with pistol yet there is no evidence in the record that either any pistol or any weapon has been seized by the police. Though it is the case of the prosecution that the accused-appellant persons were armed with pistol yet there is no evidence in the record that either any pistol or any weapon has been seized by the police. Though it is the case of the prosecution that the accused-appellant-Biseswar Mondal has taken away some money from the almirah by breaking it open but only P.W.3 has stated about the same whereas others have not whispered a word about such breaking open the almirah. It is highly improbable that had it been a fact, such an important event would have escaped their notice. P.W.5 has stated that when the P.W.1 was assaulted apart from him, no other labour was present there. This rules out the presence of other witnesses such as P.W.2 at the place of occurrence. There was animosity between the P.W.1 and P.W. 3 which is evident from the fact that Biseswar Mondal was doing pairavi in the case of rape of the P.W.3. In this backdrop, the non-examination of the I.O. without any plausible reason because of which no evidence about the place of occurrence could be brought on record and whether the I.O. has investigated about the contention of the defence that there was some case in the labour court relating to the parties or not, are certainly a circumstance which goes in favour of the accused-appellant persons. Similarly, the non-examination of the informant without any plausible reason is also another circumstance, the benefit of which should go to the accused-appellant persons. 18. Considering the aforesaid facts of the case, this Court is of the considered opinion that the evidence in the record is insufficient to establish any of the charge against the accused-appellants beyond any reasonable doubt and this is a fit case where the accused-appellants be acquitted by giving them the benefit of doubt. Accordingly, the Judgment of conviction and Order of sentence dated 09.01.2006, passed by the 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Jamtara in Sessions Trial No. 116 of 1997/ Sessions Trial No.29 of 2005 being not sustainable in law is set aside and the accused-appellant persons namely Biseswar Mondal, Ratu Mondal, Jojya Mondal, Solen @ Sailen Das, Manik Routh and Suresh Bheel are acquitted of all the charges by giving them the benefit of doubt. The accused-appellants are on bail. In view of their acquittal, they are discharged of their liabilities of bail bonds. 19. The accused-appellants are on bail. In view of their acquittal, they are discharged of their liabilities of bail bonds. 19. Let the Lower Court Record be sent back along with a copy of this Judgment forthwith. 20. In the result, these appeals are disposed of.