JUDGMENT : The instant Criminal Appeal has been preferred against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence, both dated 19.04.2004, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, F.T.C. No. V, Deoghar, in Sessions Case No. 26 of 2002, whereby the appellants Ranjit Singh and Ajeet Singh have been convicted for the offence committed and punishable under Sections 326/34 of the Indian Penal Code and the appellants Sujit Kumar Singh and Bashant Singh have been convicted for the offence committed and punishable under Sections 325/34 of the Indian Penal Code. The appellants Ranjit Singh and Ajeet Singh have been awarded rigorous imprisonment for seven years with a fine of Rs. 3,000/- each and in default of payment of fine amount, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for four months for the offence committed and punishable under Section 326/34 of the Indian Penal Code and appellants Sujit Kumar Singh and Bashant Singh have been awarded rigorous imprisonment for two years with a fine of Rs. 2,000/- each and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo imprisonment for three months for the offence committed and punishable under Section 325/34 of the Indian Penal Code. By the same impugned judgment, the learned Trial Court has acquitted the co-accused Someshwar Singh, by disbelieving the part of the prosecution case, regarding throwing of the bomb by Someshwar Singh. 2. The prosecution case is based upon written report submitted by Bhikhari Singh (P.W. 3), before the Officer-in-charge, Madhupur police station, alleging inter alia that today on 27.07.2000 (Thursady), at around 8.00 A.M., accused Ranjit Singh, Ajeet Singh, Sujit Singh, Someshwar Singh and Bashant Singh were ploughing the field of Laxman Singh, lashed with deadly weapons and other accused persons lashed with weapons were standing near the place of occurrence. Laxman Singh asked the appellants/accused persons, not to plough his field, upon which the accused persons started abusing Laxman Singh with filthy language and asked him to go from the paddy field. The informant has stated that he went there and requested the accused persons not to plough the field which belongs to Laxman Singh and he is cultivating the same as being receiver appointed by the Court of law. The informant has alleged that accused Someshwar Singh was having a sack in his hand, who threatened the informant and Laxman Singh to leave the place, otherwise both will have to face dire consequences. The informant has alleged that accused Someshwar Singh was having a sack in his hand, who threatened the informant and Laxman Singh to leave the place, otherwise both will have to face dire consequences. In the meantime other accused persons standing there asked him to explode the bomb and therefore, Someshwar Singh took out bomb from his sack and threw the same towards the informant, which fell in the mud of the paddy field but did not explode. The other accused persons became aggressive and assaulted the informant. Accused Ranjit Singh having farsa in his hand, assaulted the informant on his head, Ajeet Singh having sword, assaulted on the left hand of the informant and Bashant and Sujit Singh having lathi, assaulted the informant causing bleeding injury, as a result of which informant fell down. 3. On the basis of the written report of the informant Bhikhari Singh, police has registered Madhupur P.S. Case No. 121 of 2000, dated 27.07.2000, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 324 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code. 4. After investigation, the police submitted charge sheet vide charge sheet no. 195 of 2000, dated 31.10.2000, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 324, 326 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code against all the named accused persons. 5. The cognizance of the offence has been taken vide order dated 10.11.2000 and the case has been committed to the Court of Sessions vide order dated 23.01.2002. 6. The charge has been framed against all the five accused persons on 22.05.2002, under Sections 148 and 307/149 of the Indian Penal Code, where the accused persons have pleaded their innocence and thus, they were put under trial. 7. The prosecution, to prove its case, has examined altogether five witnesses. Dwarika Prasad Rai, has been examined as P.W. 1, Parsuram Pandey, has been examined as P.W. 2, Bikhari Singh, informant of the case, has been examined as P.W. 3, Dr. Naresh Prasad Sinha, has been examined as P.W. 4 and Kaushailendra Kumar Jha, Investigating Officer of the case, has been examined as P.W. 5. Apart from the oral evidence, the prosecution has also exhibited a number of documentary evidence. Naresh Prasad Sinha, has been examined as P.W. 4 and Kaushailendra Kumar Jha, Investigating Officer of the case, has been examined as P.W. 5. Apart from the oral evidence, the prosecution has also exhibited a number of documentary evidence. Written report, which is the basis of the First Information Report has been proved and marked as Exhibit-1, injury report has been proved and marked as Exhibit-2, endorsement of the officer-in-charge on the fardbeyan has been proved and marked as Exhibit- 3, formal First Information Report has been proved and marked as Exhibit- 4 and certified copy of order dated 23.07.1999 in Revision Misc. Case No. 69/99-2000 passed by S.D.O., Madhupur has been proved and marked as Exhibit- 5 and certified copy of original application before S.D.O., Madhupur, in Revision Misc. No. 69 of 1999-2000, has been proved and marked as Exhibit- 6. 8. After closure of the prosecution evidence, the statement of the accused/appellants have been recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. on 17.01.2004, where they have denied about the occurrence and have claimed themselves to be innocent and they have not examined any witness but adduced a number of documentary evidence. Certified copy of Khatian of 19 of Mouza Saptar has been proved and marked as Exhibit- A, certified copy of deposition of P.W. 4 in Sessions Case No. 186 of 2001, has been proved and marked as Exhibit- B and certified copy of deposition of P.W. 6 in Sessions Case No. 186/2001 has been proved and marked as Exhibit- B/1. 9. After hearing the parties and on the basis of materials available on record, the learned Trial Court has passed the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence. Being aggrieved at and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence, passed by the learned Trial Court, the appellants have preferred the present criminal appeal before this Hon’ble Court, assailing the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence, as by the same impugned judgment, the learned Trial Court has acquitted co-accused Someshwar Singh by disbelieving the part of the prosecution case. 10. Heard, learned counsel for the appellants, Mr. Hemant Shikarwar, assisted by Mr. C.B.P. Srivastava, Advocates. Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted, that the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence is bad in law and cannot sustain in the eyes of law. 10. Heard, learned counsel for the appellants, Mr. Hemant Shikarwar, assisted by Mr. C.B.P. Srivastava, Advocates. Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted, that the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence is bad in law and cannot sustain in the eyes of law. Learned counsel for the appellants has further submitted, that there is a case and counter case between the parties, in which these accused persons have also sustained injuries and they have also lodged criminal case against the present prosecution parties, which was registered as Madhupur P.S. Case No. 120 of 2000 dated 27.07.2000. Therefore, to save themselves from that case, this present case has been filed subsequently by the prosecution party with ulterior motive, as a counter-case to that case filed by the appellants. Learned counsel for the appellants has further submitted, that the investigating officer of the case (P.W. 5) Kaushailendra Kumar Jha has admitted in paragraphs 2 and 5 of his deposition, that for the same occurrence, a case bearing Madhupur P.S. Case No. 120 of 2000 has also been instituted as both sides have sustained injuries. Learned counsel for the appellants has drawn attention of this Court towards Exhibits- B and B/1, which are the depositions of Dr. Naresh Kumar Sinha who has been examined as P.W. 4 and Dr. Jitendra Kumar, who has been examined as P.W. 6, both in Sessions Case No. 186 of 2001 and both have admitted that Someshwar Singh, accused of the present case has sustained as many as eight injuries and the injury report of Someshwar Singh has been proved and marked as Exhibit- 5 in Sessions Case No. 186 of 2001 and the same has also been marked as Exhibit- 2 by Dr. Naresh Prasad Sinha (P.W. 4) in Sessions Case No. 186 of 2001. Learned counsel for the appellants, Mr. Hemant Shikarwar has further submitted that in view of the judgment as reported in 2003 (1) EastCrC 94 (SC) : 2002) 7 SCC 210 in the case of Subramani & Others Vs. Naresh Prasad Sinha (P.W. 4) in Sessions Case No. 186 of 2001. Learned counsel for the appellants, Mr. Hemant Shikarwar has further submitted that in view of the judgment as reported in 2003 (1) EastCrC 94 (SC) : 2002) 7 SCC 210 in the case of Subramani & Others Vs. State of Tamil Nadu where the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that : “Prosecution has an obligation to explain the injury caused upon the accused, though the injuries were simple in nature, does not relieve the prosecution of its obligation, failure to explain the injury on the accused, Court can draw inference as prosecution has not brought the true version of the case”. Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that considering the evidence of P.W. 5 Kaushailendra Kumar Jha, investigating officer of both the cases i.e. Madhupur P.S. Case No. 120 of 2000 and in the present case Madhupur P.S. Case No. 121 of 2000, the appellants cannot be convicted under Sections 326/34 and 325/34 of the Indian Penal Code. Learned counsel for the appellants has further submitted that Exhibit- B series i.e. the evidence of P.W. 4 and P.W. 6, doctors in Sessions Case No. 186 of 2001 are sufficient to establish that Someshwar Singh was assaulted by these prosecution parties and to protect themselves, the present counter-case has been filed against the appellants. Learned counsel for the appellants, Mr. Hemant Shikarwar has further submitted, that even half of the prosecution case has been disbelieved by the learned trial court to the extent that in the First Information Report, there is a specific allegation against Someshwar Singh that, he threw a bomb, which fell in the mud in the paddy field and did not explode, that part of the allegation has been disbelieved by the learned trial court and Someshwar Singh has been acquitted by the learned trial court. Against the said acquittal of Someshwar Singh, neither the State nor the prosecution party have preferred any acquittal appeal before any competent court of law and it has reached the finality. Learned counsel for the appellants has further submitted that as per the prosecution case, the occurrence took place near the paddy field of the Laxman Singh and the said Laxman Singh has not been examined in this case and apart from the informant, Laxman Singh is the only eye-witness to the occurrence. Learned counsel for the appellants has further submitted that as per the prosecution case, the occurrence took place near the paddy field of the Laxman Singh and the said Laxman Singh has not been examined in this case and apart from the informant, Laxman Singh is the only eye-witness to the occurrence. Learned counsel for the appellants has further submitted, that Dwarika Prasad Rai, who has been examined as P.W. 1, has stated during examination-in-chief that accused Someshwar Singh has threw three-four bombs but the evidence of this witness was discarded by the learned trial court by acquitting Someshwar Singh. Parsuram Pandey has been examined as P.W. 2. This witness has stated during cross-examination at paragraph- 7, that Someshwar Singh has been assaulted by Bhikhari Singh by means of sword, although said Someshwar Singh has been acquitted by the learned trial court, disbelieving the evidence of this witness. Bhikahri Singh, informant of the case has been examined as P.W. 3. This witness has proved the signature and hand writing of Dwarika Prasad Roy (P.W. 1) on the written report and the same has been marked as Exhibit- 1. This witness has categorically stated in paragraph-8 of his cross-examination, that nobody has assaulted Laxman Singh. The evidence of this witness is not reliable as this witness has not disclosed about the injury caused upon Someshwar Singh, which has been proved and marked as Exhibit- 5 in Sessions Case No. 186 of 2001 and as such, his evidence is also not reliable and the learned trial court has passed the impugned judgment relying upon such evidence, which are not sustainable in view of the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Subramani & Ors. versus State of Tamil Nadu, 2003 (1) EastCrC 94 (SC) (supra). Dr. Naresh Prasad Sinha, has examined the informant, Bhikhari Singh and proved the injury report, which has been marked as Exhibit- 2. This witness has found, injury no. 1 upon Bhikhari Singh to be grievous in nature and other injuries to be simple in nature. Learned counsel for the appellants has further submitted that as per the allegation made by the prosecution, it is alleged that Someshwar Singh (acquitted person) has assaulted the informant with farsa along with one Ranjit Singh, who is one of the appellant of the present criminal appeal. Learned counsel for the appellants has further submitted that as per the allegation made by the prosecution, it is alleged that Someshwar Singh (acquitted person) has assaulted the informant with farsa along with one Ranjit Singh, who is one of the appellant of the present criminal appeal. Learned counsel for the appellant has further submitted that since Someshwar Singh has already been acquitted by the learned trial court and as such, benefit of doubt may be given in favour of the appellants. 11. Heard, learned counsel for the State, Mr. Hardeo Prasad Singh, Additional Public Prosecutor. Learned counsel for the State has submitted, that the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence is based on the material available on record and the learned Trial Court has rightly convicted these appellants. Learned counsel for the State has further submitted that because of the assault made by Someshwar Singh and Ranjit Singh, the informant Bhikhari Singh, has sustained three injuries out of which, one is grievous and two are simple in nature but all the injuries were caused by sharp cut weapon. Learned counsel for the State has further submitted that considering the nature of allegation and the material available on record, the learned trial court has rightly passed the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence. 12. Heard, learned counsel for the appellants, Mr. Hemant Shikarwar, assisted by Mr. C.B.P. Srivastava, Advocates and learned counsel for the State, Mr. Hardeo Prasad Singh, Additional Public Prosecutor. This Court has perused the F.I.R., framing of charge, evidence of five witnesses, exhibits of the prosecution, statement of the appellants recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C., the defence Exhibits as well as the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence. This Court has scrutinized the evidence of prosecution witnesses. It appears to the Court that there is a case and counter case between the parties and the appellants have first filed Madhupur P.S. Case No. 120 of 2000 against the present prosecution parties. Both sides have sustained injuries, which have been proved by bringing the certified copies of the depositions of P.W. 4 Dr. Naresh Prasad Singh and P.W. 6 Dr. Both sides have sustained injuries, which have been proved by bringing the certified copies of the depositions of P.W. 4 Dr. Naresh Prasad Singh and P.W. 6 Dr. Jitendra Kumar (in Sessions Case No. 186 of 2001), where they have proved the injury report of Someshwar Singh as Exhibit- 5, but present prosecution party, while lodging the case against the appellants, has not disclosed about the injury caused upon Someshwar Singh and as per the judgment of Subramani (supra), it is an obligation upon the prosecution to explain the injury found on the person of the accused, though the injury may be simple in nature but that does not relieve the prosecution from disclosing the same. If the same has not been explained, an adverse view can be taken by the Court, as the prosecution has not brought the true version of the occurrence. Considering that half of the prosecution case has been disbelieved by the learned trial court, while acquitting Someshwar Singh for which no acquittal appeal has been preferred by the State or by the informant of this case before a competent court of law, coupled with the fact that the investigating officer has admitted in paragraphs 2 and 5 of his deposition that in the case and counter case, injuries were found upon both the parties, it seems to the Court that the prosecution has not brought the true version of the occurrence and as such, the benefit of doubt is granted in favour of the appellants. 13. In the result, the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence, both dated 19.04.2004, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, F.T.C. No. V, Deoghar, in Sessions Case No. 26 of 2002, in connection with Madhupur P.S. Case No. 121 of 2000, corresponding to G. R. No. 337 of 2000, is hereby set aside and the appellants are acquitted of the charge and conviction under Sections 326/34 and 325/34 of the Indian Penal Code by giving benefit of doubt. 14. The appellants, who are on bail, are discharged from the liabilities of their bail bonds. 15. Accordingly, the present criminal appeal is allowed. 16. Let the lower court record be sent along with a copy of this judgment to the court concerned, at once for necessary action. Appeal Allowed.