JUDGMENT : Both the aforesaid Criminal Appeals have been preferred against the common impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence, as such, both are being heard together and disposed of, by this common judgment. 2. Heard, Mr. A.S. Dayal, learned counsel for the appellant [in Crl. Appeal 1707 of 2004] and Mr. Ashutosh Prasad Joshi, learned Amicus Curiae [in Crl. Appeal 1757 of 2004] and Mr. Anand Kumar Pandey, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State (in both the aforesaid Criminal Appeals). 3. Both the aforesaid Criminal Appeals have been directed against the Judgment of conviction dated 23rd August, 2004 and order of sentence dated 25th August, 2004, passed by the learned Additional Judicial Commissioner, Fast Track Court No.VI, Ranchi in Sessions Trial No.635 of 2000, whereby both the accused/appellants have been convicted for the offence committed and punishable under Sections 307/34, 341 and 326/34 of the Indian Penal Code and awarded rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven years for the offence committed and punishable under Sections 307/34 I.P.C., rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven years for the offence committed and punishable under Section 326/34 I.P.C. and simple imprisonment for one month for the offence committed and punishable under Sections 341 I.P.C. All the sentences are directed to run concurrently. The period already undergone by the convicts shall be set off under Section 428 Cr.P.C. 4. The prosecution case, is based upon, the fardbeyan of the informant, Vijay Kachhap (P.W.3), recorded on 20.07.1999 at 12.35 hours by Lalan Thakur, A.S.I., Bariatu Police Station in Ranchi Medical College and Hospital (RMCH) in the Unit of Dr. M. Alam, wherein, the informant has stated that on 07.07.1999 at around 8.30 hours, after working at his furniture shop, where he was working as Carpenter, the informant along with his maternal nephew, Mahadeo Toppo were going towards the village and as soon as they have reached near Khokhatoli at around 9 p.m., Mundla Kachhap (appellant, in Crl. Appeal No.1757 of 2004) and Bhandari (appellant in Crl. Appeal No.1707 of 2004) came and asked them as to why they are working up-to such late hours. It is alleged that Bhandari (appellant) has caught-hold of the informant and Mundla (appellant) with an intention to kill stabbed the informant twice causing injuries. On brawl raised by the informant, both the accused persons fled away. Appeal No.1707 of 2004) came and asked them as to why they are working up-to such late hours. It is alleged that Bhandari (appellant) has caught-hold of the informant and Mundla (appellant) with an intention to kill stabbed the informant twice causing injuries. On brawl raised by the informant, both the accused persons fled away. The informant has further stated that his maternal nephew, Mahadeo Toppo has also seen the accused persons and has identified them. Mahadeo Toppo being the maternal nephew brought the informant to the house where his condition was not proper and, as such, he was taken to R.M.C.H., where the informant was admitted and given medical treatment. The informant has claimed that both the accused persons assaulted him with an intention to kill. 5. On the basis of the aforesaid 'fardbeyan' of the informant, the Police registered First Information Report bearing Doranda P.S. Case No.166 of 1999 dated 23.07.1999 corresponding to G.R. No.1687 of 1999 under Sections 341, 324 and 307/34 of the Indian Penal Code against both the named accused persons. 6. After investigation, the Police has submitted charge-sheet against the accused/appellants vide Charge-sheet No.138 of 1999 dated 19.08.1999 under Sections 341/324/307/34 I.P.C. 7. The cognizance of the offence has been taken against accused/appellants vide order dated 01.09.1999 and case has been committed to the Court of Sessions vide order dated 29.11.2000. 8. The charge has been framed by the learned trial court on 30.05.2001 against both the accused persons under Sections 307/34, 326/34, 341 I.P.C., to which they have pleaded their innocence and thus, they were put under trial. 9. The prosecution has examined altogether five prosecution witnesses and also exhibited a number of documents. Mahadev Toppo, maternal nephew of the informant and an eye-witness to the occurrence, has been examined as P.W.1, Rachia Kachhap, father of the victim has been examined as P.W.2, Vijay Kachhap, informant and victim of the case has been examined as P.W.3, Turu Budhwa Kachhap has been examined as P.W.4 and he has been declared hostile by the prosecution and Dr. Mrityunjay Sarawgi, Medical Officer, has been examined as P.W.5, who has treated the injured and issued injury report which has been proved and marked as Exhibit-2. The signature of the informant on the 'fardbeyan' has been proved and marked as Exhibit-1. 10. Mrityunjay Sarawgi, Medical Officer, has been examined as P.W.5, who has treated the injured and issued injury report which has been proved and marked as Exhibit-2. The signature of the informant on the 'fardbeyan' has been proved and marked as Exhibit-1. 10. After closure of the prosecution evidence, the accused/appellants have been examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. on 19.04.2004, wherein they have pleaded that they are innocent and have falsely been implicated in this case, but no oral witness has been examined on behalf of the defence. However, defence has adduced documentary evidence as Exhibits. Signature of Vijay Kachhap on affidavit has been proved and marked as Exhibit-A and signature of Vijay Kachhap on compromise petition has been proved and marked as Exhibit-A/1. 11. The learned trial court, after hearing learned counsel for the parties and on the basis of the material brought on record, has passed the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence, as stated above, which has been assailed by the appellants in the present Criminal Appeals. 12. Heard, Mr. A.S. Dayal, learned counsel for the appellant [in Crl. Appeal 1707 of 2004] and Mr. Ashutosh Prasad Joshi, learned Amicus Curiae [in Crl. Appeal 1757 of 2004]. Learned counsels for the appellants have submitted, that the judgment of conviction and order of sentence are bad in law and cannot sustain in the eyes of law, as there is inordinate delay in lodging the First Information Report. Learned counsels for the appellants have further submitted that the alleged date of occurrence is 07.07.1999, but the fardbeyan has been recorded on 20.07.1999 at R.M.C.H., Ranchi, although in the night of 07.07.1999, the injured, Vijay Kachhap (P.W.3) was admitted and treated at R.M.C.H., Ranchi, but the First Information Report was registered on 23.07.1999. Learned counsels for the appellants have further submitted that Dr. Mritunjay Sarawgi (P.W.5) has proved the injury report of the victim, Vijay Kachhap and the same has been marked as Exhibit-2. Doctor (P.W.5) has categorically stated that he has examined the victim at 1.00 A.M. on 08.07.1995 and found single incised wound over left upper abdomen of the informant, who was examined on the basis of disclosure made before the Doctor. The injury was grievous in nature, but the Doctor has not found any sign of second attempt of assault. Doctor (P.W.5) has categorically stated that he has examined the victim at 1.00 A.M. on 08.07.1995 and found single incised wound over left upper abdomen of the informant, who was examined on the basis of disclosure made before the Doctor. The injury was grievous in nature, but the Doctor has not found any sign of second attempt of assault. Learned counsels for the appellants have further submitted that if the First Information Report is perused, it will be apparent that the informant has alleged that he was assaulted by the accused/appellants twice by means of 'chura', but the Doctor has found only one injury caused by sharp-cut weapon, which is by 'chura' having dimension of 1”x 1/4 “x Peritoneal Cavity deep. Learned counsels for the appellants have further submitted that if injury is caused by penetrating weapon, then that will not be up to 1” deep rather it should have been deeper of the size of the chura. Learned counsel for the appellants has further submitted that place of occurrence has not been proved by the prosecution. Mahadev Toppo (P.W.1), who is an eye-witness to the occurrence, has admitted in Para-6 of his cross-examination that he has not shown the place of occurrence to the Police officer and the informant (P.W.3-Vijay Kachhap) has also stated in Para-5 of his cross-examination that he has not shown the place of occurrence to the Police officer nor the Police officer who is the Investigating officer of the case or recorded the 'fardbeyan' of the informant have been examined in this case and as such, in absence of any material to prove the place of occurrence, the prosecution has completely failed in proving the place of occurrence. Learned counsel for the appellants has further submitted that as per the fardbeyan, there is no motive for these appellants to assault the informant rather from perusal of the First Information Report, it appears that only allegation which can be attributed as a motive for the appellants to commit such offence is that the informant was working in the furniture shop till late night which was not acceptable to the appellants, as such, they have assaulted the informant. Learned counsel for the appellants has further submitted that there is no positive and specific mens rea for committing such offence by the appellants. Learned counsel for the appellants has further submitted that there is no positive and specific mens rea for committing such offence by the appellants. Learned counsel for the appellants has vehemently submitted that there is no medical report to suggest that the injured would have died in the normal circumstances, if medical aid has not been provided to him nor there is any injury which was found to be grievous and fatal in nature, as contemplated, in any of the eight criterion laid down under Section 320 I.P.C. Learned counsel for the appellants has further submitted that in the present case, place of occurrence has not been proved, Investigating officer has not been examined and the injury report (Exhibit-2) is not in consonance with the allegation made in the First Information Report and thus, the appellants be acquitted of the charge and conviction under Sections 307/34, 326/34 and 341 I.P.C. Further, the informant has filed compromise petition which has been proved and marked as Exhibit-A/1, as such, the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence cannot sustain in the eyes of law. 13. Heard, Mr. Anand Kumar Pandey, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State in both the aforesaid Criminal Appeals. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State while supporting the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence, has submitted that the same has been passed by the learned trial court on the basis of the material available on record. Learned counsel for the State has further submitted that corresponding sharp weapon injury has been found by the Doctor on the abdomen of the informant which has been proved and marked as Exhibit-2. Learned counsel for the State has further submitted that these appellants have committed offence and they were known to the informant and his maternal nephew, Mahadeo Toppo (P.W.1) and their names have been figured in the First Information Report. Learned counsel for the State has further submitted that as the informant remained unconscious for about one and half week, as such, there was delay in lodging the First Information Report. Learned counsel for the State has further submitted that heinous crime was committed by the appellants, whereby the life of the informant was under threat, as injury was caused by sharp penetrating weapon like 'chura' in the abdomen of the informant and as such, the learned trial court has rightly convicted the appellants. Learned counsel for the State has further submitted that heinous crime was committed by the appellants, whereby the life of the informant was under threat, as injury was caused by sharp penetrating weapon like 'chura' in the abdomen of the informant and as such, the learned trial court has rightly convicted the appellants. Learned counsel for the State on the basis of submissions made above, has submitted that the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence has been passed on the basis of material available on record. 14. Heard, Mr. A.S. Dayal, learned counsel for the appellant [in Crl. Appeal 1707 of 2004] and Mr. Ashutosh Prasad Joshi, learned Amicus Curiae [in Crl. Appeal 1757 of 2004] and Mr. Anand Kumar Pandey, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State in both the aforesaid Criminal Appeals and also perused the entire records of the case i.e. First Information Report, framing of charge, evidence of five prosecution witnesses, two prosecution exhibits and statement of the appellants recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. as well as two defence documents showing compromise petition between the parties. The Court below has rightly rejected compromise petition, as the offence is non-compoundable, as the Exhibit-A and Exhibit-A/1 have no relevancy in the present case being devoid of any legal sanctity. This Court has scrutinized the evidence brought on record. From perusal of the First Information Report, it appears that the informant (P.W.3-Vijay Kachhap) has categorically stated that he was stabbed by Mundla alias Raju Kachhap (appellant) twice on his abdomen by 'chura'. Doctor (P.W.5), who has proved the injury report of the informant (P.W.3-Vijay Kachhap) which has been marked as Exhibit-2, has only found one penetrating injury. This Court has also perused Section 320 I.P.C. The injury caused on the informant is not coming under any of the eight criteria mentioned under Section 320 I.P.C., as such, the injury cannot be construed to be grievous in nature. This Court has also perused the evidence of witness, Mahadev Toppo (P.W.1) especially Para-6 and witness, Vijay Kachhap (P.W.3), wherein, they have categorically stated that they have neither shown the place of occurrence to the Police officer who has investigated the case or Police officer, who has recorded the fardbeyan of the informant, as such, this Court is of the opinion that the prosecution has failed to prove the place of occurrence in this case. This Court has also perused the evidence and found that the occurrence is dated 07.07.1999, and the injured was brought to the Hospital at 12.00 in the night on 07.07.1999 itself and the injured was examined by Doctor (P.W.5) at 1.10 A.M. on 08.07.1995, on the basis of the disclosure made by the victim about his identity. But neither the injury report shows that the victim has alleged against these appellants nor there is any specific explanation for not lodging First Information Report to the Police soon after admission of the informant at R.M.C.H. The 'fardbeyan' was recorded on 20th July, 1999 and the First Information Report was registered on 23rd July, 1999, although in such cases where the injured is brought before a Medical Practitioner having injury which seems to be cognizable offence, the information is to be given to the local Police officer. In the present case, the Ranchi Medical College and Hospital, Ranchi, has a police picket in the Hospital itself, but no information was given by the Doctor or by the family members of the informant to the Police regarding commission of cognizable offence. Under the aforesaid circumstances, as discussed above and coupled with the fact that the Investigating officer has not been examined in this case, this Court acquit the appellants from the charge and conviction under Sections 307/34, 326/34 and 341 I.P.C. by giving benefit of doubt. 15. Accordingly, the Judgment of conviction dated 23rd August, 2004 and order of sentence dated 25th August, 2004, passed by the learned Additional Judicial Commissioner, Fast Track Court No.VI, Ranchi in Sessions Trial No.635 of 2000 is hereby set aside. 16. Accordingly, both the aforesaid Criminal Appeals stand allowed. 17. The appellants, who are on bail, are discharged from the liability of their bail bonds. 18. Let L.C.R. along with a copy of this judgment be sent to the court concerned at once. 19. Before parting with the judgment, this Court appreciates the assistance rendered by Mr. Ashutosh Prasad Joshi, learned Amicus Curiae. 20. The Member Secretary, JHALSA, Ranchi, is directed to release the legal remuneration to Mr. Ashutosh Prasad Joshi, learned amicus curiae within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. 21. Let a copy of this judgment be communicated to the Member Secretary, JHALSA forthwith for needful.