JUDGMENT : Heard, Mr. Sheo Kumar Singh, learned counsel appearing for the appellants and Mr. Mukesh Kumar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State. 2. The instant Criminal appeal is directed against the Judgment of conviction and order of sentence, both dated 30.07.2004, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-IX, Dhanbad, in Sessions Trial No.178 of 1997, whereby these three accused/appellants have been convicted for the offence committed and punishable under Section 324 I.P.C. and also under Section 341 I.P.C. and awarded rigorous imprisonment for one year for the offence committed and punishable under Section 324 I.P.C. and rigorous imprisonment for one month for the offence committed and punishable under Section 341 I.P.C. and a composite fine of Rs.1,000/- for both the offences and in case of default in payment of fine, the convicts have to undergo further simple imprisonment for one month. Both the sentences are directed to run concurrently. 3. The prosecution case, is based upon, the fardbeyan, of the informant, Mahadeo Gope (P.W.5) recorded by Nisar Ahmad Khan, A.S.I., Baliapur Police Station on 29.06.1996 at State Dispensary, Baliapur at 18 hours, wherein the informant has alleged that on 29.06.1996, in the morning, he has ploughed his land and had sowed maize crop, but in the evening, he saw that Nageshwar Gope (appellant no.1) and Kalipado Gope (appellant no.3) were ploughing the said field, damaging the seeds. The informant went there and asked them not to plough the field, but the accused persons have claimed that the land belong to them. At the spur of the moment, there was an altercation and thereafter both the accused persons surrounded the informant and started assaulting by means of slap, fat and handle of the axe. It is alleged that by means of handle of the axe, Nageshwar and Kalipado assaulted the informant on his head causing bleeding injury on the right side of the head and on the right shoulder. It is further alleged that the informant sustained injury and became unconscious and fell down on the ground. Thereafter, the informant's mother and brother came, who were also assaulted by the accused persons. Bhagirath Gope, co-accused has assaulted the elder brother of the informant, Hira Lal Gope by means of lathi causing injury and also assaulted the mother of the informant. On brawl, co-villagers brought the injured on cycle to the State Dispensary, Baliapur where they are undergoing treatment. Bhagirath Gope, co-accused has assaulted the elder brother of the informant, Hira Lal Gope by means of lathi causing injury and also assaulted the mother of the informant. On brawl, co-villagers brought the injured on cycle to the State Dispensary, Baliapur where they are undergoing treatment. 4. On the basis of the aforesaid 'fardbeyan' of the, informant the Police registered First Information Report bearing Baliapur P.S. Case No. 54 of 1996 dated 29.06.1996 corresponding to G.R. No.1886 of 1996 under Sections 341/323/506/324/34 of the Indian Penal Code against the three named accused persons, namely, Nageshwar Gope, Kalipado Gope and Bhagirath Gope. 5. After investigation, the Police has submitted charge-sheet against the accused/appellants vide Charge-sheet No.50 of 1996 dated 10.07.1996 under Sections 341/323/324/325/307 I.P.C. 6. The cognizance of the offence has been taken against accused/appellants vide order dated 09.08.1996 and case has been committed to the Court of Sessions vide order dated 25.06.1997. 7. The charge has been framed by the learned trial court on 18.12.1999 against all the accused persons under Sections 324, 325, 341 and 307 I.P.C., to which they have pleaded their innocence and thus, they were put under trial. 8. The prosecution has examined altogether five prosecution witnesses and also exhibited signature of Mahadeo Gope and Prasadi Gope on the 'fardbeyan' as Exhibit-1 and Exhibit-1/1 respectively, but the injury report has not been brought on record. Subhash Chandra Gope has been examined as P.W.1, Hiral Lal Gope has been examined as P.W.2, Prasadi Gope has been examined as P.W.3, Bibi Bala Govalin has been examined as P.W.4 and Mahadeo Gope, informant of the case has been examined as P.W.5. 9. After closure of the prosecution evidence, the accused/appellants have been examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. on 21.06.2004, wherein they have pleaded that there is no legal material against them and they have falsely been implicated in this case, as the land, in question belong to them for which they will produce documentary evidence. Rent Receipt No.374727 dated 06.03.1981 and rent receipt No.2281993 dated 28.06.2004 have been exhibited as Exhibit-A and Exhibit-B respectively on behalf of the accused/defence. 10. 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 Appeal. 11. 10. 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 Appeal. 11. Heard, Mr. Sheo Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the appellants. Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted, that the 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 the learned trial court, without scrutinizing the evidence properly, has wrongly convicted the appellants under Sections 341 and 324 I.P.C. Learned counsel for the appellants has further submitted that the Investigating Officer of the case and the Doctor who has examined the victim, have not been examined in this case nor any report showing the Police requisition for medical examination of the injured or medical examination of the injured have been brought on record. As such, without having any injury reports or without proving the place of occurrence, the appellants have been made accused in a case, as the prosecution party is trying to grab the land of the appellants. The appellants have purchased the land and accordingly, rent receipts as Exhibits-A and B have been exhibited to show that the land belongs to them, as such, the learned trial court has wrongly convicted the appellants under Sections 341 and 324 I.P.C. 12. Heard, Mr. Mukesh Kumar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State. 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 as all the injured witnesses, namely, Mahadeo Gope (P.W.5), informant of the case, mother of the victim, Bibi Bala Govalin (P.W.4) and elder brother of the informant, Hira Lal Gope (P.W.2) have been examined in this case. They have categorically stated that they have been assaulted by the appellants causing injury, as such, the learned trial court has rightly convicted the appellants. 13. Heard, Mr. Sheo Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the appellants and Mr. They have categorically stated that they have been assaulted by the appellants causing injury, as such, the learned trial court has rightly convicted the appellants. 13. Heard, Mr. Sheo Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the appellants and Mr. Mukesh Kumar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State 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 as Exhibits-A and B as well as the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence. This Court has scrutinized the evidence brought on record. It appears from the evidence that the prosecution witnesses are interested and related witnesses of the informant. The prosecution has not brought the injury report on record nor the Doctor or the Investigating officer of the case have been examined in this case. This Court has perused the evidence of the prosecution witnesses and it appears that there are contradictions in the evidence, as some of the prosecution witnesses have said that blood has fallen on the ground and some of them have denied that blood has fallen on the ground. The place of occurrence has not been established, as the Investigating officer has not been examined. The prosecution has also not said that on which plot number and on which Khata number, the occurrence has been committed. Under the aforesaid background, this Court is of the opinion that the place of occurrence has not been proved nor injury caused upon the victim has been proved by producing any chit of paper on record. In absence of examination of any independent witnesses, named in the First Information Report coupled with the fact that Investigating officer as well as Medical Officer have also not been examined in this case, the prosecution has not proved the case beyond all reasonable doubt. The prosecution has not brought the medical requisition issued by the Police officer as well as injury report of the victim on record, as such, the prosecution has not proved the case beyond all reasonable doubt against all the appellants. The prosecution has not brought the medical requisition issued by the Police officer as well as injury report of the victim on record, as such, the prosecution has not proved the case beyond all reasonable doubt against all the appellants. As such, the appellants are entitled for acquittal by giving benefit of doubt, as the appellants are in possession of the land and the rent receipts have been proved and marked as Exhibits-A and Exhibit-B. The prosecution has only proved the signatures of the informant and one Prasadi Gope on the fardbeyan of the informant, which have been marked as Exhibit-1 and Exhibit-1/1, but 'fardbeyan' has not been exhibited. 14. Under the aforesaid circumstances and considering the fact that there is land dispute between the parties, the appellants are entitled for benefit of doubt, as such, the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence is not sustainable in the eyes of law. 15. Accordingly, the Judgment of conviction and order of sentence, both dated 30.07.2004, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-IX, Dhanbad, in Sessions Trial No.178 of 1997, is hereby set aside. 16. The appellants, who are on bail, as such, are discharged from the liability of their bail bonds. 17. Accordingly, the present Criminal Appeal stands allowed. 18. Let L.C.R. along with a copy of this judgment be sent to the court concerned at once.