JUDGMENT : Heard, learned counsels for the appellant, Mr. Vijay Shankar Prasad assisted by Mr. Binod Kumar, Advocates and Mr. Sudhir Kumar Roy, 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 11.03.2005, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.3, Palamau at Daltonganj, in Sessions Trial Case No.217 of 2003, whereby, the sole appellant has been convicted for the offence committed and punishable under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code and awarded rigorous imprisonment for seven years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-and in default in payment of fine, to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for one year. 3. The prosecution case, is based upon, fardbeyan of Deonath Bhuiyan(P.W1) recorded by Sub-Inspector Kanchan Kumar, Officer-In-charge of Manatu Police Station on 02.11.2002 at 8.10 A.M., wherein, the informant has stated, that in the morning at about 5.00 A.M., informant Deonath Bhuiyan had gone to see his Kurthi crop (horse gram) and when he reached near his paddy field, he saw six buffalows grazing in his field. He also saw accused Jugeshwar Mahto sitting on the ridge of the field with an axe in his hand. Informant, Deonath Bhuiyan raised objection and as such, there was exchange of words with accused Jugeshwar Mahto over the matter. Accused, Jugeshwar Mahto objected informant from driving out the buffalows. In the meantime, accused Jugeshwar Mahto inflicted tangi blow on informant causing bleeding injury on his face near left eye and left hand. Thereafter, Jugeshwar Mahto fled away after seeing bleeding injury. The father of the informant and other villagers reached there on brawl raised by informant. They took informant to the Police Station. 4. On the basis of the fardbeyan of the informant, the Police has registered First Information Report bearing Manatu P.S. Case No. 40 of 2002, dated 02.11.2002, under Sections 323, 341, 324, 427, 504 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code. 5. After investigation, the police has submitted charge sheet vide charge sheet no. 59 of 2002, dated 30.11.2002, under Sections 341, 324, 326, 307, 427 and 504 of the Indian Penal Code against the accused person. 6. The cognizance of the offence has been taken vide order dated 23.12.2002 and the case has been committed to the Court of Sessions vide order dated 11.08.2003. 7. 59 of 2002, dated 30.11.2002, under Sections 341, 324, 326, 307, 427 and 504 of the Indian Penal Code against the accused person. 6. The cognizance of the offence has been taken vide order dated 23.12.2002 and the case has been committed to the Court of Sessions vide order dated 11.08.2003. 7. The learned trial Court has framed charge against the appellant, on 05.09.2003, under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code, to which the appellant has pleaded his innocence and thus, he was put under trial. 8. The prosecution, in order to prove its case, has examined altogether six witnesses and also exhibited documentary evidence. Deonath Bhuiyan, informant has been examined as P.W.1, Kesar Bhuiyan (father of the victim) has been examined as P.W.2, Rajbasiya Devi (mother of the victim) has been examined as P.W.3, Dr. Abhay Kumar (Medical Officer) has been examined as P.W.4, Jhagaru Yadav has been examined as P.W.5 and Firangi Yadav has been examined as P.W.6. The prosecution has declared both P.W.5 & P.W.6 as hostile. Injury report of Deonath Bhuiyan has been proved and marked as exhibit-1 by the prosecution. 9. After closure of the prosecution evidence, the statement of the appellant has been recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C., on 14.02.2005, to which the appellant has pleaded his innocence and stated that he has been falsely implicated in this case. 10. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and on the basis of material available on record, learned trial Court has passed the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence. Being aggrieved, at and dissatisfied with the same, the appellant has preferred present Criminal Appeal before this Hon’ble Court, assailing the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence. 11. Heard, learned counsel for the appellant, Mr. Vijay Shankar Prasad assisted by Mr. Binod Kumar, Advocates. Learned counsel for the appellant 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 appellant has further submitted, that the informant has stated in the First Information Report that on making protest by the informant, Jugeshwar Mahto(appellant) assaulted him by means of Kulhari(axe) on his head, which caused injury on the hand as well as near the left eye and after seeing the blood oozing from the wound of the informant, Jugeshwar Mahto(appellant) fled away. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted, that the conviction of the appellant under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code cannot sustain in the eyes of law, as the appellant has no intention or mens rea to kill the informant as it appears from the First Information Report as well as the deposition of the informant, recorded in the Court as P.W.1. The evidence suggest that appellant has fled away after seeing blood. Learned counsel for the appellant has further submitted, that the Dr. Abhay Kumar (P.W.4), who has examined the victim and proved the injury report as exhibit-1 has found three injuries on the person of the informant Deonath Bhuiyan which are as follows:- 1. One incised wound 2 1/2”x 1/4” skin deep beside the left eye lateral. 2. One incised would 1/2”x 1/4” skin deep on left forearm. 3. One incised wound 1”x 1/4” skin deep on left arm. The injury no.1 has been found to be grievous in nature by the doctor. Learned counsel for the appellant has further submitted, that from perusal of the First Information Report, it appears that informant has only stated about two injuries, but the doctor has found three injuries on the person of the victim. The prosecution has not explained about the third injuries either in the First Information Report or evidence as P.W.1, which has been found on the person of the informant as such, the credential of the informant is highly doubtful as informant has sustained such injury in different transaction, which has not been alleged in the First Information Report. Learned counsel for the appellant has further submitted, that Dr. Abhay Kumar, who has been examined as P.W.4, has categorically stated in his cross-examination at last paragraph that, these injuries were not sufficient to cause death. Under the aforesaid circumstances, the learned counsel for the appellant has submitted, that the conviction of the appellant under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code cannot sustain in the eyes of law. 12. Heard, learned counsel for the State, Mr. Sudhir Kumar Roy, Additional Public Prosecutor. Learned counsel for the State has submitted, that the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence has been passed by the learned trial Court on the basis of material available on record. 12. Heard, learned counsel for the State, Mr. Sudhir Kumar Roy, Additional Public Prosecutor. Learned counsel for the State has submitted, that the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence has been passed by the learned trial Court on the basis of material available on record. Learned counsel for the State has further submitted, that Kesar Bhuiyan, father of the informant-victim has been examined as P.W.2, who is also an eye witness to the occurrence, Rajbasiya Devi mother of the informant has been examined as P.W.3, she is a hearsay witness, Dr. Abhay Kumar(P.W.4) is a medical officer, who has examined the victim and proved the injury report as exhibit-1. Learned counsel for the State has further submitted, that P.W.2 (Kesar Bhuiyan) and P.W.3 (Rajbasiya Devi) have supported the prosecution case and P.W.4, Dr. Abhay Kumar has found corresponding injury upon the person of victim as such, learned trial Court has rightly convicted the appellant under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code, which warrants no interference by this Hon'ble Court at this stage. 13. Heard, learned counsel for the appellant Mr. Vijay Shankar Prasad assisted by Mr. Binod Kumar, Advocates and Mr. Sudhir Kumar Roy, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State and perused the records, i.e First Information Report, framing of the charge, evidence of six prosecution witnesses, one exhibit of the prosecution side and the statement of the appellant recorded under Section 313 Cr. P. C. as well as impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence. This court has scrutinized the evidence of the informant and compared the same with the fardbeyan of the informant and the evidence of Kesar Bhuiyan(P.W.2) father of the informant. The informant has been examined as P.W.1, he has reiterated his statement made in the fardbeyan during his deposition in the learned trial Court as P.W.1, but from perusal of the injury report, which has been proved and marked as exhibit-1, the Dr. Abhay Kumar (P.W.4) has found three injuries on the person of the informant but as per the First Information Report the informant has only sustained two injuries and on the hand and other near the eyes. The prosecution has not explained about the third injury found on the person of the informant. This Hon'ble Court after perusing the medical evidence, which has been proved and marked as exhibit-1 and considering the evidence of Dr. The prosecution has not explained about the third injury found on the person of the informant. This Hon'ble Court after perusing the medical evidence, which has been proved and marked as exhibit-1 and considering the evidence of Dr. Abhay Kumar (P.W.4) that injuries were not sufficient to cause death, coupled with the fact that, informant has categorically stated that, after seeing the blood oozing from the wound, the appellant fled away, suggest there was no intention on the part of the appellant to commit murder of the informant. From evidence on record it appears to this Hon'ble Court, Kesar Bhuiyan(P.W.2), is not an eye witness to the occurrence, as his name has not been taken by the informant either in the First Information Report or in his disposition as P.W.1, as eye witness to the occurrence. Kesar Bhuiyan has not witnessed the occurrence, as in the First Information Report the informant has categorically stated that, on brawl raised by him, his father Kesar Bhuiyan and co-villagers came there and they brought the informant to the Police Station. The investigating officer has not been examined in this case as such, conviction of the appellant under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code cannot sustain in the eyes of law, as other prosecution witnesses i.e. P.W.3 Rajbasiya Devi is an hearsay witness and P.W.5 Jhagaru Yadav and P.W.6 Firangi Yadav have been declared hostile by the prosecution. Under the aforesaid background, as discussed above, this Court is of the opinion that the impugned Judgment of conviction and order of sentence, cannot sustain in the eyes of law. Accordingly, the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence, both dated 11.03.2005, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.3, Palamau at Daltonganj, in Sessions Trial Case No. 217 of 2003, arising out of Manatu P.S. Case no. 40 of 2002 corresponding to G. R. case no. 1391 of 2002, is hereby set aside by giving benefit of doubt. 14. In the result, the instant criminal appeal stands allowed. 15. The appellant, who is on bail, is discharged from the liability of his bail bonds. 16. Let L.C.R. along with a copy of this judgment be sent to the court concerned at once.