JUDGMENT : The instant Criminal Appeal has been preferred against the judgment of conviction dated 17.02.2004 and order of sentence, dated 24.02.2004, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court No. II), Deoghar, in Sessions Case No. 234 of 2002, whereby all the above named appellants have been convicted for the offence committed and punishable under Sections 323/341/379/504/34 of the Indian Penal Code and have been released on probation of good conduct after entering into a bond of Rs. 2,000/- each with one surety and they are also directed to appear before the court and receive sentence in case of breach of the bond up to the period of 3 years and in the mean time they shall keep peace and be of good behaviour. 2. The prosecution case is based upon the written report submitted by Niranjan Bawari (P.W. 8), before the Officer-in-Charge, Palajori police station on 25.02.2002, alleging therein that he is a chowkidar and while he was returning from his duty on 25.02.2002, when he reached Palajori Hatia in front of Rohini Misthan Bhandar, he saw Sheetal Bawari, Shambhu Bawari, Jeeya Bawari, Binod Bawari, Ramlal Bawari, Jeetan Bawari, Bimal Bawari, Arjun Pujhar and Pankhi Bawari, who after seeing the informant, abused him by saying that he has filed a case against them under Section 107 Cr.P.C. The informant has alleged that all the accused persons caught hold of him and assaulted him by fist, leg and fats. It is specifically alleged that Shambhu Bawari has snatched wrist watch and Binod Bawari has taken Rs. 250/- from the pocket of the informant. The occurrence has been witnessed by the persons of the locality. The informant has stated the cause of the occurrence is that the informant has filed a case under Section 107 Cr.P.C. against the accused persons and the notice has been received by them today and as such, the occurrence has been committed at 5.00 P.M. 3. On the basis of the written report of the informant, police has registered Palajori P.S. Case No. 13 of 2002, dated 25.02.2002, under Sections 341/323/332/333/379/504/34 of the Indian Penal Code against all nine named accused persons. 4. After investigation, the police has submitted charge sheet vide charge sheet no. 19 of 2002, dated 18.06.2002, under Sections 341/323/332/333/379/504/34 of the Indian Penal Code, against all named accused persons. 5. 4. After investigation, the police has submitted charge sheet vide charge sheet no. 19 of 2002, dated 18.06.2002, under Sections 341/323/332/333/379/504/34 of the Indian Penal Code, against all named accused persons. 5. The cognizance of the offence has been taken vide order dated 25.06.2002 and the case has been committed to the Court of Sessions vide order dated 14.11.2002. 6. The charge has been framed against all the nine accused persons under Sections 323/34, 341/34, 332/34, 333/34, 379/34 and 504/34 of the Indian Penal Code vide order dated 22.02.2003, to which the accused persons have pleaded their innocence and thus, they were put under trial. 7. The prosecution, to prove its case, has examined altogether ten witnesses. Uttam Datta has been examined as P.W. 1, Khudi Ram Datta has been examined as P.W. 2, Dasarath Prasad Sah has been examined as P.W. 3, Karuna May Deo has been examined as P.W. 4, Birender Datta has been examined as P.W. 5, Bhim Bawari has been examined as P.W. 6, Mahadeo Bawari has been examined as P.W. 7, Niranjan Bawari has been examined as P.W. 8, Jamuna Prasad has been examined as P.W. 9 and Mahendra Prasad Sah has been examined as P.W. 10. Apart from the oral evidence, the prosecution has also adduced a number of documentary evidence to prove its case. Fardbeyan containing signature of the informant Niranjan Bawari (P.W. 8) has been proved and marked as Exhibit-1, endorsement of the Officer-in-Charge on the fardbeyan has been proved and marked as Exhibit-1/1, the police requisition for medical treatment has been proved and marked as Exhibit-2, paragraphs 1 to 95 of the case diary has been proved and marked as Exhibit-3 (wrongly exhibited), formal F.I.R. has been proved and marked as Exhibit-4, injury report of the informant has been proved and marked as Exhibit-5, second injury report of the informant has been proved and marked as Exhibit-5/1, X-ray plate and its report have been proved and marked as X and X/1 respectively for identification. 8. After closure of the prosecution evidence, the statement of the accused persons, have been recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. on 26.08.2003, to which the accused persons have stated that they are innocent and claimed that they have been falsely implicated in this case by the informant. 9. 8. After closure of the prosecution evidence, the statement of the accused persons, have been recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. on 26.08.2003, to which the accused persons have stated that they are innocent and claimed that they have been falsely implicated in this case by the informant. 9. The appellants have also examined two defence witnesses, Nimay Mahto has been examined as D.W. 1 and Haribol Thakur has been examined as D.W. 2, but no documentary evidence has been brought on record. 10. After hearing the parties and on perusal of the records, the learned Trial Court has passed the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence, whereby the learned Trial Court has convicted the appellants for the offence committed and punishable under Sections 323/341/379/504/34 of the Indian Penal Code. Being aggrieved at and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence, the appellants have jointly preferred the present criminal appeal before this Hon'ble Court assailing the same. 11. Heard, learned counsel for the appellants, Mr. Rohit Agarwal assisted by Mr. Arvind Kumar Choudhary, 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 the impugned judgment has been passed by the learned trial court without scrutinising the evidence brought on record and has wrongly convicted the appellants under Sections 323/341/379/504/34 of the Indian Penal Code. Learned counsel for the appellants has further submitted that Uttam Datta (P.W. 1), Khudi Ram Datta (P.W. 2), Dasarath Prasad Sah (P.W. 3), Karuna May Deo (P.W. 4) and Birender Datta (P.W. 5) have not supported the prosecution case and thus, they have been declared hostile by the prosecution and Bhim Bawari (P.W. 6), is a hearsay witness. Learned counsel for the appellants has further submitted that Uttam Datta (P.W. 1), Khudi Ram Datta (P.W. 2), Dasarath Prasad Sah (P.W. 3), Karuna May Deo (P.W. 4) and Birender Datta (P.W. 5) have not supported the prosecution case and thus, they have been declared hostile by the prosecution and Bhim Bawari (P.W. 6), is a hearsay witness. Learned counsel for the appellants has further drawn the attention of this Court towards the evidence of Mahadeo Bawari (P.W. 7), who is own brother-in-law of the informant and has submitted that though P.W. 7 has claimed himself to be an eye-witness to the occurrence but from perusal of the evidence, his conduct is not showing that he is an eye-witness to the occurrence, as in his statement at paragraph-3 of cross-examination, this witness has admitted that informant is his brother-in-law and at paragraph-1 of his examination, he has stated that he has seen the occurrence of assault rather the natural conduct should be that, when he saw that his relative is being assaulted, he should have gone for his rescue, as such, it appears that Mahadeo Bawari (P.W. 7) is not an eye-witness rather being the brother-in-law, is a close relative and interested witness, he has deposed falsely before the court claiming himself to be an eye-witness. Learned counsel for the appellants has further submitted that Niranjan Bawari (P.W. 8), is the informant himself and the evidence adduced by him in the court is contradictory to the reasons assigned in the written report. Learned counsel for the appellants has further submitted that since the informant is a chowkidaar, as such the police has submitted chargesheet supporting the version of chowkidaar on the sole testimony of the informant only whose evidence is contrary to his written report. Learned counsel for the appellants has further drawn the attention of this Court towards the evidence of Jamuna Prasad (P.W. 9), investigating officer of the case, who has proved the written report as Exhibit-1 and endorsement of the Officer-in-Charge on the fardbeyan as Exhibit-1/1. Learned counsel for the appellants has further submitted that the investigating officer in paragraph-5 of his cross-examination has admitted that Mahadeo Bawari (P.W. 7) has never disclosed before him that Shambhu Bawari has taken wrist watch of the informant and Binod Bawari has taken Rs. 250/- from the pocket of the informant. Learned counsel for the appellants has further submitted that the investigating officer in paragraph-5 of his cross-examination has admitted that Mahadeo Bawari (P.W. 7) has never disclosed before him that Shambhu Bawari has taken wrist watch of the informant and Binod Bawari has taken Rs. 250/- from the pocket of the informant. Thus, learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that under the aforesaid circumstances, the evidence of P.W. 7 is not acceptable and as such, the conviction of the appellants on the basis of evidence of P.W. 8 is not sustainable in the eyes of law. Learned counsel for the appellants has further drawn the attention of this Court towards the injury reports of the informant, which have been proved and marked as Exhibits-5 and 5/1. From perusal of the injury reports which have been marked as Exhibits-5 and 5/1, it appears that all the injuries were simple in nature caused by hard and blunt substances, but from perusal of the First Information Report, it is clear that there is no allegation of assault made by hard and blunt substances like lathi. The allegation is made with respect to assault by fist, slap and leg. Under the aforesaid circumstances, learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that the appellants are entitled for benefit of doubt. 12. Heard, learned counsel for the State, Mr. Mukesh Kumar, Additional Public Prosecutor. Learned counsel for the State has submitted, that the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence is well founded and is based on the materials available on record and the learned Trial Court has rightly convicted the appellants under Sections 323/341/379/504/34 of the Indian Penal Code. Learned counsel for the State has further submitted that informant is a chowkidar, who has reported a matter under Section 107 Cr.P.C. and after receiving the notice, these appellants, who are law-breakers have taken the Law in their hands and have assaulted the informant by fist, slaps and leg. Learned State counsel has thus, submitted that the learned trial court has rightly passed the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence against the appellants and the same does not warrant any interference by this Hon'ble Court. 13. Heard, learned counsel for the appellants, Mr. Rohit Agarwal assisted by Mr. Arvind Kumar Choudhary, Advocates and learned counsel for the State, Mr. 13. Heard, learned counsel for the appellants, Mr. Rohit Agarwal assisted by Mr. Arvind Kumar Choudhary, Advocates and learned counsel for the State, Mr. Mukesh Kumar, Additional Public Prosecutor and perused the evidence brought on record i.e. the F.I.R., framing of charge, evidence of ten prosecution witnesses, prosecution exhibits, the statement of the appellants recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C., two defence witnesses and the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence. This Court has scrutinized the evidence of the prosecution witnesses. From perusal of the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, it appears that P.W. 1 to P.W. 5 are hostile witnesses. Bhim Bawari (P.W. 6) is a hearsay witness. Mahadeo Bawari (P.W. 7) is not a reliable witness. Niranjan Bawari (P.W. 8) has given a contradictory version from his own written report. Jamuna Prasad (P.W. 9) is the investigating officer, whose evidence suggests the presence of Mahadeo Bawari (P.W. 7), (own relative of the informant), to be doubtful. Mahendra Prasad Sah (P.W. 10), Medical Officer, has admitted that the name of the injured has not been mentioned in the X-ray plate nor he has mentioned about the colour of the injury to elucidate the time of the occurrence. Under the aforesaid circumstances, this Court is of the opinion that prosecution has failed to prove the charges against the appellants beyond all reasonable doubts. 14. In the result, the impugned judgment of conviction dated 17.02.2004 and order of sentence, dated 24.02.2004, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court No. II), Deoghar, in Sessions Case No. 234 of 2002, in connection with Palajori P.S. Case No. 13 of 2002, corresponding to G.R. Case No. 94 of 2002, is hereby set aside and all the nine appellants, named above, are acquitted of all the charges and conviction by extending benefit of doubt. 15. The appellants, who are on bail, they are discharged from the liabilities of their bail bonds. 16. Accordingly, the present criminal appeal is allowed. 17. Let the lower court record be sent along with a copy of this judgment to the court concerned, at once for necessary action.