JUDGMENT : Heard, Mr. Nityanand Prasad Choudhary, learned counsel for the appellants and learned counsel for the State, Md. Asif Khan, learned Additional Public Prosecutor. 2. The instant Criminal appeal is directed against the Judgment of conviction and order of sentence, both dated 25.02.2004, passed by the learned 3rd Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Jamtara, in Sessions Case No.139 of 1994/14 of 2003, whereby the appellant no.1, Rohani Marandi has been convicted for the charge and offence committed and punishable under Sections 323 and 448 I.P.C. and appellant No.2 (Sarjan Marandi) has been convicted for the charge and offence committed and punishable under Sections 324 and 448 I.P.C. However, both the appellants have been acquitted by the learned trial court for the charge under Sections 307 and 342 I.P.C. The learned trial court has awarded appellant No.1, Rohani Marandi rigorous imprisonment for six months with a fine of Rs.500/-for the offence committed and punishable under Section 323 I.P.C. and rigorous imprisonment for six months for the offence committed and punishable under Section 448 I.P.C. The learned trial court has awarded appellant no.2, Sarjan Marandi rigorous imprisonment for two years and fine of Rs.500/-for the offence committed and punishable under Section 324 I.P.C. and rigorous imprisonment for six months for the offence committed and punishable under Section 448 I.P.C. In default in payment of fine, both the accused/appellants shall further undergo simple imprisonment for one month. However, both the sentences are directed to run concurrently. 3. The prosecution case, is based upon, the fardbeyan of the informant, Shivcharan Marandi (P.W.3) recorded by S.N. Hembram, A.S.I., Jamtara Police Station at 10.30 hours on 19.03.1993 at Sub Divisional Hospital, Jamtara, wherein the informant has alleged that on 18.03.1993, at night, after taking dinner, the informant was sitting in the ‘verandah’, in the meantime, his younger brother, (1) Rohini Marandi, S/o Late Chhowa Marandi, (2) Surja Marandi, S/o Late Kullu Marandi and (3) Rajan Marandi, S/o Sukhu Marandi came to the door of the informant and abused the informant by saying that his wife is daain and asked both of them to come out of the house so that both of them can be killed. After saying that, Rohini Marandi entered into the house of the informant and started assaulting the informant by means of danda. After saying that, Rohini Marandi entered into the house of the informant and started assaulting the informant by means of danda. The informant tried to save himself, in the meantime, Surja @ Sarjan Marandi and Rajan Marandi also entered into the house, having lathi and tangi in their hands and they assaulted the informant. Surja @ Sarjan Marandi assaulted the informant on his left hand by means of tangi causing bleeding injury. Thereafter, all the three accused persons assaulted the informant by means of lathi, danda, fists and slaps. The informant fell down and thereafter all the accused persons fled away. Because of the late night, the informant could not come to the Police Station and in the morning, he came to the Government Hospital, where he is undergoing treatment. 4. On the basis of the aforesaid ‘fardbeyan’ of the informant the Police instituted First Information Report bearing Jamtara P.S. Case No. 55 of 1993 dated 19.03.1993 corresponding to G.R. No.118 of 1993 under Sections 341/448 /323/324/307/34 of the Indian Penal Code against Rohini Marandi, Surja Marandi and Rajan Marandi. 5. After investigation, the Police has submitted charge-sheet vide Charge-sheet No.47 of 1933 dated 30.04.1993 against the accused persons, namely, Rohini Marandi and Suraja @ Sarjan Marandi under Sections 341, 448, 323, 324 and 307/34 I.P.C. 6. The cognizance of the offence has been taken against accused/appellants vide order dated 12.05.1993 and the case has been committed to the Court of Sessions vide order dated 26.05.1994. 7. The charge has been framed by the learned trial court on 15.03.2000 against both the accused/appellants under Sections 342, 323, 448 and 307/34 I.P.C., to which the accused persons/appellants have pleaded their innocence and thus, they were put under trial. 8. The prosecution has examined altogether four prosecution witnesses and also exhibited a number of documents as Exhibits in support of its case. Savitri Marandi, daughter of the informant has been examined as P.W.1, Dr. Lalit Kumar Lal, Medical Officer, who has examined the victim, has been examined as P.W.2, Shiv Charan Marandi, informant-cum-victim of the case has been examined as P.W.3 and Tahir Hussain, an Advocate Clerk, being a formal witness has been examined as P.W.4. Savitri Marandi, daughter of the informant has been examined as P.W.1, Dr. Lalit Kumar Lal, Medical Officer, who has examined the victim, has been examined as P.W.2, Shiv Charan Marandi, informant-cum-victim of the case has been examined as P.W.3 and Tahir Hussain, an Advocate Clerk, being a formal witness has been examined as P.W.4. The prosecution has proved the injury report of victim and the same has been marked as Exhibit-1, formal First Information Report has been proved and marked as Exhibit-2 and fardbeyan of the informant has been proved and marked as Exhibit-3. 9. After closure of the prosecution evidence, the statements of the accused/appellants have been recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C., on 28.01.2004, to which the accused/appellants have pleaded their innocence and accused, Rohani Marandi has categorically stated that because of the land dispute prevailing between the parties, he has been falsely implicated in this case. The defence has not examined any witness nor adduced any documentary or oral evidence. 10. The learned trial court, after hearing learned counsel for the parties and on the basis of the materials brought on record, 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, the accused/appellants have preferred the present Criminal Appeal before this Hon’ble Court, assailing the same. 11. Heard Mr. Nityanand Prasad Choudhary, learned counsel appearing for the appellants. Learned counsel for the 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 the appellants has further submitted that the prosecution case, as made out in the fardbeyan of the informant (P.W.3-Shiv Charand Marandi) is different from what has been stated by the informant while deposing in the Court as P.W.3. Learned counsel for the appellants has further submitted that wife of the informant has not been examined though the daughter of the informant, Savitri Marandi has been examined as P.W.1, but she has given a contradictory version from ‘fardbeyan’ of her father, as well as evidence adduced in the Court as P.W.3. Learned counsel for the appellants has further submitted that wife of the informant has not been examined though the daughter of the informant, Savitri Marandi has been examined as P.W.1, but she has given a contradictory version from ‘fardbeyan’ of her father, as well as evidence adduced in the Court as P.W.3. Learned counsel for the appellants has further submitted that from perusal of the First Information Report, it appears that the informant was sitting in his ‘verandah’, when the appellants came and abused him and asked to come out along with his wife, so that they may kill them, as his wife is ‘daain’ and thereafter Rohini Marandi entered into the room and assaulted the informant by means of lathi, but while deposing in the Court as P.W.3, the informant has given a contradictory version by stating that after taking dinner, the informant along with his wife and his daughter were sitting in the verandah when the appellants entered into the house and initially assaulted by Surja @ Sarjan Marandi by means of tangi and thereafter Rohini and Rajan Marandi have also assaulted him. Learned counsel for the the appellants has further submitted that the evidence of daughter of the informant is also contradictory to the evidence of the informant, as the daughter (P.W.1 – Savitri Marandi) has stated that she was sleeping in a room and after hearing brawl, she got up and saw her father on the road where her mother and brother were also present. Learned counsel for the appellants has further submitted that Shivcharan Marandi (P.W.3) and Savitri Marandi (P.W.1), both have admitted that the dispute was prevailing between the informant (P.W.3-Shivcharan Marandi) and accused/appellant, Rohani Marandi. Learned counsel for the appellants has drawn attention of this Court towards the evidence of Dr. Lalit Kumar Lal (P.W.2), who has proved the injury report of the informant (Shivcharan Marandi) and marked as Exhibit-1 and from perusal of injury report, it appears that the informant has sustained altogether four injuries, but all are simple in nature. Learned counsel for the appellants has drawn attention of this Court towards the evidence of Dr. Lalit Kumar Lal (P.W.2), who has proved the injury report of the informant (Shivcharan Marandi) and marked as Exhibit-1 and from perusal of injury report, it appears that the informant has sustained altogether four injuries, but all are simple in nature. Learned counsel for the appellants has further submitted that in view of the contradictory version of the prosecution witnesses, namely, Shivcharan Marandi (P.W.3) and Savitri Marandi (P.W.1) and comparing with the fardbeyan of the informant, Shivcharan Marandi, it appears that there are vital contradictions in the prosecution case and only because of injuries sustained by the informant, the appellants cannot be convicted under Sections 324, 323 and 448 I.P.C. The prosecution has to prove its case strictly against the appellants beyond all reasonable doubt. Learned counsel for the appellants has further submitted that wife and son of the informant have not been examined nor the Investigating officer of the case has not been examined in this case and the formal First Information Report has been proved by an Advocate Clerk, being a formal witness, Tahir Hussain, who has been examined as P.W.4 and has never worked with the Police Officer. Learned counsel for the appellants has thus, submitted that under the aforesaid background, the appellants cannot be convicted under Sections 324, 323 and 448 I.P.C. when the learned trial court has acquitted the appellants of the charge under Sections 307 and 342 I.P.C. 12. Heard, Mr. Asif Khan, 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 though there is contradiction in evidence of the prosecution witnesses, but the informant has categorically stated that he was assaulted on his left hand by means of tangi by Surja @ Sarjan Marandi and by means of lathi by Rohini Marandi and corresponding injury was found by Dr. Lalit Kumar Lal (P.W.2) and as such, the learned trial court has rightly convicted the accused/appellants under Sections 323, 324 and 448 I.P.C. 13. Heard, Mr. Nityanand Prasad Choudhary, learned counsel for the appellants and Mr. Lalit Kumar Lal (P.W.2) and as such, the learned trial court has rightly convicted the accused/appellants under Sections 323, 324 and 448 I.P.C. 13. Heard, Mr. Nityanand Prasad Choudhary, learned counsel for the appellants and Mr. Asif Khan, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State and also perused the entire record i.e. First Information Report, framing of charge, evidence of four prosecution witnesses, three prosecution exhibits, statement of the appellants recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. as well as the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence. This Court has scrutinized the evidence of prosecution witnesses specially the evidence of informant, Shivcharan Marandi (P.W.3) and his fardbeyan, which has been marked as Exhibit-3. This Court has found vital contradiction with respect to the manner of occurrence as the informant was sitting along with his wife and daughter in the verandah, then entering into the house by the appellants seems to be improbable. This Court has considered the fardbeyan of the informant, wherein, it is alleged that the accused persons were abusing the informant by asking him to come out of house along with his wife, who is doing witchcraft practices, but from the evidence of the informant (P.W.3-Shivcharan Marandi) as well as daughter of the informant, P.W.1 (Savitri Marandi), nowhere it has been whispered that the accused persons have assaulted wife of the informant, which was the main reason assigned by the informant in the First Information Report. This Court has scrutinized the evidence of the informant (P.W.3) and has found that he has exaggerated his version by stating in Para-5 of his cross-examination that after sustaining assault, he became unconscious. This fact has not been stated by the informant in the First Information Report nor has been stated by his daughter (P.W.1-Savitri Marandi) in her deposition in the Court. The fatal blow to the prosecution case came in Para-15 of the cross-examination of the informant, when the informant has categorically stated that the Sub Inspector of Police has taken signature on the blank-sheet and his re-statement has not been recorded. In absence of examination of the Investigating officer, serious prejudice has been caused to the appellants because of such statement made by the informant in Para-15 of his cross-examination. This Court has further examined the evidence of P.W.1 (Savitri Marandi), daughter of the informant, who has stated contradictory version from the statement of her father. In absence of examination of the Investigating officer, serious prejudice has been caused to the appellants because of such statement made by the informant in Para-15 of his cross-examination. This Court has further examined the evidence of P.W.1 (Savitri Marandi), daughter of the informant, who has stated contradictory version from the statement of her father. P.W.1 (Savitri Marandi) has categorically stated that she was sleeping in room, when got up after hearing hulla, saw her mother, father and brother on the road, but neither her mother nor her brother have been examined in this case and this witness has specifically admitted in Para-11 of her cross-examination that there is litigation pending between her father and uncle, Rohani Marandi. 14. Under the aforesaid discussions and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the opinion that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubt against the appellants, as such, the appellants are entitled for benefit of doubt. Thus, 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 25.02.2004, passed by the learned 3rd Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Jamtara, in Sessions Case No.139 of 1994/14 of 2003 is hereby set aside. 16. In the result, the present Criminal Appeal stands allowed. 17. The appellants, who are on bail, are discharged from the liabilities of their bail bonds. 18. Let L.C.R. along with a copy of this judgment be sent to the court concerned at once. Appeal allowed.