JUDGMENT : The instant Criminal Appeal has been preferred against the judgment of conviction dated 19.04.2004 and order of sentence, dated 20.04.2004, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-IV, Fast Track Court, Jamtara, in Sessions Case No. 6 of 1998, whereby the appellant has been held guilty for the offence committed and punishable under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code and awarded rigorous imprisonment for eight years with fine of Rs. 1000/-and in default of payment in fine, to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for three months. By the same impugned judgment, the learned trial court has acquitted the co-accused Basant Sen from the charge. However, neither the State nor the informant has preferred any acquittal appeal against the judgment of acquittal of Basant Sen. 2. The prosecution case is based upon the fardbeyan of the informant Jaba Ruz (P.W. 3) wife of Jiaram Ruz (P.W. 13) recorded by Sub-Inspector of Police Sanjay Kumar Singh, Officer-in-Charge, Fatehpur Police Station in the district of Jamtara on 13.07.1997 at 18.00 Hrs. at village Jordiha, wherein the informant has alleged that 4-5 children were playing on the chala of straw for which her husband Jiaram Ruz (P.W. 13) has scolded the boys as there is chances that they may fall from the same and sustain injury. On the complaint made by the children, husband of the informant went there, upon which Sukhdeo Sen asked him “who is he” and started abusing. It is alleged that husband of the informant was assaulted on his head and mouth by means of stone causing bleeding injury and one of the teeth was broken with fracture of jaw. The other accused person namely Mrinal Sen assaulted the husband of informant by means of lathi due to which he sustained bleeding injury and fell down and became unconscious. Basant Sen also assaulted her husband and was instigating his son. In the meantime, co-villagers came there and thereafter, the husband of informant was saved and brought to his house. 3. On the basis of the fardbeyan of the informant, police has registered Kundahit P.S. Case No. 46 of 1997 dated 14.07.1997, under Sections 323/324/307/34 of the Indian Penal Code against three accused persons namely Sukhdeo Sen, Mrinal Sen and Basant Sen. 4. After completion of investigation, the police has submitted charge sheet vide charge sheet no. 3. On the basis of the fardbeyan of the informant, police has registered Kundahit P.S. Case No. 46 of 1997 dated 14.07.1997, under Sections 323/324/307/34 of the Indian Penal Code against three accused persons namely Sukhdeo Sen, Mrinal Sen and Basant Sen. 4. After completion of investigation, the police has submitted charge sheet vide charge sheet no. 54 of 1997, dated 30.09.1997 under Sections 323/325/307/34 of the Indian Penal Code against two accused persons namely Sukhdeo Sen and Basant Sen, as the allegation against Mrinal Sen was not found to be true by not senting up him for trial. 5. The cognizance of the offence has been taken vide order dated 20/24.11.1997 and the case has been committed to the Court of Sessions vide order dated 15.12.1997. 6. The charge has been framed against Sukhdeo Sen and Basant Sen under Section 307/34 of the Indian Penal Code vide order dated 25.06.1998, to which accused persons have pleaded their innocence and thus, they were put under trial. 7. The prosecution, to prove its case, has examined altogether seventeen witnesses and also exhibited a number of documentary evidences up to Exhibit Nagar bauri has been examined as P.W. 1, Ujjwal Tanti has been examined as P.W. 2 and both have been declared hostile by the prosecution, Jaba Ruz, informant of the case has been examined as P.W. 3, Mantu Ruj has been examined as P.W. 4, Pandey Bouri, has been examined as P.W. 5 and has been declared hostile by the prosecution, Budal Goswami has been examined as P.W. 6, Prem Bouri, has been examined as P.W. 7 and has been declared hostile by the prosecution, Haripada Ruj has been examined as P.W. 8 and has been tendered by the prosecution, Chandan Goswami has been examined as P.W. 9 and has been declared hostile by the prosecution, Ujjwal Goswami has been examined as P.W. 10, Milan Kumar Ruz, has been examined as P.W. 11 and has been declared hostile by the prosecution, Shyampada Ruz has been examined as P.W. 12, Jiaram Ruz, victim and injured of the case, has been examined as P.W. 13, Fakira Kachhap, Investigating Officer of the case has been examined as P.W. 14, Dr. Baliram Prasad Gupta, Doctor, who has attested the injury report of Jiaram Ruz, has been examined as P.W. 15, Dr. Baliram Prasad Gupta, Doctor, who has attested the injury report of Jiaram Ruz, has been examined as P.W. 15, Dr. Sanjay Jhunjhunwala, who has proved the injury report issued in the hand writing of Dr. Baliram Prasad Gupta as Exhibit- 5 and his signature as Exhibit-4, has been examined as P.W. 16 and Dr. Arvind Kumar Sinha, who has proved the discharge slip issued in his hand-writing and signature, marked as Exhibit- 6, has been examined as P.W. 17. 8. Signature of the informant Jaba Ruz (P.W. 3) on the fardbeyan has been proved and marked as Exhibit-1, fardbeyan has been proved and marked as Exhibit-2, endorsement of Officer-in-Charge on the fardbeyan has been proved and marked as Exhibit-2/1, signature of Officer-in-Charge on the F.I.R has been proved and marked as Exhibit-3, attested copy of the injury report has been proved and marked as Exhibit-4, injury register of the injured has been proved and marked as Exhibit-5, discharge slip of Jiaram Ruz (P.W. 13) has been proved and marked as Exhibit- 6. 9. After closure of the prosecution evidence, statement of the accused persons have been recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. on 11.12.2003, to which the accused persons have pleaded that they are innocent and have submitted that they have also sustained injury and were treated by the doctor. The defence has examined Bindeshwari Rai as D.W. 1 and has also adduced a number of documents. Signatures of informant and injured on compromise petition have been marked as Exhibits-A and A/1. Injury reports of Sukhdeo Sen and Basant Sen have been marked as Exhibits-A and A/1. Certified copy of formal F.I.R. bearing Kundahit P.S. Case No. 47 of 1997 dated 14.07.1997 has been marked as Exhibit-A. Certified copy of charge sheet no. 13 of 1998 dated 20.03.1998 has been marked as Exhibit-B and certified copy of order dated 20.11.1998 in T.R. Case No. 695/1998 has been marked as Exhibit- C. 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 convicting the appellant under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code and acquitted co-accused Basant Sen from all the charge. Being aggrieved at and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence, the appellant has preferred the present criminal appeal, assailing the same. 11. Heard, learned counsel for the appellant Mr. Being aggrieved at and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence, the appellant has preferred the present criminal appeal, assailing the same. 11. Heard, learned counsel for the appellant Mr. Hemant Kumar Shikarwar assisted by Mrs. Shalini Kumari, Advocate. 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 submitted that the prosecution has not brought the true version of the case as both sides have sustained injuries and there is a case and counter case between the parties. The case and counter case has not been tried together and as such, there is a chance of conflicting judgment in the case. Learned counsel for the appellant has further submitted that the learned trial court has not taken judicial notice of the fact that both sides have filed compromise petition and signatures upon the same of informant and injured have been marked as Exhibits-A and A/1 and the learned trial court has wrongly convicted the appellant under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code. Learned counsel for the appellant has further submitted that ingredient to constitute an offence under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code is lacking in the present case and as such, the conviction of the appellant is not sustainable in the eyes of law. Learned counsel for the appellant has further submitted that the injury no. 4 i.e. “fracture of the upper jaw in which upper central and lateral incisor teeth-were present and were shaky and were driven inward 1/4” with blood clot and bleeding. There was difficulty in opening mouth, on the upper margin of gum of both teeth-blood clots were present. X-ray advised.” Injury no. 4 has been found grievous in nature by the doctor but that does not constitute an offence under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code. Learned counsel for the appellant has further submitted that true version of the case has not been brought on record as held in the case of Subramani & Others Vs. State of Tamil Nadu as reported in (2002) 7 SCC 210 . Learned counsel for the appellant has further submitted that true version of the case has not been brought on record as held in the case of Subramani & Others Vs. State of Tamil Nadu as reported in (2002) 7 SCC 210 . Learned counsel for the appellant has further submitted that it is a case of free fight, which has been admitted by Jaba Juz (P.W. 3) and both sides have filed F.I.R. and in view of the compromise petition, the learned trial court ought to have been acquitted the appellant of the charge and conviction under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code. 12. Heard, learned counsel for the State, Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pandey, 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. Learned counsel for the State has submitted that there is a case and counter-case between the parties but none of the side has brought the true version of the case, regarding the injury sustained by the accused persons of the present case, as such, the learned trial court has rightly convicted the appellant under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code. Learned counsel for the State has further submitted that injured has supported his case and the doctors have proved the injury report of the victim. The investigating officer of the case has also been examined and thus prosecution has proved its case beyond all reasonable doubts. Learned counsel for the State has thus submitted that the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence does not warrant any interference by this Hon'ble Court at this stage. 13. Heard, learned counsel for the appellant Mr. Hemant Kumar Shikarwar assisted by Mrs. Shalini Kumari, Advocate and learned counsel for the State, Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pandey, Additional Public Prosecutor and perused the evidence brought on record including the F.I.R., framing of charge, evidence of seventeen prosecution witnesses, six prosecution exhibits, statement of the appellant recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C., one defence witness as well as defence exhibits and the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence. This Court has perused the evidence brought on record. This Court has perused the evidence brought on record. It appears from admission made by informant Jaba Ruz (P.W. 3) that accused persons have also sustained injuries and compromise petition has been filed in this case which was signed by the informant and the victim. Further, there is a free fight between the parties and both sides have sustained injuries and both sides have filed F.I.R. but subsequently compromise petition has been filed. The injury found on the husband of the informant is grievous in nature but the true version of the case has not been brought on record and as such, adverse inference is drawn in view of judgment Subramani & Ors. (supra). Under the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this Court is of the opinion that the appellant is entitled for benefit of doubt. 14. In the result, the impugned judgment of conviction dated 19.04.2004 and order of sentence, dated 20.04.2004, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-IV, Fast Track Court, Jamtara, in Sessions Case No. 6 of 1998, arising out of Kundahit P.S. Case No. 46 of 1997, corresponding to G. R. No. 268 of 1997, is hereby set aside and appellant is acquitted of the charge and conviction under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code by extending benefit of doubt. 15. The appellant, who is on bail, is discharged from liability of his bail bond. 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. Appeal allowed.