JUDGMENT : 1. Appellants Anil Singh and Ram Balak Singh have been found guilty for an offence punishable under Section 324 of the I.P.C. and each one has been sentenced to undergo R.I. for two years vide judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 12.03.2015 passed by the 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Lakhisarai in Sessions Trial No. 749 of 1986. 2. PW-1 Krishna Nandan Singh while was admitted at a clinic of Dr. Vijay Narayan Singh, situated at Nala Road, Patna gave his fard-bayan before the police official of Kadam Kuan P.S. on 29.03.1986 alleging inter-alia that while he was sleeping at his house in order to keep watch over his she-buffalo, he awaken on account of having been apprehended and then, found Anil Singh, Krishna Singh and Ram Balak Singh, who were armed with axe, farsa and chhura. He tried to get up, but the accused persons began to assault. Even then, he attempted, but was apprehended by Narayan Singh, Ramashrya Singh, Vilayati Singh and then thereafter, he was brutally assaulted by all of them. The motive for the occurrence has been shown as detention of mare belonging to Narayan Singh by him, though released subsequently. 3. After registration of Barahiya P.S. Case No. 42 of 1986, investigation was taken up and after concluding the same, chargesheet was submitted against all the accused persons, out of whom, accused Narayan Singh and Vilayati Singh died and so, proceeding against them was dropped. Proceeding against Krishna Singh and Ramashrya Singh were separated, on account of their nonappearance as a result of which, the trial commenced and continued against the appellants only and concluded in a manner, the subject matter of instant appeal. 4. Defence case, as is evident from mode of cross-examination as well as statement recorded under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. is that of complete denial as well as false implication on account of village politics. 5. From the record, it is evident that it happens to be hopelessly conducted trial. Neither I.O. has been examined nor doctor Even injury report has not been exhibited. Not only this, save and except two witnesses that means to say, injured Krishna Nandan Singh and Yugeshwar Singh and none other has been examined even to the extent of one Vijay Singh, who stood as F.I.R. attesting witness. 6. Neither I.O. has been examined nor doctor Even injury report has not been exhibited. Not only this, save and except two witnesses that means to say, injured Krishna Nandan Singh and Yugeshwar Singh and none other has been examined even to the extent of one Vijay Singh, who stood as F.I.R. attesting witness. 6. Now, coming to the status of the witnesses, it is evident that PW-2 failed to support case of the prosecution, whereupon was declared hostile. Now, remains the evidence of PW-1, injured himself. Before going to discuss the evidence of PW-1, the initial version suggests that he happens to be an injured. Section 134 of the Evidence Act discloses requirement of proving a fact by a reliable, trustworthy witness, and for that, did not require the same to be proved by number of the witnesses. Even if the evidence of single witness is found trustworthy, then in that circumstance, conviction could be. Keeping the aforesaid requirement of law, the evidence of PW-1 is to be seen. During his examination-in-chief, it is evident that he had alleged against the appellants including others to have inflicted axe, farsa, chhura blow repeatedly as a result of which, he sustained injury. Furthermore, he had also stated that during course of fleeing, he was intercepted by Narayan Singh, Ramashraya Singh and Vilayati Singh and then thereafter, again been assaulted. At Para-2, he had stated that the villagers lifted him to police station and from police station to hospital where he was treated and then, he was referred to Patna. Then had exhibited the fard-bayan. During cross-examination at Para-9, he had stated that blood had fallen 5-6 steps north to his cot, whereupon he was sleeping. He remained lying for 20 minutes and then thereafter, villagers came and lifted him. He remained at police station for half an hour. He was accompanied by Bhola Singh, Bimal Singh, Jugeshwar Singh, Ramavtar Singh and others. Then, he was taken to hospital where Dr. Ramanugrah Babu treated him and then thereafter, he was referred to Patna. From his evidence, it is apparent that in spite of his presence at the police station, hospital neither any kind of fard-bayan was recorded at his instance or by anybody else before the local police nor the injury report, if any, prepared by Dr. Ramanugrah Babu. This witness has not spoken that he was unconscious. From his evidence, it is apparent that in spite of his presence at the police station, hospital neither any kind of fard-bayan was recorded at his instance or by anybody else before the local police nor the injury report, if any, prepared by Dr. Ramanugrah Babu. This witness has not spoken that he was unconscious. This witness has not spoken that police was not there and his fard-bayan was not recorded. The burden is on the prosecution. There should be promptness in recording of the F.I.R. It is not the requirement of law that mere delay in institution of the case would cast dent in the prosecution version, but having presence at the police station, but keeping mum having been treated at the hospital, but no injury report and then, covering long distance coming to Patna where he was admitted at the clinic of Dr. Vijay Narayan Singh that too, is found non-substantiated by any other witness as well as any kind of injury report issued by him, axe upon reliability of the prosecution case. Moreover, at Para-11, he had stated that no case was registered at that very moment is another circumstance, when it has been suggested that neither he sustained injury in a manner as flashed by him nor he has got Bathan where allegedly he was sleeping during course of occurrence. 7. In the aforesaid background, non-examination of the I.O. is fatal to the prosecution case. Had there been examination, then in that circumstance, the actual affair of the P.O. by way of objective finding at the end of the I.O. would have been visualized substantiating/ doubting over the genuineness of the prosecution case. Moreover, in absence of injury report as well as non-examination of doctor, the conviction under Section 324 of the I.P.C. is not sustainable. 8. Regard being had to the facts and circumstances of the case, it is found and held that the prosecution has not succeeded in substantiating its case. Consequent thereupon, the judgment of conviction and sentence recorded by the learned lower Court is set aside. Appeal is allowed. Appellants are on bail hence, are discharged from its liabilities.