JUDGMENT : Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the State. 2. The instant Criminal appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence both dated 18.11.2003, passed in S.T. No. 203 of 2001 (arising out of Tamar P.S. Case No. 76 of 2000 corresponding to G.R. No. 465 of 2000) passed by the learned Additional Judicial Commissioner (F.T.C), Khunti, whereby the sole appellant, Mithon Mahto has been convicted for the offence under Section 326 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for 5 years. 3. The prosecution case is based upon, on the basis of sanha entry made by the officer-in-charge, Tamar Police Station on the written report of the informant, Budhu Mahto, wherein it is alleged that on 21.08.2000 at around 8.00 a.m. while he was filling up the drain in his land, accused, Mithon Mahto and his two sons, namely, Ranglal Mahto and Hiralal Mahto came and assaulted him with fist. His father-in-law, Pusu Mahto and brother-in-law, Manoj Mahto were also present there. When they intervened by asking why they are assaulting the informant, Budhu Mahto. Thereafter they have also been assaulted. In the meantime, Mithon Mahto, appellant assaulted on the head of father-in-law (Pusu Mahto) of the informant causing injury. On the basis of the aforesaid 'fardbeyan' of the informant, the Police registered Sanha Entry No. 423 dated 21.08.2000 and after receiving the injury report from Dr. Y. Sharan, Medical officer, Primary Health Centre, Tamar, as one of the injury was grievous, which is a sharp-cut wound on the vertex of the scalp, size 3” length x 2c.m. deep. Thereafter the Police registered Tamar P.S. Case No. 76 of 2000 dated 4.09.2000 under Sections 323 and 326 of the Indian Penal Code. 4. After investigation, the Police submitted charge-sheet against three accused persons, namely, Mithon Mahto, Hiralal Mahto and Ranglal Mahto vide charge-sheet No.63 of 2000 dated 30.09.2000 under Sections 323, 324, 307/34 of the Indian Penal Code. 5. The cognizance of the offence was taken on 21.10.2000 and the case has been committed to the Court of Sessions vide notification dated 20.12.2000. 6. 5. The cognizance of the offence was taken on 21.10.2000 and the case has been committed to the Court of Sessions vide notification dated 20.12.2000. 6. Charge has been framed against the appellant, Mithan Mahto under Sections 323 and 307 I.P.C. and also against Mithon Mahto, Hiralal Mahto and Ranglal Mahto under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code, to which the appellant and the other accused persons pleaded innocence and thus, they were put under trial. 7. The prosecution in order to prove its case has examined 7 witnesses. Karam Mahto as P.W.1, Falendra Nath Mahto as P.W.2. Surendra Nath Mahto as P.W.3, Pusu Mahto as P.W.4, Manoj Kumar Mahto as P.W.5, Budhu Mahto as P.W.6 and Dr. Yogesh Sharan as P.W.7 who has proved injury report of Pusu Mahto as Exhibit-1. 8. After closure of the prosecution evidence, the statement of the appellant was recorded under Section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code. No evidence has been adduced on behalf of the defence. 9. Mr. Anoop Kr. Mehta, learned counsel for the appellant assisted by his junior counsel, Mr. Atul Rai, has submitted that the present case is a case where the conviction of the appellant cannot sustain in the eyes of law. He has further submitted that Section 320 I.P.C. which explains about the grievous hurt, eight categories are mentioned, but the injury which has been alleged on the person of Pusu Mahto cannot be placed under any of these categories. 10. Learned counsel for the appellant has further submitted that as per the First Information Report lodged by Budhu Mahto, Mithon Mahto has assaulted from the handle of the spade on the head of Pusu Mahto (P.W.4), but curiously enough, the Doctor has found two injuries on the person 'Pusu Mahto'. The injury no.1 is sharp-cut wound on the vertex of the scalp size 3” length and 2 cm deep, although allegation made in the 'fardbeyan', the injury ought to have been caused by hard and blunt substance because there is specific averment that Pusu Mahto was assaulted by the appellant on his head with the handle of the spade. 11. Learned counsel for the appellant has further submitted that Pusu Mahto was assaulted once on his head, as stated in the First Information Report, but the Doctor has found two injuries. 2nd injury is abrasion on the right arm on lateral side, 1” in radius. 11. Learned counsel for the appellant has further submitted that Pusu Mahto was assaulted once on his head, as stated in the First Information Report, but the Doctor has found two injuries. 2nd injury is abrasion on the right arm on lateral side, 1” in radius. Learned counsel has further submitted, that such injury report cannot be relied upon by this Court for convicting the appellant. Learned counsel for the appellant has further drawn attention of this Court, with respect to the allegation of assault made by the prosecution witnesses. P.W.1 (Karam Mahto) at Para-1, P.W.2 (Phalendra Nath Mahto) in Paras 1 and 3, P.W.3 (Surendra Nath Mahto) in Para1, P.W.4 (Pusu Mahto) in Para 1 of their deposition respectively and from perusal of the same, it is apparent that all are saying about different injuries. If these persons are eye-witnesses to the occurrence and they have seen injury on the person, 'Pusu Mahto' then such vital contradictions in number of injuries or place of injury will not occur and as such, the prosecution is not believable. 12. Learned counsel for the appellant has drawn attention of this Court by referring the evidence of the injured, Pusu Mahto (P.W.4) in Para-14 of his cross-examination, where the trial Court has categorically recorded that no mark of injury or stitch was found on his head and as such, learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that it is a case which has been cooked up without having any injury, that is the reason the Police without recording the First Information Report has initially recorded Station diary entry and after some time with fabricated documents, the Police in collusion with the informant has instituted the case. 13. Learned counsel for the appellant has further submitted that non-examination of the Investigating officer or the Officer-in-charge of Tamar Police Station has caused serious prejudice to the appellant, as the appellant could not draw adverse interference about the vital contradictions in deposition of the witnesses being P.W.1, P.W.2, P.W.3, P.W.4, P.W.5 and P.W.6 and as such, the conviction cannot be sustained in the eyes of law. 14. Mr. 14. Mr. Rajnish Bardhan, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State, in support of his submission has submitted, that such contradictions cropped up during lapse of time, which are not fatal for the prosecution case, but when attention was drawn towards the First Information Report and the deposition of P.W.4 as well as P.W.7 (Doctor), learned counsel for the State has fairly submitted, that mark of injury and stitch ought to have been found on the head of the Pusu Mahato which has not been found by the learned trial court. 15. After hearing learned counsel for the appellant, Mr. Anoop Kumar Mehta and Mr. Rajnish Bardhan, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State and on perusal of the fardbeyan and the deposition of the witnesses, this Court is of the opinion that P.W.1 (Karam Mahto) has stated that Mithon Mahto has assaulted Pusu Mahato by handle of the spade on the right and left shoulder and from the sharp-cut of the spade on the head. P.W.2 (Falindra Nath Mahto) in Para-1 has stated that Budhu Mahto was assaulted by Ranglal Mahto and he has seen but in Para-3, he said that blood was oozing from the head of Pusu Mahto. P.W.3 (Surendra Nath Mahto) has stated in examination-in-chief in para-1, that Mithon Mahto has assaulted Pusu Mahto by spade on both of his shoulder and head. Pusu Mahto (P.W.4) has said that he has been assaulted by Mithon Mahto, Ranglal Mahto who have climbed over the chest of Budhu Mahto and assaulted him by fist. His son was assaulted by Hira with lathi and fist and Mithon Mahto has also assaulted him on both sides of his back from the blunt portion of the spade and thereafter Mithon Mahto has assaulted him from the sharp edge of spade on his head and thereafter he fell down and became unconscious. Manoj Kumar Mahto has been examined as P.W.5, who has stated that Mithon Mahto has assaulted from the back portion of the spade on the shoulder of his father and thereafter from the sharp-edge portion of spade on the head of his father. Manoj Kumar Mahto has been examined as P.W.5, who has stated that Mithon Mahto has assaulted from the back portion of the spade on the shoulder of his father and thereafter from the sharp-edge portion of spade on the head of his father. Budhu Mahto has been examined as P.W.6 and he has stated that Mithon Mahto assaulted Pusu Mahto by spade twice, on the shoulder and one on the head and from perusal of the same, this Court is of the opinion that submission made by the learned counsel for the appellant gets some force and the same is acceptable to the effect that there are vital contradictions with respect to the manner of occurrence and the place of injury found on the person of the Pusu Mahto (P.W.4). 16. From perusal of the deposition of P.W.7 (Dr. Yogesh Sharan), it is apparent that the Doctor who has issued Exhibit-1 has categorically stated that if a person sustained 2 c.m. deep injury on the scalp, he may survive or may not survive as thickness of the scalp is normally 0.5 c.m. and permanent mark will present on the scalp if any such injury is caused on that part. 17. From the perusal of the above facts from the records, this Court is of the opinion that prosecution has brought a false case which is itself inconsistent and as such, the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence is fit to be set aside. Thus, the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence both dated 18.11.2003, passed in S.T. No. 203 of 2001 (arising out of Tamar P.S. Case No. 76 of 2000 corresponding to G.R. No. 465 of 2000) by the learned Additional Judicial Commissioner (F.T.C), Khunti, is hereby set aside. 18. In the result, this Criminal appeal stands allowed. 19. The appellant, who is on bail, is discharged from the liability of his bail bonds. 20. Let L.C.R. be sent to the court concerned and a copy of this judgment be sent to the court concerned.