JUDGMENT : 1. Heard the parties. 2. This appeal is directed against the Judgment of conviction and Order of sentence dated 02.02.2006, passed by the 7th Additional Sessions Judge, Palamau, in Sessions Trial No.12 of 2004, whereby and where under, the learned court below has held the appellants guilty of the offence punishable under sections 323/324 and 347/34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced them to undergo simple imprisonment for one year each, for each of the three offences and directed the sentences to run concurrently. 3. The case of the prosecution as unveiled in the written report submitted by the informant is that the informant instituted a case earlier on 11.10.2002. On 12.11.2002 at about 4.00 P.M., while the informant was sitting near the door of her house, the accused-appellant-Heera Bacha Singh came and called her. When the informant told that she will be coming after keeping the woods, Heera Bacha Singh came and dragged her by catching hold of her hair and took the informant to the premises of his house and closed the door of the premises of his house and pressurized the informant to compromise the case, earlier instituted by her. When the informant told that she will go in the next morning, the accused-appellant-Daya Shankar Singh told that she will not listen hence, she should be killed at which, the three accused-appellants together felled the informant near the door and throttled her neck and trampled her chest with their legs and assaulted her with legs and fist blows. Heera Bacha Singh assaulted the informant with something on the hands of the informant resulting in a cut injury near the wrist of her right hand. The informant also sustained injuries on other parts of her body. On alarm being raised, the accused-appellants spared the informant and she came running to her house. On the basis of the First Information Report lodged by the informant, police registered Haidarnagar P.S. Case No.57 of 2002 and took up investigation of the case. 4. After completion of investigation, police submitted charge-sheet and after cognizance, case was committed to the court of Session. Charges for the offence punishable under Sections 307/34, 315/34, and 347/34 of the Indian Penal Code were framed against the appellants and on their pleading not guilty to the charges, they were put to trial. 5. 4. After completion of investigation, police submitted charge-sheet and after cognizance, case was committed to the court of Session. Charges for the offence punishable under Sections 307/34, 315/34, and 347/34 of the Indian Penal Code were framed against the appellants and on their pleading not guilty to the charges, they were put to trial. 5. In support of its case, the prosecution has altogether examined six witnesses out of which P.W.1- Sunil Kumar Singh, P.W.2-Sudarshan Singh and P.W.4-Sanjay Kumar Singh did not support the case of the prosecution and they were declared hostile. The informant has not been examined in this case and it has been mentioned in the impugned judgment that it was informed that she is dead. 6. P.W.3-Guru Charan Sao is the father of the informant and has stated that the occurrence is of the month of Kartik, one and half years prior to his deposing in court, he went running to the house of the accused-appellants on hearing the alarm raised by her daughter and saw that the three accused-appellants were assaulting her daughter. They were assaulting her with fist blows. The accused-appellant Heera Singh told to bring spear. On alarm being raised, many persons assembled there and the quarrel ended. In his cross-examination, the P.W.3 stated that he was examined by the police in connection of this case and he stated before police that many people assembled there. In paragraph 15, he has stated that his daughter told him about the occurrence of assault and when her daughter told him about the occurrence of assault, the wife of his elder brother was also present. 7. P.W.5-Dinesh Kumar is the Judicial Magistrate who recorded the statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. of the victim. On being proved by him, the said statement was marked as Ext.1. 8. P.W.6-Dr. Kishore Chandra Choudhary is the doctor, who examined the victim and found the following injuries :- (i) Incised wound, 4.5 c.m. X 2 m.m. X 2m.m. in the inner side of her lower part of right fore-arm. (ii) (a) Abrasion 5 c.m. X 3 c.m. on the back side of the left elbow. (b) 2 c.m. X 1 c.m. (c) 1 c.m. X 1 c.m. both b and c on the back of middle part of left fore-arm. (iii) Swelling 5 c.m. X 3 c.m. on the outer side of middle part of left leg. (ii) (a) Abrasion 5 c.m. X 3 c.m. on the back side of the left elbow. (b) 2 c.m. X 1 c.m. (c) 1 c.m. X 1 c.m. both b and c on the back of middle part of left fore-arm. (iii) Swelling 5 c.m. X 3 c.m. on the outer side of middle part of left leg. (iv) Swelling 2 c.m. X 2 c.m. on the middle of left side of the back. He opined that the age of the injury is within six hours. Except injury no.1, the rest of the injuries were caused by hard and blunt substance and the injury no.1 was caused by sharp cutting substance. All the injuries were simple in nature. He further stated that injury report is in his pen and signature and the same was marked as Ext. 2. To a question from the court whether the informant complained pain in any part of her body, the P.W.6 has categorically stated that no such complaint was made. 9. After closure of the evidence of the prosecution, statements under Section 313 Cr.P.C. of the accused appellants were recorded regarding the circumstances appearing in evidence against them but they denied the same and stated that they were falsely implicated in the case. No evidence was adduced on behalf of the defence. Upon considering the evidence available in record, the learned court below convicted and sentenced the appellants as already indicated above. 10. Mr. A.K. Sahani, the learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the learned court below passed the impugned judgment against the weight of evidence in record. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the appellants that the P.W.3 in paragraph-15 having categorically stated that the victim told her about the occurrence of assault coupled with the fact that in the F.I.R. nowhere, it has been referred that the P.W.3 was an eye-witness to the occurrence makes it highly improbable that the P.W.3 is an eye-witness to the occurrence. It is further submitted that the F.I.R. or the statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. are not substantive pieces of evidence in this case and the only substantive evidence implicating the appellants in this case is the testimony of the P.W.3. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the appellants relied upon the judgment of Hon’ble Patna High Court in the case of Mrs. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the appellants relied upon the judgment of Hon’ble Patna High Court in the case of Mrs. Meera Devi vs. State of Bihar reported in [2012 (1) East Cr C 271 (Patna) wherein the Hon’ble Patna High Court in the facts and circumstances of that case held that when the witness herself did not come to depose in court, her statement under Section 164 of the Criminal Procedure Code is only a corroborative piece of evidence and is not substantive evidence. It is also submitted that so far this case is concerned, the informant stated that the three accused-appellants together went to the house of the informant and dragged out the informant from her house and assaulted her which contradicts the case of the prosecution as mentioned in the F.I.R. that the informant was dragged by the accused Heera Bacha Singh to the house of Heera Bacha Singh which in other words means that the place of occurrence was in the premises of the Heera Bacha Singh whereas the contents of the statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C., if believed, gives rise that the place of occurrence is either inside the house of the informant or in front of her house and without any plausible reasons, the prosecution has not examined the I.O. which has prejudiced the defence, as there is major contradiction regarding the place of occurrence. Hence, it is submitted that this is a fit case where the accused-appellants be acquitted of the charges by at least giving the benefit of doubt. 11. Learned Addl. P.P. on the other hand submitted that the testimony of the P.W.3 in his examination-in-chief shows that he is an eye-witness to the occurrence and his testimony is corroborated by the statement of the informant recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. which has been marked as Ext.1. It is further submitted that the learned court below has rightly convicted and sentenced the accused-appellants hence, this appeal being without any merit be dismissed. 12. Having heard the submissions made at the bar and after perusal of the record, I find that in paragraph-15 as already indicated above, the P.W.3 has stated that the informant told him about the occurrence of assault on her. This creates a grave doubt regarding the testimony of the P.W.3 made in his examination-in-chief that he is an eye-witness to the occurrence. This creates a grave doubt regarding the testimony of the P.W.3 made in his examination-in-chief that he is an eye-witness to the occurrence. The written report also do not indicate that the P.W.3 is an eye-witness to the occurrence, because the averment made in the written report suggests that the informant was assaulted inside the premises of the accused-appellants after closing the door indicating thereby that there was no eye-witness to the occurrence and as rightly submitted by the learned counsel for the appellants there is contradiction in respect of the place of occurrence between the testimony of P.W.3 on one hand and the written report as well as the contents of Ext.1- the statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. of the victim on the other hand. Thus the non-examination of the I.O. has certainly prejudiced the defence in this case. 13. In view of the discussions made above and the facts of this case, this Court is of the considered view that this is a fit case where the accused-appellants be acquitted of the charges punishable under Sections 323/324 and 347/34 of the Indian Penal Code by giving them the benefit of doubt. Accordingly, the accused-appellants are acquitted of all the said charges and the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 02.02.2006, passed by the 7th Additional Sessions Judge, Palamau, in Sessions Trial No.12 of 2004 being indefensible is set aside. The appellants are on bail. In view of their acquittal, they are discharged of the liabilities of their bail bonds. 14. Let the Lower Court Record be sent back to the court below with a copy of the judgment forthwith. 15. In the result this appeal is allowed.