JUDGMENT : 1. The instant Criminal Appeal has been preferred against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence, both dated 27.02.2004, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No. -3rd, Bokaro, in Sessions Trial No. 56 of 2003, whereby the sole accused has been convicted for the offence committed and punishable under Sections 324 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code but has only awarded rigorous imprisonment for one year for the offence committed and punishable under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code. No separate sentence has been awarded for the offence committed and punishable under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. The prosecution case is based upon the written report submitted by the informant Sunil Kumar (P.W. 3) before Officer-in-Charge, Bokaro Steel City Police Station on 13.07.2002 stating therein that he is resident of plot no. 338, Co-operative Colony, Bokaro Steel City. Today (13.07.2002) he was talking with his elder brother Vijay Kumar in front of his house and was supervising the work of the labourers, who were mixing the cement and chips with water. It is alleged that co-resident of his colony namely Anil Singh @ Guddu, resident of plot no. 439 was sitting under the tree with some of his friends and were taking liquor. They thought that the informant and his brother were talking about them, thereafter Guddu came and picked up the belcha from the road and assaulted the informant on his head, causing bleeding injury. On brawl, other nearby persons came there and saved the informant. The informant has stated that occurrence has taken place at 2.45 P.M. 3. On the basis of written report of the informant, police has instituted Bokaro Steel City P.S. Case No. 148 of 2002 dated 13.07.2002, under Sections 341/ 324/ 307 of the Indian Penal Code against the sole accused Anil Singh @ Guddu Singh. 4. After investigation, the police has submitted charge sheet vide no. 156 of 2002, dated 31.07.2002, under Sections 341/ 324/ 307 of the Indian Penal Code against the sole accused Anil Singh @ Guddu Singh. 5. The cognizance of the offence has been taken vide order dated 20.08.2002 and the case has been committed to the Court of Sessions vide order dated 04.02.2003. 6. 156 of 2002, dated 31.07.2002, under Sections 341/ 324/ 307 of the Indian Penal Code against the sole accused Anil Singh @ Guddu Singh. 5. The cognizance of the offence has been taken vide order dated 20.08.2002 and the case has been committed to the Court of Sessions vide order dated 04.02.2003. 6. The charge has been framed against the accused Anil Singh @ Guddu Singh under Sections 341, 324 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code vide order dated 10.07.2003, to which the accused has pleaded his innocence and thus, he was put under trial. 7. The prosecution, to prove its case, has examined altogether eight prosecution witnesses and also exhibited a number of documentary evidence upto Exhibit-3. Vijay Kumar, elder brother of the informant, has been examined as P.W. 1, Shyam Bahadur Singh, neighbourer of the informant, has been examined as P.W. 2, Sunil Kumar, victim-cum-informant of the case, has been examined as P.W. 3, Ram Naresh Yadav has been examined as P.W. 4 but has been declared hostile by the prosecution, Dr. Ratneshwar Prasad Verma, Medical Officer, who has examined the victim Sunil Kumar and proved the injury report as Exhibit-3, has been examined as P.W. 5, Prakash Narain Awasthi has been examined as P.W. 6 but has also been declared hostile by the prosecution, Bachcha Prasad Singh, investigating officer of the case, has been examined as P.W. 7 and Raghubir Prasad, has been examined as P.W. 8 but has also been declared hostile by the prosecution. Signatures of Vijay Kumar (P.W. 1) and informant Sunil Singh (P.W. 3) on the written report, have been proved and marked as Exhibits-1 and 1/1 respectively, entire written report has been proved and marked as Exhibit-2, entire injury report of Sunil Kumar (P.W. 3) has been proved and marked as Exhibit- 3. 8. After closure of the prosecution evidence, statement of the accused has been recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. on 21.02.2004, to which accused has submitted that he has been falsely implicated in this case and claimed himself to be innocent but no defence witness or evidence has been adduced on behalf of the accused. 9. After hearing the parties and on perusal of the materials brought on record, the learned Trial Court has passed, the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence, holding the appellant guilty under Sections 324 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code. 9. After hearing the parties and on perusal of the materials brought on record, the learned Trial Court has passed, the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence, holding the appellant guilty under Sections 324 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code. 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. 10. Heard, learned counsel for the appellant, Mr. Praveen Shankar Dayal assisted by Mr. Sanjay Kumar, 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 as per the written report, the occurrence has taken place at 2.45 P.M. on 13.07.2002 but from perusal of the format of the First Information Report, the information was given to the police at 13.00 Hours i.e. 1.00 P.M. on 13.07.2002. Learned counsel for the appellant has further submitted that the true version of the prosecution case has not been brought on record and earlier incident which informed to the police about commission of an offence at around 13.00 Hours has not been brought on record and the same has been suppressed by the prosecution. Learned counsel for the appellant has further submitted that it is consistent case of the prosecution that accused Anil Singh has assaulted the victim-cum-informant of the case by means of belcha on his head but while deposing in the court as P.W. 3, the informant has categorically stated that he has been assaulted by the sharp edge of the belcha but Dr. Ratneshwar Prasad Verma (P.W. 5) has found that the injury as “lacerated wound of the size 1 ½” x ½” x scalp deep on the right side of parietal surface of head, the wound was semi lunar in shape” caused by hard and blunt substance and was simple in nature. Learned counsel for the appellant has further submitted that as per the prosecution case if a person has been assaulted by means of sharp edge of belcha, no such injury will be caused and Dr. Ratneshwar Prasad Verma during his cross-examination as P.W. 5 has categorically stated that such injury may be possible by fallen over semi lunar object. Learned counsel for the appellant has further submitted that as per the prosecution case if a person has been assaulted by means of sharp edge of belcha, no such injury will be caused and Dr. Ratneshwar Prasad Verma during his cross-examination as P.W. 5 has categorically stated that such injury may be possible by fallen over semi lunar object. Learned counsel for the appellant has further submittted that Vijay Kumar, brother of the informant has been examined as P.W. 1 and has proved his signature and the signature of his brother on the written report, which have been marked as Exhibits-1 and 1/1 respectively. Shyam Bahadur Singh has been examined as P.W. 2 and has stated that he has been informed about the occurrence by Sunil Kumar (P.W. 3), Ram Naresh Yadav, Prakash Narain Awasthi and Raghubir Prasad have been examined as P.W. 4, P.W. 6 and P.W. 8 respectively and have been declared hostile by the prosecution. Learned counsel for the appellant has further submitted that the entire prosecution case revolves around the evidence of Vijay Kumar (P.W. 1) and Sunil Kumar (P.W. 3), who are own brothers. Learned counsel for the appellant has further submitted that if the occurrence has taken place because of misunderstanding of the accused, that the informant and his brother were taking about them, then there was every likelihood that after assaulting Sunil Kumar (P.W. 3), they ought to have assaulted his brother Vijay Kumar (P.W. 4) but this is not the case of the prosecution. Learned counsel for the appellant has further submitted that other accused persons whose names have not been disclosed by the informant in the written report but while examining in the court as P.W. 3, the informant has categorically stated in paragraph-7 of his cross-examination that he has given the name of other accused persons in writing to the police officer but no such evidence has been laid by the prosecution to invoke the power under Section 319 CrPC as the prosecution case is itself doubtful and as such, creats doubt about the prosecution case which is fatal for the prosecution. Learned counsel for the appellant has further submitted that Investigating Officer of the case has not found any incriminating material near the place of occurrence nor under the tree where the accused was taking liquor with his friends. Learned counsel for the appellant has further submitted that Investigating Officer of the case has not found any incriminating material near the place of occurrence nor under the tree where the accused was taking liquor with his friends. The Investigating Officer has not found any blood stained soil from the place of occurrence nor the belcha has been found or seized by the police, though the belcha belongs to the informant side. Learned counsel for the appellant has thus, submitted that appellant deserves to be acquitted by extending benefit of doubt. 11. Heard, learned counsel for the State, Mr. Tapas Roy, 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 Sunil Kumar, victim-cum-informant of the case has supported his written report, as the time of occurrence is 2.45 P.M. when he was assaulted by accused by means of belcha. Learned counsel for the State has further submitted that the prosecution case has also been supported by Vijay Kumar (P.W. 1), who was present at the place of occurrence. Learned counsel for the State has further submitted that Dr. Ratneshwar Prasad Verma, who has been examined as P.W. 5 has also found the injury on the right side of parietal surface of head, though, the injury was found to be simple in nature. 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. 12. Heard, learned counsel for the appellant, Mr. Praveen Shankar Dayal assisted by Mr. Sanjay Kumar, Advocate and learned counsel for the State, Mr. Tapas Roy, Additional Public Prosecutor and perused the evidence brought on record including the F.I.R., framing of charge, evidence of eight prosecution witnesses, three prosecution exhibits, statement of the appellant recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C., and the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence. This Court has minutely scrutinised the evidence of the prosecution witnesses. Tapas Roy, Additional Public Prosecutor and perused the evidence brought on record including the F.I.R., framing of charge, evidence of eight prosecution witnesses, three prosecution exhibits, statement of the appellant recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C., and the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence. This Court has minutely scrutinised the evidence of the prosecution witnesses. Considering the submission made by learned counsel for the appellant, so far the time of occurrence is concerned, this Court is not accepting the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellant as the formal First Information Report shows the time of occurrence as 13.00 Hrs, is the time when police was informed about the occurrence. This is one of the mistake which has been committed by the Police Department but that will not go to the root of the prosecution case. In the written report there is a specific averment of the occurrence regarding the time as 2.45 P.M., if the Police Officer has taken the matter seriously, he would not have mentioned such time as 13.00 Hrs. as the time of occurrence. The Police Department shall not make such mistake in future. So far, injury of the injured is concerned, it has been stated that informant was assaulted by belcha but subsequently the informant has tried to exaggerate his version by saying that he has been assaulted by sharp edge of the belcha, though the injury was found to be “lacerated wound of the size 1 ½” x ½” x scalp deep and the doctor (P.W. 5) during his cross-examination has submitted that such injury may be caused because of fall, as the injury has been caused on the right side of parietal surface of head. This Court has also taken judicial notice of the fact that no incriminating article has been recovered from the place of occurrence, neither the belcha stained with blood has been placed before the Investigating Officer nor the same has been seized. The blood stained cloth which was produced by the informant to the court and has claimed that the same has also been produced before the Sub-Inspector of Police but this fact has not been corroborated by the prosecution evidence while examining the Investigating Officer. The blood stained cloth which was produced by the informant to the court and has claimed that the same has also been produced before the Sub-Inspector of Police but this fact has not been corroborated by the prosecution evidence while examining the Investigating Officer. From the evidence of the informant, it appears that informant has tried to exaggerate the case of the prosecution by alleging that he was also assaulted by several persons by pelting of brick and stone and also by leg, which is not the case of the prosecution, as such, this Court is of the opinion that the appellant is entitled for benefit of doubt, as the prosecution has not proved its case beyond all reasonable doubts against the appellant. 13. In the result, impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence, both dated 27.02.2004, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No. -3rd, Bokaro, in Sessions Trial No. 56 of 2003, arising out of Bokaro Steel City P.S. Case No. 148 of 2002, corresponding to G. R. No. 667 of 2002, is hereby set aside and the appellant is acquitted from the charge and conviction under Sections 324 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code by extending benefit of doubt. 14. The appellant, who is on bail, is discharged from liability of his bail bond. 15. Accordingly, the present criminal appeal is allowed. 16. 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.