JUDGMENT : S. Pujahari, J. 1. Both these Criminal Appeals having been preferred against the common judgment and order dated 23.12.1991 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Titilagarh in Sessions Case No. 59/24 of 1991 convicting all the appellants under Sections 323, 324/34 of I.P.C. and sentencing each of them to undergo R.I. for four months under Section 323 of I.P.C., were heard together and are being disposed of by the common judgment as follows:- 2. The case of the, prosecution as presented before the trial Court may be briefly stated as follows:- On 23.02.1991 at about 5 p.m. while the Informant - Lal Mohan Bag (P.W. 1) was present at his field located by the side of a public road, the appellants, namely, Prem Bag and Kantilal Bag appeared there, challenged the Informant as to why did he file a case against Daulal Bag (appellant), and then the appellant - Prem Bag dealt a push to the Informant causing his fall on the ground. It is the further case of the prosecution that appellant - Prem Bag and Kantilal Bag then by raising shout invited presence of other appellants to the spot and that the appellant - Daulal Bag being armed with a 'Tangi' and other appellants with a lathi each then assaulted the Informant as well as his relatives, namely, Narasingha Bag (P.W. 2), Bhagsingh Bag (P.W. 4), Bhagaban Bag (P.W. 5) and Manu Bag (P.W. 6) who reached the spot one after another to the rescue of the Informant, to raise protest. A report of the incident was lodged before the O.I.C., Bangamunda Police Station, while he was camping at the spot village on 24.02.1991 at 8 a.m. and basing upon the same, a case was registered. In course of investigation, the Investigating Officer got the injured persons medically examined, recorded the statements of the injured persons as well as the other witnesses, effected seizure etc. and on completion of the investigation, the Investigating Officer submitted charge-sheet against the appellants of both the present appeals suggesting their trial under Sections 323, 324/34 of IPC. 3. As the accused-appellants pleaded not guilty to the charges indicated above, trial was held, in course of which, the prosecution examined ten witnesses in toto, as against no oral evidence from the side of the defence. The documents vide Exts. 3. As the accused-appellants pleaded not guilty to the charges indicated above, trial was held, in course of which, the prosecution examined ten witnesses in toto, as against no oral evidence from the side of the defence. The documents vide Exts. 1 to 6 were admitted into evidence at the instance of the prosecution, and the injury requisition, injury reports etc. vide Exts. A to E were also got admitted into evidence from the side of the defence to prove the factum of injuries received by the appellants in course of the same incident 4. The Informant P.W. 1 in reiteration of the F.I.R. deposed, inter-alia, that while he was present at his onion field, the appellants - Prem Bag and Kantilal Bag came there and dealt him a push while challenging him as to why he filed a case against Daulal Bag, and one hour thereafter, all the appellants along with two other persons being armed with Tangia and Thenga came to that spot. He further deposed that Daulal Bag dealt him a Tangia blow which on being warded off hit his left palm and then appellant - Chana Bag dealt him a Thenga blow to his head, and thereafter when Bharsingh Bag (P.W. 4) arrived at the spot to raise protest, Prem Bag dealt him a Thenga blow and thereafter when Narasingh Bag (P.W. 2) came there, Kantilal Bag and Prem Bag dealt him Thenga blows and that when Bhagaban Bag (P.W. 5) protested, Daulal Bag and Kantilal Bag dealt him Thenga blows and that when Manu Bag (P.W. 6) came to the spot, Kantilal Bag and Chana Bag dealt him Thenga blows. 5. P.Ws. 2, 4 and 5 are interrelated as brothers and also appear to have relationship with the P.Ws. 1 and 6. The P.Ws. 2, 4, 5 and 6 in their chief evidence gave out parrot like statements regarding the incident of assault with a claim that all of them received injuries at the hands of the appellants who belonged to the same family. During cross-examination, however, major discrepancies and contradictions were elicited from them at the instance of the defence giving rise to an inference that they suppressed the genesis of the incident with exaggerated version of the assault. Although, according to the P.W. 1, after arrival of the appellants in a group, the P.Ws. During cross-examination, however, major discrepancies and contradictions were elicited from them at the instance of the defence giving rise to an inference that they suppressed the genesis of the incident with exaggerated version of the assault. Although, according to the P.W. 1, after arrival of the appellants in a group, the P.Ws. 2, 4, 5 and 6 came one after another to the spot, a reading of the evidence of those prosecution witnesses would reveal that all of them arrived at the spot in a group and the assault ensued after their such arrival. 6. P.Ws. 7 and 8 were cited as independent witnesses to the incident During cross-examination P.W. 7 admitted not to have stated before the Investigating Officer that Daulal Bag was holding a Tangia and other appellants were armed with a Thenga each. According to P.W. 8, he saw both the sides were engaged in a quarrel at the onion field of the P.W. 1. He has not stated anything further on the factum of assault or injury. A perusal of the evidence of the Medical Officer (P.W. 3) would show that on 24.02.1991, i.e., day following the alleged incident, between 10 a.m. and 11 a.m. he examined the P.Ws. 1, 2, 4, 5 and 6 on police requisition at Additional P.H.C., Bangamunda. According to him, all those prosecution witnesses were found to have received simple injuries, and except one injury on the left palm of the P.W. 1, the injuries received by the P.W. 1 and other injured persons were probably caused by hard and blunt object. The defence proved through the P.W. 3 the injury reports vide Exts. A, B, C, D and E that the appellants had been examined by him on police requisition in the night of the very date of the incident. As per his report, multiple injuries had been received by the appellants. In so far as the appellant-Chana Bag is concerned, the P.W. 3 has given his finding and opinion as follows:- "(i) Sharp cutting wound of size 1 1/2" x bone deep x thin gap situated on upper portion of left side forehead. (ii) Lacerated injury of size 1/2" x 14" x thin gap situated behind ear lobe of right side. (iii) Bruise of whole periorbital muscles on left eye. (iv) Pain over right shoulder joint and right hip joint and the injured was unable to move properly. (ii) Lacerated injury of size 1/2" x 14" x thin gap situated behind ear lobe of right side. (iii) Bruise of whole periorbital muscles on left eye. (iv) Pain over right shoulder joint and right hip joint and the injured was unable to move properly. Injury Nos. 1 to 3 were simple in nature. Injury No. 1 was caused probably by sharp cutting weapon. Injury No. 2 was caused by blow by blunt and hard weapon and injury No. 3 was caused with blow by hard, smooth & blunt object. I advised for X' ray of skull to exclude if any fracture was present or not." 7. The evidence of P.W. 3 further reveals that on examining the X-ray reports in respect of appellant - Kantilal Bag, he found him to have sustained fracture of his middle of the 5th metacarpal bone which was grievous. Similarly, he found the appellant - Prem Bag to have sustained one fracture at the lower end of his right ulna which was also grievous. He has proved his reports in those respects vide Exts. E and E/1. To the query of the learned defence counsel, the P.W. 3 further stated in paragraph-12 of his evidence that the appellant - Chana Bag had received a lathi blow on his head and that had he not been given timely treatment, the said injury could have been fatal, and that he had referred the said appellant to Titilagarh Government hospital for better treatment for the said head injury. From the medical evidence, as discussed above, it thus appears that the appellants had received multiple injuries, some of which were grievous in nature, and that the appellant - Chana Bag had received injury on his head which was a vital part of his body. The seriousness of the injuries of the appellants can also be inferred from the view point of their reference to the Medical Officer for medical examination in the very night whereas the Informant-party members were referred to medical examination on the next date of the incident. 8. Now, coming to the evidence of the Investigating Officer (P.W. 10), he has admitted in his evidence not to have directed his investigation to ascertain as to who were the aggressors in the incident. It further reveals from his evidence that the spot was not the onion field of the Informant, but the village road. 8. Now, coming to the evidence of the Investigating Officer (P.W. 10), he has admitted in his evidence not to have directed his investigation to ascertain as to who were the aggressors in the incident. It further reveals from his evidence that the spot was not the onion field of the Informant, but the village road. The defence further elicited from him that the Informant had not stated before him that the appellant - Daulal had aimed any Tangia blow to him. The defence has further established through the P.W. 10 the major contradictions in evidence of the P.Ws. 1, 2, 4, 5 and 6 regarding the individual participation of the appellants in the base incident, manner of assault and nature of injuries received by the Informant-party members. It further reveals from his evidence that on the report of the appellant - Daulal Bag, a case under Section 307 of IPC had been registered against the Informant-party and in connection with the said case, in the very night of the date of the incident, he had visited the spot village. It goes admitted by him that in the very night he did not make any attempt to examine any witness in the vicinity of the spot nor did he make any effort to interrogate or apprehend the present Informant-party members who were accused persons in the counter case. A perusal of the evidence of P.W. 1 would reveal that as if in the very night he had visited the Police Station and reported the incident to police. But, it is the prosecution case that on the next date, i.e., on 24.02.1991, the F.I.R. relating to the present case was lodged with police, and as already noted, the injured persons in the present case were referred to P.W. 3 after 10 a.m. It is the own version of the P.W. 1 during his cross-examination that it was a mutual fight between his group and the appellants group, and his version during the chief evidence regarding the manner of assault got substantially changed during cross-examination, when he stated in paragraph-5 of his cross-examination that the assault and the counter assault between both the sides started after all his party-men arrived at the spot. He further admitted in his cross-examination that prior to the present incident, the appellants had filed a forgery case against him. He further admitted in his cross-examination that prior to the present incident, the appellants had filed a forgery case against him. The learned trial Court does not appear to have scrutinized the evidence on record in right perspective in the admitted factual background of enmity and in the face of a counter case being registered against the Informant-party for a graver offence like one under Section 307 of IPC The learned Court below also lost sight of the fact that the prosecution has not disclosed the genesis of the incident. For the whole discussion made hereinabove, this Court is of the view that the prosecution has not made out its case beyond reasonable doubt, for which the appellants are entitled to benefit thereof. 9. Resultantly, both the Criminal appeals are allowed and the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed against the appellants are set-aside. Consequently, the appellants are acquitted of the charge and they be set at liberty forthwith. The appellants being on bail, the bail bonds shall stand cancelled and sureties discharged. L.C.R. received be sent back forthwith along with a copy of the Judgment.