JUDGMENT : Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The instant criminal revision application is directed against the judgment dated 12.04.2006, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-XIII, Dhanbad, whereby the Cr. Appeal No. 25 of 2001, preferred by the petitioners has been dismissed and the judgment of conviction and order of sentence, both dated 17.02.2001, in S.T. No. 513 of 1993, passed by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge-I, Dhanbad, whereby the petitioners were convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 7 years and a fine of Rs.2,000/- each under Section 395 of the Indian Penal Code, and in default of payment to further undergo R.I. for one year each has been affirmed with modification in sentence from 7 years RI to 5 years RI. 3. The prosecution case in brief is based upon the written statement of the informant for which an FIR has been lodged against the petitioners under Sections 395 of the Indian Penal Code. After investigation, police submitted chargesheet and cognizance has been taken against the petitioners; for which the petitioners pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. After trial, the petitioners were found guilty for the offence and they were convicted and their appeal was also rejected by the learned appellate court. 4. Mr. Jai Prakash, learned senior counsel for the petitioners submits that out of total six witnesses P.W.1 has been declared hostile and P.W. 2 has been declared tendered, P.Ws. 3 & 4 were hearsay witnesses, P.W. 5 was the informant and P.W. 6 is the Doctor. He further draws attention of this Court towards deposition of P.W. 5 and simultaneously he also referred to first information report though the same has not been exhibited. 3 & 4 were hearsay witnesses, P.W. 5 was the informant and P.W. 6 is the Doctor. He further draws attention of this Court towards deposition of P.W. 5 and simultaneously he also referred to first information report though the same has not been exhibited. Learned senior counsel contended that on the one hand in the FIR, the informant has said that he was having his own potato shop and after closing the shop the money of that day was being carried by him and when he came to his house he was attacked by the accused persons with Farsa and other substances; whereas in the cross examination it has been admitted that he was a full time employee of BCCL; thus, this vital contradiction between the FIR and admitted version of the informant makes the prosecution case weak to the extent that when he was an employee of BCCL, how he came to know about the amount of cash which he alleged to carry on the date of occurrence as he was not having any potato shop. As a matter of fact, the potato shop was of his brother, namely, Mitthu Ravidas who is P.W. 4. Thus, it is clear picture of depart from the original allegation and it can be inferred that the main witnesses of prosecution is not trustworthy. He further draws attention to other paragraphs of P.W.5 wherein the informant has stated that in the torch light he saw the accused persons. In this regard he contended that the said torch was not produced before the Court and further referred to the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Patna High Court in the case of Mashi Das Minz Versus State of Bihar reported in 2000 (1) PLJR 86 wherein at para 15 the Hon’ble Court has held as under : “15. I have already discussed above that neither the Investigating Officer nor the doctor has been examined in the case and none of the villagers supported the prosecution case in any manner, except PWs 5 and 7 who claimed to have seen the occurrence at the first instance and again they returned back to the village and later on again they rushed to the spot, but in the second time they were not allowed to see the occurrence. Such story as propounded by both the witnesses does not appear to be probable and convincing in absence of any other independent witness to support the said story. Examination of Investigating Officer, particularly, in a murder case becomes essential when there is contradiction in the deposition of eye-witnesses who are also in inimical terms from before. In the instant case, the Investigating Officer has not been examined which also causes the appellants case prejudiced. Apart from this, the Doctor has also not been examined due to which the medical evidence could not be tested in the Court. The occurrence said to be taken place in the night and the torch by which the witnesses claimed to have identified has not been produced nor brought on the record which makes the whole story of identification in the night doubtful as a result of which the appellants should have been given benefit of doubt. Thus, in my view, the learned Court below committed error in convicting the appellants.” Emphasis supplied 5. Learned senior counsel further draws attention of this Court towards exhibit ‘2’ which is the injury report. After going through Exhibit-2 and the deposition of P.W. 6, who is the Doctor, it clearly transpires that the injury was simple in nature and caused by hard and blunt substance; thus, it cannot be Farsa. Relying upon these contentions learned senior counsel submits that the informant himself is not, trustworthy as such on the basis of surmises and conjecture conviction cannot be proved beyond all shadow of reasonable doubt. He lastly submits that even the fardbeyan was not exhibited and only signature has been proved and the law is well settled that merely proving of the signature will not prove the contents of the entire documents. Further, even the IO has also not been examined which highly prejudice the case of the petitioners and since all these aspects have not been taken care by the courts below, as such the instant application may be allowed. 6. Learned APP opposed the prayer of the petitioners and submits that there is concurrent finding and the amount of Rs.12,000/- was also recovered. 7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after going through the impugned judgments and the LCR it appears that Mahendra Ravi Das and the informant were cousin brothers and owners of joint family properties. 6. Learned APP opposed the prayer of the petitioners and submits that there is concurrent finding and the amount of Rs.12,000/- was also recovered. 7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after going through the impugned judgments and the LCR it appears that Mahendra Ravi Das and the informant were cousin brothers and owners of joint family properties. It further transpires that all the petitioners were known persons to the informant. Further, informant does not have any shop, what he has stated in the first information report. At this juncture it is relevant to say that the law with regard to first information report is now no more resintegra, inasmuch as, though in the first information report petitioner did not require to inform the details of occurrence but at least primary allegation must be given in the first information report. In the case in hand, the informant has said that he was owner of the potato shop; whereas he was a full-time employee of BCCL so it is a vital discrepancy in the statement of informant which should not have been overlooked by the courts below. 8. Further, learned APP opposed the prayer of the petitioners and submits that there is concurrent findings and the amount of Rs.12,000/- was recovered. However, he could not show from where and under whose possession the amount was recovered. He was further unable to show that there is a reference of Maruti Van in First Information Report and in the entire deposition of the P.W. 5 who is the informant there is no whisper of any Maruti Van nor any such vehicle has been produced before the Court. 9. It further transpires from the allegation that the informant was attacked with blow of farsa but as per the exhibit 2 which is the medical report and as per the deposition of P.W. 6 who is the Doctor it clearly transpires that there was an abrasion and the injury was simple in nature which might have been caused by hard and blunt substance; thus, the same cannot be farsa. 10. Further, nothing was recovered from the possession of any accused persons nor were any empty cartridges found by the police though in the first information report the informant has said that there was firing also from the side of accused party. 10. Further, nothing was recovered from the possession of any accused persons nor were any empty cartridges found by the police though in the first information report the informant has said that there was firing also from the side of accused party. No independent witnesses have come forward to support the case of the prosecution as stated hereinabove. It further transpires from the deposition of P.W. 5-the informant that in the torch light he saw the accused persons and he also admitted in the cross examination that he could not see who assaulted him. The “Torch” has not been produced before the Court as material evidence. As held in the case of Mashi Das Minz (supra) wherein the facts were quite similar, inasmuch as, since the occurrence had taken place in the night and the torch by which the only eye witnesses i.e. P.W.5 claimed to have identified the accused/petitioners has not been produced before the Court nor brought on the record. Non production of “TORCH” makes the whole story of identification in the night doubtful and as such the petitioners should get benefit of doubt. These aspects clearly go to show that the informant who is the main prosecution witness is not trustworthy; as such, relying on his statement will be miscarriage of justice, inasmuch as, on preponderance of probabilities no one can be convicted. 11. In view of the aforesaid discussions, the instant revision application needs interference. Consequently, the judgment dated 12.04.2006, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-XIII, Dhanbad in Cr. Appeal No. 25 of 2001 and judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 17.02.2001 in S.T. No. 513 of 1993, passed by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge-I, Dhanbad, is hereby, quashed and set aside. 12. The instant criminal revision application is allowed. I.A. if any, also stands disposed of. 13. The petitioners shall be discharged from the liability of their bail bonds. 14. Let the copy of this order be communicated to the courts below. 15. Let the lower court record be sent back to the court concerned forthwith.