JUDGMENT : By Court: Heard Mrs. J. Mazumdar, learned counsel appearing for the appellants and Mr. Fahad Allam and Mrs. Shweta Singh, learned A.P.Ps. appearing for the State. 2. Above named appellants have preferred this criminal appeal challenging their conviction and sentence dated 31.07.2006 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, F.T.C., 7th, Dhanbad in Sessions Trial No. 384 of 2001,whereby and whereunder, the appellants have been held guilty for the offence under Sections 341, 332 and 353 of the I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo S.I. for 15 days for the offence under Section 341 of the I.P.C., R.I. of six months for the offence under Section 353 of the I.P.C. and R.I. of one year for the offence under Section 332 of the I.P.C. All the sentences were directed to run concurrently. FACTUAL MATRIX 3. The factual matrix giving rise to this appeal in a narrow compass is that on 24.03.2000 at about 10:30 A.M., when the informant, who is ASI of Katras Police Station along with Constable No. 1179 reached on a road in front of No. 40 Modidih Coal Dump Chjala with relation to the investigation of a case bearing Katras (Tetulmari) P.S. Case No. 56 of 2000 and was recording the statement of witness of aforesaid case, all of a sudden, the accused persons came there and wrongfully restrained the informant. The accused persons told the informant that the people of this place have filed the case against them and they will not allow the informant to record the statement of witnesses there and the accused persons also gave threatening to kill the persons, who will give statements as witness against them. Thereupon, the informant told the accused persons not to take law in their hand. The accused Shanti Devi (now she is dead and her appeal was abated vide order dated 04.08.2022) gave a stick blow on the wrist of informant resulting into injury on his wrist and blood came out from the injury. Accused Manju Devi and Punam Devi caught and pressed scrotum of informant with an intention to commit his murder. Accused Shanti Devi dishonestly took away HMT Pilot wrist watch of informant without the consent of the informant. The informant and Constable Ram Murti Choudhary made noise and on that noise many labourers of West Modidih Coal Dump came there and saved the informant. 4. Accused Shanti Devi dishonestly took away HMT Pilot wrist watch of informant without the consent of the informant. The informant and Constable Ram Murti Choudhary made noise and on that noise many labourers of West Modidih Coal Dump came there and saved the informant. 4. On the basis of above information, FIR being Katras (Tetulmari) P.S. Case No. 101 of 2000 was registered against the accused for the offence under Sections 341, 323, 333, 307, 379, 353, 337 and 34 of the I.P.C. 5. After completion of investigation, the I.O. of the case has submitted charge sheet under Sections 341, 323, 332, 307, 379, 353, 337 and 34 of the I.P.C. against all the accused persons and accordingly, cognizance for the aforesaid offence was taken by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dhanbad. Thereafter, the case was committed to the court of Sessions. Charges have been framed for the offences under Sections 341, 332, 353, 337 and 307/34 of the I.P.C., to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. The statements of all the accused persons were recorded under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. and they have denied the occurrence committed by them and told that they are innocent. 6. In order to substantiate the charges leveled against rest accused persons, altogether six witnesses were examined by the prosecution. 7. Apart from oral evidence of ocular witnesses, following documentary evidences were also adduced by the prosecution. Exhibit-1 : Written Report for lodging FIR. Exhibit-1/1 : Signature of Shyam Kishore Singh on the Written Report. Exhibit-1/2 : Endorsement on registration of Written Report. Exhibit-2 : Injury Report. 8. However, in defence, only one witness was examined on behalf of accused. 9. The learned trial court, after evaluating the evidence available on record, held the appellants guilty for the offence under Sections 341, 332 and 353 of the I.P.C. and sentenced as stated above. 10. Being aggrieved with the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 13.07.2006, this Criminal Appeal has been preferred on behalf of the appellants. 11. Learned counsel for the appellants, while assailing the impugned judgment and order has submitted that the learned court has miserably failed to properly appreciate the evidence available on record. 10. Being aggrieved with the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 13.07.2006, this Criminal Appeal has been preferred on behalf of the appellants. 11. Learned counsel for the appellants, while assailing the impugned judgment and order has submitted that the learned court has miserably failed to properly appreciate the evidence available on record. The story projected by the prosecution regarding assault committed against the ASI of Police by the appellants is preferably false story and manufactured with intention to harass the poor labourers ladies. The real fact is that the informant police officer was trying to take work without wages from the appellants and putting pressure upon them and upon denial of which, they have been implicated in this case. No offence under Sections 341, 332 and 353 of the I.P.C. is made out in this case. Wrist watch was not seized and no seizure list was prepared. The injury sustained by the informant is also superficial in nature. The very genesis of the occurrence has not been proved by the prosecution as to in which case, the informant has gone to the place of occurrence for the purpose of conducting investigation and he has also failed to disclose the name of witness, to whom he was instigating at the time of alleged occurrence. The injuries sustained by the informant also does not corroborate the manner of occurrence. No specific overt act has been attributed against the present appellants, as such, the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence of the appellants is fit to be set aside and allowing this appeal. 12. In alternative, it is argued by learned counsel for the appellants that the appellants have not been extended the benefit of Section 3/4 of the Probation of Offenders Act without recording any reasons, to which they deserve. The appellants have no criminal background and never convicted for any offence. 13. Per contra, learned APP appearing for the State has opposed the aforesaid contentions raised on behalf of the appellants and has submitted that the trial court has very wisely and aptly analyzed, scanned and appreciated oral as well as documentary evidence available on record and arrived at right conclusion holding the appellant to be guilty for the offences charged against him and adequately passed the order of sentence. There is no illegality and infirmity in the impugned judgment and order, which calling for any interference, by way of this appeal, which is devoid of merit and fit to be dismissed. 14. I have gone through the record of the case along with the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence in the light of contention raised on behalf of both the sides. 15. In order to substantiate the prosecution story and charges levelled against the accused persons, the informant has been examined as P.W.-1, whose evidence clearly reveals that he has failed to state the name of the witness with whom he was interrogated at the time of occurrence and in which case, he had gone to conduct investigation is also not mentioned. No other witnesses have been able to fully corroborate the version of the informant. The injuries sustained by the informant also appears to be abrasion and body ache only. The prosecution story has not been corroborated from any independent witness. Under such circumstances, the plea of defence that these poor appellants working as labourers have been falsely implicated, since they have declined to provide service without wages at the instance of police. 16. In my considered view, the learned trial court has miserably failed to properly appreciate the overall evidence available on record in proper prospective and only recorded the guilt of the appellants. 17. In view of above discussions and reasons, the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence of the appellants dated 13.07.2006 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, F.T.C. 7th, Dhanbad in S.T. No. 384 of 2001 is hereby set aside. 18. Accordingly, these appeals stand allowed. 19. Appellants are on bail; hence they are discharged from the liability of bail bonds and sureties shall also be discharged. 20. Let a copy of this judgment along with trial court record be sent back to the court concerned for information and needful.