JUDGMENT : PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The present criminal appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 23.03.2006 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-II, Jamtara in Sessions Case No. 198/2000 and Sessions Case No. 18/2004 (arising out of Jamtara P.S. Case No. 196 of 1998), whereby and whereunder the appellants have been held guilty and sentenced for the offence under Sections 147, 323, 341, 353, 333, 427, 379 / 511 of the I.P.C. FACTUAL MATRIX 3. The factual matrix giving rise to this appeal is that one Jagat Narayan Singh, S.I. Jamtara Police Station Camp Dhandhara lodged a written report on 19.10.1998 stating inter alia that he has received telephonic information from Electrical Supply Sub- Station, Jamtara that some criminals are likely to cut and steal wire of Chitra Mines. In order to verify the matter, the informant along with armed forced namely, Hawaldar Ramashrya Singh, Constable No. 290 (P.W.-2), Thakur Dayal Yadav (P.W.-7), Constable No. 655, Sadan Singh (P.W.-1) and private driver of Jeep No. WMC-8702 namely, Biseswar Sah (P.W.-6) proceeded towards the spot. It is further alleged that when police force reached near Dhandhara village, they saw a man moving under suspicious circumstances. Therefore, S.I. Jagat Narayan Singh asked him as to why he is moving here at odd time i.e. 23 hours in night then the person told his name as Ganesh Mondal @ Gansa and reply in blunt manner therein to police personnel to mind their own business and also started arguing with police party, thereafter proceeded towards Dhandhara road. The informant along with police party went towards road near the police jeep, where 8-10 persons surrounded the police party and started abusing and assaulted the informant with fist and slaps and also tried to snatch the riffle. It is further alleged that in the meantime, Ganesh Mondal @ Gansa and Nimai Mondal struck lathi on Constable Thakur Dayal Yadav and other Constables, resulting in grievous injuries to Thakur Dayal Yadav. It is further alleged that when the informant tried to pacify the accused persons, they abused the informant, torn his uniform and tried to snatch away his revolver. It is further alleged that when the informant tried to pacify the accused persons, they abused the informant, torn his uniform and tried to snatch away his revolver. It is further alleged that with a view to meet out situation, the driver of the jeep was directed to give telephonic message to police station from Electricity Department and then Officer-in-Charge Satish Chander Das and other police force came to the place of occurrence, then accused persons fled away. 4. On the basis of written report of informant (Exhibit-1), formal FIR was registered and after investigation of the case, charge sheet was submitted against the aforesaid appellants for the aforesaid offences. The case was committed to the court of Sessions. Charges were read over and explained to the accused persons and upon denial the trial commenced. 5. In course of trial, altogether seven witnesses have been examined by the prosecution. Apart from oral testimony of the witnesses, following documentary evidences have been brought on record:- Exhibit-1 : Written Report. Exhibit-1/1 : Endorsement on written report for registration of case. Exhibit-2 : Signature of the then Officer-in-Charge. Exhibit-3 : Injury slip of Thakur Dayal Yadav. Exhibit-4 : Injury Report of Thakur Dayal Yadav. 6. The case of defence is denial from occurrence and false implication. However, no oral and documentary evidence has been adduced by the defence. 7. Learned counsel for the appellants has vehemently argued that the learned trial court has miserably failed to take into notice the material contradictions and infirmities appearing in the testimony of the witnesses. The main injured witness Thakur Dayal Yadav has completely failed to identify his assailant and the nature of injury sustained by him is dislocation on the shoulder, which is found to be grievous in nature without any x-ray report. Moreover, there was no surface injury, although the Doctor, who has examined him, claims that if assault is given on the above injury there must be surface injury. Other injury is simple in nature and it is also opined by the Doctor that the above injuries may be caused due to fall. The driver of the police jeep (P.W.-6) has been declared hostile by the prosecution, who has specifically stated that he was standing on the road with the jeep and not gone to the place of occurrence. Other injury is simple in nature and it is also opined by the Doctor that the above injuries may be caused due to fall. The driver of the police jeep (P.W.-6) has been declared hostile by the prosecution, who has specifically stated that he was standing on the road with the jeep and not gone to the place of occurrence. It is further submitted that the very genesis of the case is that the accused persons were assembled for committing theft of wire from Electricity Department, but neither such case was registered against the appellants nor it is proved that the appellants were indulged in committing theft of electricity wire. It is also not explained by prosecution as to why and under what circumstances, road was blocked by the villagers. The learned trial court has also failed to consider that there is no circumstance in the entire prosecution story invoking the offence under Sections 353 and 333 of the I.P.C. Similarly, no common object of the appellants has been described in the F.I.R. or in the evidence of the witnesses in prosecution of which, they have attacked upon the police personnel. Most of the witnesses have clearly stated that due to darkness of night, they have not identified any miscreants including the sole injured Constable Thakur Dayal Yadav. It is also admitted by the witnesses that none of the accused persons were previously acquainted with the police personnel and they were not arrested from the spot on the same day of the occurrence. Therefore, the basis of implication of the appellants in this case is absolutely on statement of police spy. The appellants are reputed local villagers and have been falsely implicated in this case and the learned trial court without properly appreciating the evidence on record has held the appellants guilty and accordingly sentenced them, which is absolutely illegal and liable to be set aside. 8. On the other hand, learned APP has opposed the contentions raised on behalf of learned counsel for the appellants and has submitted that the trial court has very wisely and aptly examined all the aspect of the case and materials available on the record and arrived at right conclusion about guilt of the appellants and sentenced them according to law. There is no reason to interfere with the impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence of the appellants. There is no reason to interfere with the impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence of the appellants. Thus, the appeal is devoid of merit and fit to be dismissed. 9. I have gone through the record of the case along with the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned trial court in the light of contentions raised on behalf of both side. 10. First of all, a brief resume of oral testimony of witnesses is required to be discussed for better appreciation of the case. P.W.-1 : Sadan Singh (Constable No. 655) was member of Raiding Party. According to his evidence, in the month of October in the night patrolling, he along with Sub-Inspector and other police personnel proceeded for raiding and preventing electric wire theft which was frequent in the locality and went towards electric office near Jamtara-Dumka Road, then saw a person was flashing torch. The police party moved the jeep towards that person and intervened him asking as to why he is moving in the night. Some other persons namely, Nimai Mondal, Santu Mondal were also present there, who were armed with lathi and started assaulting to police party and torn the uniform of police Sub-Inspector. Constable Thakur Dayal Yadav was also assaulted by lathi. Thereafter, Officer-in-Charge of the police station and Dy. S.P. arrived at the place of occurrence and the accused persons fled away. In his cross-examination, it was noticed that this witness has written names of accused persons on his palm namely, Sant, Ganesh and Nimai, but he has disclosed the name of Nimai Mondal and Kartik Mondal, who were involved in the incident. This witness has not stated the name of any accused persons while his statement was recorded by the I.O. 11. P.W.-2 Hawaldar Ramashrya Singh . He is also member of the raiding party. According to his evidence, they had gone for detecting the criminals involved in electric wire theft from electricity office and in the night, at about 11 AM went to the place of occurrence, where one person was found wondering who disclosed his name as Ganesh @ Gansha and meanwhile, 10-12 persons assembled. They were taking name of other miscreants namely, Nimai, Santu, who assaulted to Constable Thakur Dayal Yadav and the S.I. Jagat Narayan by fist and fat. They were taking name of other miscreants namely, Nimai, Santu, who assaulted to Constable Thakur Dayal Yadav and the S.I. Jagat Narayan by fist and fat. Thereafter, information was given at police station and upon arrival of Officer-in-Charge, the accused persons fled away. He has claimed to identify Nimai, Ganesh and Santu. He has failed to re-collect as to whether he has disclosed the names of accused persons in his statement recorded under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C. or not. He also admits that the occurrence took place just one day prior to the Diwali festival, but he cannot tell, it was dark night or moon night. He was not acquainted with the accused persons prior to incident and after the incident, he has never seen them till giving his evidence before the Court. 12. P.W.-3: S.I. Jagat Narayan Singh is the informant. He has corroborated the statements contained in his written report and stated that in the night, he went for patrolling duty for detecting the criminals involved in electric wire theft. He reached near the Dhandhara village and found one person wondering near the electricity Office, who disclosed his name Ganesh Mondal and started scuffling with this witness meanwhile, some other miscreants about 8-10 persons also assembled near 8-10 persons police jeep out of them he has identified Nimai Mondal and does not know name of others. He has specifically stated that other persons who were assembled, he does not know who assaulted to Constable Thakur Dayal Yadav by lathi. Ganesh Mondal torn his uniform and attempted to take away his revolver. Thereafter, Officer-in-Charge was informed who arrived at place of occurrence and accused persons fled away. He has further stated that injured Constable Thakur Dayal Yadav was medically treated at Gutgutia Nursing Home. He has identified the accused Ganesh @ Gansha, Bandhan Mandal and Kartik Mondal fail to identify. In his cross-examination, this witness has categorically admitted that he was not acquainted with the accused Ganesh prior to the incident. He has also not conducted TIP about the suspect accused person. He also admits that his torn uniform was given to the Investigating Officer. He might have prepared seizure list. In his cross-examination, this witness has categorically admitted that he was not acquainted with the accused Ganesh prior to the incident. He has also not conducted TIP about the suspect accused person. He also admits that his torn uniform was given to the Investigating Officer. He might have prepared seizure list. He has denied the suggestion of defence that in the night of the Diwali some people used to gamble, who might have been scuffled with the police personnels and the present appellants have been falsely implicated in this case. 13. P.W.-4 : S.I. Umesh Ram is the Investigating Officer of this case. He has recorded the re-statement of the informant and injured Thakur Dayal Yadav, Ram Awadhesh Singh, Sadan Singh, Jeep Driver Biseswar Sah and sent requisition for treatment of Thakur Dayal Yadav, Ramashray, Biseswar Sah etc. He has further stated that place of occurrence is situated at square type road in Village – Dhandhara. In his cross-examination, he admitted in the requisition slip for medical examination of Thakur Dayal Yadav, time has not been mentioned. The requisition was issued to private nursing home and not to Sadar Hospital. He has admitted that Nimai Mondal was not charge-sheeted in this case. He has also not conducted TIP of the accused persons. He has denied the suggestion of defence that his investigation is defective and he has not fairly investigated the case. 14. P.W.-5 – Dr. S.K. Gutgutia is the Medical Officer, who has examined the Constable No. 290 Thakur Dayal Yadav of Jamtara P.S. and found following injuries:- (i) Swelling and pain in left shoulder not able to lift the shoulder, atromial process is prominent (anterior dis-location of right shoulder). (ii) Pain and swelling in the left leg below knee swelling 2” x 2” no bonyletion. (iii) Pain on the left side of the chest and anterior axillary line at the level of 7th rib. No crepitate. 15. P.W.-6 Biseswar Sah – He has been declared hostile. 16. P.W.-7 – Thakur Dayal Yadav is the sole injured of this case. According to his evidence, he was also member of the raiding party. One person scuffle with the police who disclosed his name as Ganesh Mandal and has torn the uniform of Sub-Inspector Jagat Narayan and also blocked the road and protested against proceeding of the police jeep. He was assaulted one lathi blow by Ganesh and cause left leg. According to his evidence, he was also member of the raiding party. One person scuffle with the police who disclosed his name as Ganesh Mandal and has torn the uniform of Sub-Inspector Jagat Narayan and also blocked the road and protested against proceeding of the police jeep. He was assaulted one lathi blow by Ganesh and cause left leg. One of the persons in the crowd attempted to snatch the revolver of police and when Officer-in-Charge arrived, the accused persons fled away. His medical treatment was conducted at Jamtara Nursing Home. He further explains that a person of short height assaulted him. It was dark night and he did not identify him. He has failed to identify the accused Nimai Mondal, but identified one Kartik Mondal and none of the other accused persons have been identified by him. In his cross-examination, he fairly admits that the Ganesh Mondal was not acquainted to him prior to the occurrence and he has not identified any of the miscreants in any TI Parade. He has not claimed at the time of investigation to identify any of the miscreants and after the occurrence, he has seen the accused Kartik Mondal first time present in the Court. There was dark night on the date of occurrence. He has denied the suggestion of prosecution that he has given absolutely false evidence as regards presence and participation of the accused persons in the alleged offence. 17. From perusal of the aforesaid evidence of the witnesses including the single injured Constable (P.W.-7), it transpires that the sole injured has stated that he has sustained injury on his leg, but in the medical report, there is dis-location on his shoulder and no visible injury was found caused by any lathi blow. It further appears that none of the witnesses have been able to clearly identify all the appellants showing their individual overt act in the alleged offence. The genesis of the occurrence is alleged to be detection of electric wire thieves, which was frequent in the Electricity Department. The prosecution has also not brought on record that the accused persons were ever prosecuted or suspected for commission of any theft of electric wire in the locality. It appears that simple scuffle arose between Ganesh Mondal and Sub-Inspector and Ganesh Mondal used some blunt answer. The prosecution has also not brought on record that the accused persons were ever prosecuted or suspected for commission of any theft of electric wire in the locality. It appears that simple scuffle arose between Ganesh Mondal and Sub-Inspector and Ganesh Mondal used some blunt answer. Hence, the villagers assembled and protested the same and road was blocked, otherwise prosecution has miserably failed to prove the reason for blockage of the road by the villagers by putting bullock carts as appears in the evidence of witnesses. 18. In my considered view, the evidence of prosecution witnesses suffers from material contradictions and infirmity as regards genesis, manner and place of occurrence as well as participation of the appellants in the alleged crime and their identification by the witnesses. Therefore, the conviction and sentence of the appellants do not appear to be based on cogent and reliable evidence, rather prosecution has miserably failed to prove the charges leveled against the appellants beyond all reasonable doubt. In this view of the matter, the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence of the appellant dated 23.03.2006 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-II, Jamtara in Sessions Case No. 198/2000 and Sessions Case No. 18/2004 is hereby .set aside 19. Accordingly, this appeal is allowed. 20. Appellants are on bail as such, they are discharged from the liability of bail bond. Sureties are also discharged. 21. Pending I.A., if any, stand disposed of. 22. Let a copy of this judgment along with trial court record be sent back to the court concerned for information and needful.