JUDGMENT : RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD, J. Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned Additional Prosecutor for the State and learned counsel for the Respondent Nos. 2 to 6. 2. The appellant in the present appeal is seeking to challenge the judgment of acquittal dated 13.06.2022 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘impugned judgment’) passed by learned Sessions Judge, Muzaffarpur (hereinafter referred to as the ‘learned trial court’) in Sessions Trial No. 282 of 2013 whereby and whereunder the learned trial court has been pleased to acquit the Respondent Nos. 2 to 6 of the charges under Sections 148, 341, 323, 324, 307, 427 and 504 of the Indian Penal Code (in short ‘IPC’). Prosecution Case 3. The prosecution story is based on the fardbeyan of one Jagannath Prasad Singh (PW-4) before Sub-Inspector of Police Hareram Singh of Town Police Station, Muzaffarpur at 18:30 hours in Sadar Hospital, Muzaffarpur (Mail Ward). On the basis of his fardbeyan recorded on 11.12.2008, a formal FIR was registered on 14.12.2008 at 18:30 hours. In his fardbeyan, the informant has stated on 11.12.2008 at about 16:30 Hours in the evening, he was sitting in his verandah on the roof of his house along with Sushil Kumar Shahi, Navin Kumar, Nishant Saurav and the son of brother-in-law of Sushil Kumar Shahi who had brought the goods in the Maruti Van and had parked his vehicle bearing Registration No. BR06F 6951 towards south of the house on the road. When they were talking, in the meanwhile, (1) Sarvesh Chaudhary, (2) Ranjit Chaudhary, (3) Pinki Chaudhary, (4) Arun Chaudhary and (5) the brother-in-law of Ranjit Chaudhary whose name was not known and were forcibly taking over the possession of the land came armed with lathi, farsa, iron rod, sword and country-made pistol at the informant’s house and started damaging the Maruti Van of the relative of his tenant, namely, Sushil Kumar Shahi. They broke the glass of the vehicle and damaged the Maruti Van. The informant saw this occurrence and went to the gate where the brother-in-law of Ranjit Kumar came and put the pistol on his temple (‘kanpatti’). The accused (6) Laxmi Kant Jha @ Panditjee and (7) Murari who is the munshi of Sarvesh Chaudhary both caught hold of him and Sarvesh Chaudhary ordered to shoot him. The informant saw this occurrence and went to the gate where the brother-in-law of Ranjit Kumar came and put the pistol on his temple (‘kanpatti’). The accused (6) Laxmi Kant Jha @ Panditjee and (7) Murari who is the munshi of Sarvesh Chaudhary both caught hold of him and Sarvesh Chaudhary ordered to shoot him. The informant’s son, namely, Arish Kumar, the tenant Sushil Kumar Shahi, Nishant Saurav, Navin Kumar reached there and tried to pacify the matter. In the meanwhile, Sarvesh Chaudhary assaulted the informant’s son by sword on his head due to which he suffered serious injury and the accused persons snatched his golden chain weighed 10 grams. In the meanwhile, 7-8 unknown persons of Sarvesh Chaudhary came there and all assaulted Sushil Kumar Shahi, Nishant Saurav and Navin Kumar by iron rod and lathi due to which they became seriously injured. Ranjit Chaudhary snatched the golden chain of Nishant Saurav. When the informant and others raised hulla, the members of the locality, namely, Sitaram Rai, Bharat Paswan, Parmanand Thakur, Samdhi and many other people came and pacified the matter. The police reached at the place of occurrence and the injured persons were taken to the Sadar Hospital. The reason of the alleged occurrence is to compromise the old ongoing litigation due to which the accused persons armed with lathi, farsa, sword, iron rod and country-made pistol came at the door of the informant and damaged the Maruti Van bearing Registration No. BR06F/6951 by iron rod. On protest, the above-named accused persons surrounded his son Arish Kumar, tenant Sushil Kumar Shahi, Nishant Saurav and Navin Kumar and assaulted them. The golden chains of Arish Kumar and Nishant Saurav were snatched by Sarvesh Chaudhary and Ranjit Chaudhary respectively. 4. Upon completion of investigation, police submitted a chargesheet bearing Chargesheet No. 188 of 2009 dated 31.05.2009 against Ranjeet Chaudhary (since deceased) and supplementary chargesheet bearing Chargesheet No. 397 of 2011 dated 30.11.2011 against the Respondent Nos. 2 to 6. The case was committed to the Court of Sessions vide order dated 05.04.2013 where session trial was registered. The accused Ranjit Chaudhary died during trial as a result whereof the proceeding against him was dropped vide order dated 21.07.2011 passed in Session Trial No. 959 of 2009. 5. The statement of the accused persons was recorded under Section 313 Cr.PC. Accordingly, they claimed innocence and wished to adduce evidence. 6. The accused Ranjit Chaudhary died during trial as a result whereof the proceeding against him was dropped vide order dated 21.07.2011 passed in Session Trial No. 959 of 2009. 5. The statement of the accused persons was recorded under Section 313 Cr.PC. Accordingly, they claimed innocence and wished to adduce evidence. 6. The accused persons (Respondent Nos. 2 to 6) were explained the charges which they denied and claimed to be tried. Accordingly, on 26.07.2013 charges were framed against Respondent Nos. 2 to 6 for the offence punishable under Sections 148, 341/149, 323/149, 324/149, 307/149, 427/149 and 504/149 IPC. The prosecution examined as many as six witnesses and marked some exhibits. On behalf of the defence, one witness has been examined and several documents have been marked exhibits. The description of the witnesses and the documents brought in evidence by the prosecution and the defence are given hereunder in tabular form for a ready reference:- List of Prosecution Witnesses PW-1 Sushil Kumar Shahi PW-2 Nishant Saurav PW-3 Parmanand Thakur PW-4 Jagannath Prasad Singh PW-5 Dr. Kamlesh Sharma PW-6 Arish Kumar List of Exhibits on behalf of the Prosecution Exhibit ‘1’ Signature of the Informant on Fardbeyan Exhibit ‘1/1’ Signature of Krishna Nandan Prasad on Fardbeyan Exhibit ‘2’ Injury Report of Sushil Kumar Shahi Exhibit ‘2/1’ Injury Report of Arish Kumar Exhibit ‘2/2’ Injury Report of Nishant Saurav Exhibit ‘3’ Formal F.I.R. List of DefenceWitnesses DW-1 Shyam Nandan Prasad Singh List of Exhibits on behalf of the Defence Exhibit ‘A’ Certified copy of judgment and decree of T.S. No. 521/2007 Exhibit ‘B’ Certified Copy of Registered Sale Deed executed by Sadan Kishore Exhibit ‘B/1’ Certified Copy of Registered Sale Deed executed by Sadan Kishore Exhibit ‘B/2’ Certified Copy of Registered Sale Deed executed by Chandeshwar Pd. Singh Exhibit ‘C’ Certified Copy of rent receipt of Jamabandi No. 1220 Exhibit ‘C/1’ Certified Copy of Rent Receipt issued in favour of Pinki Chaudhary Exhibit ‘C/2’ to ‘C/5’ Certified Copy of some other Rent receipts Exhibit ‘D’ Certified Copy of Khatiyan Exhibit ‘E’ C.C. of order dated 25.06.2010 passed in F.I.R. of Sadar P.S. Case No. 382/2008 Exhibit ‘F’ C.C. of FIR of Sadar P.S. Case No. 382/2008 Exhibit ‘G’ C.C. of Final Form of Sadar P.S. Case No. 382/2008 Exhibit ‘H’ C.C. deposition of Enquiry Witness in C. Case No. 461/2009 Exhibit ‘H/1’ C.C. of deposition of Enquiry Witness No. 2 in C. Case No. 461/2009 Exhibit ‘I’ Report of RTI Exhibit ‘J’ C.C. of order dated 17.07.2018 passed in C. Case No. 903/2009 Findings of the Learned Trial Court 7. In its finding, the learned trial court has held that PW- 1, PW-2 and PW-6 who are the injured witnesses have disclosed the mode and manner of assault in their own colour and each of these witnesses have designed it according to their own wish and desire. The learned trial court found that the entire mode of assault by sword, farsa and rod changes its colour in the version of each of the witnesses including the injured witnesses and on a close scrutiny of evidences of PW-1, PW-2, PW-3, PW-4 and PW-6, it would appear that they have not deposed in consonance with the prosecution case so far as the nature of weapons and their uses by the accused persons in the alleged offence of assault are concerned. Thus, according to learned trial court, this gave strong ground of reasonable doubt regarding presence of the witnesses at the place of occurrence. 8. Learned trial court further found that Sitaram Rai and Bharat Paswan who were named as persons who reached at the place of occurrence on hearing hulla were not examined by the prosecution and no explanation has been offered to show as to why they have been kept away from the witness box. The learned trial court has, thus, held that it is a case of opportunity of adverse inference in view of Section 114(g) of the Indian Evidence Act. 9. The learned trial court has, thus, held that it is a case of opportunity of adverse inference in view of Section 114(g) of the Indian Evidence Act. 9. Further, the I.O. of this case has not been examined by the prosecution and in view of the contradictions appearing in the version of the witnesses, the non-examination of the I.O. has caused prejudice to the defence. For all the above reasons, the learned trial court has acquitted the accused persons of all the charges. Submissions on behalf of the appellant-informant 10. Learned counsel for the appellant-informant has assailed the impugned judgment. It is submitted that there are specific allegations against Respondent Nos. 2 to 6 in the FIR. During the course of trial, the prosecution witnesses have supported the prosecution case. PW-1 had received farsa blow by accused Sarvesh Chaudhary and the accused Pinki Chaudhary who had given a sword blow on the head of this witness. The accused Pinki Chaudhary (respondent no. 4) had also given a sword blow on the hand of Arish Kumar. 11. Learned counsel submits that PW-2 who is the brother-in-law of PW-1 has stated that the appellant was assaulted by respondent no.2 and respondent no. 5. Arish Kumar was assaulted by respondent no. 5 with sword on his head and respondent no.4 assaulted him by farsa on his head due to which he fell down and became unconscious. His brother Sushil Kumar Shahi (PW-1) was assaulted by farsa by Pinki Chaudhary (respondent no.4) and this witness was also assaulted by Pinki Chaudhary. 12. Learned counsel further submits that PW-3 who is the samdhi of the appellant has stated that when he reached there, he found that Pinki Chaudhary assaulted Arish Kumar by farsa and Sushil Shahi was assaulted by Sarvesh Kumar and Pinki Chaudhary by farsa and sword on his head. Accused Krishna Murari assaulted on head of Naveen by lathi causing head injury and Nishant was assaulted by Arun Chaudhary by lathi whereas Pinki Chaudhary assaulted Nishant Saurav by sword on his back. It is submitted that the informant (PW-4) has stated that when his tenant was transporting the household items, all the accused persons along with 7-8 unknown persons armed with weapons came there and started damaging Maruti Van parked outside his house. He has narrated the entire manner of occurrence. It is submitted that the informant (PW-4) has stated that when his tenant was transporting the household items, all the accused persons along with 7-8 unknown persons armed with weapons came there and started damaging Maruti Van parked outside his house. He has narrated the entire manner of occurrence. According to him, Respondent No. 5 had given order to kill him and Respondent No. 2 put pistol on his temple. When his son Arish Kumar came to save him, he was assaulted by Pinki Chaudhary and Sarvesh Kumar causing head injury, his tenant Sushil Kumar Shahi was assaulted by Sarvesh Chaudhary and Pinki Chaudhary causing head injury. Nishant Saurav was assaulted by Murari Chaudhary causing head injury and Navin Kumar was assaulted by Pappu Chaudhary. 13. It is submitted that the Medical Officer (PW-5) has proved injury reports of the injured persons. He had examined Sushil Kumar Shahi (PW-1) and found incised wound on scalp and forehead. Both injuries were caused by sharp weapon. CT Scan of head was done and its report shows fracture on right frontal bone. Nature of injuries were found to be grievous. PW-5 had examined Arish Kumar and found 2”x1/6”x1/8” injuries caused by sharp cut weapon. The CT scan was done and report was normal. The injury of Nishant Saurav was simple in nature caused by hard and blunt substance. 14. Arish Kumar (PW-6) is the son of the appellant who supported the prosecution case and submitted that he was assaulted by Sarvesh Chaudhary and Pinki Chaudhary by sword and farsa on his head. 15. Learned counsel submits that learned trial court ought to have appreciated that all the witnesses are eye witnesses of the occurrence and three of them have suffered injuries, therefore, their testimonies could not have been discarded on mere simple discrepancies with regard to the nature of weapons held by different accused persons. Reliance has been placed on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sohrab and Anr. Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh and another reported in (1972) 3 SC 751 to submit that merely because there have been discrepancies and contradictions in the evidence of some or all of the witnesses, it does not mean that the entire evidence of the prosecution has to be discarded. 16. Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh and another reported in (1972) 3 SC 751 to submit that merely because there have been discrepancies and contradictions in the evidence of some or all of the witnesses, it does not mean that the entire evidence of the prosecution has to be discarded. 16. It is further submitted that in the case of Leela Ham vs. State of Haryana and Another reported in (1999) 9 SCC 525 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that there is bound to be some discrepancies between the narrations of different witnesses when they speak on details and unless the contradictions are of a material dimensions, the same should not be used to jettison the evidence in its entirety. 17. On the point of non-examination of the I.O., it is submitted that mere non-examination of the I.O. would not automatically vitiate the trial, rather the defence has to show the prejudice caused to its case by non-examination of the I.O. Learned counsel has placed reliance upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ram Dev and Anr. vs. State of U.P. reported in 1995 (Suppl (1) SCC 547 and in the case of Behari Prasad and Others versus State of Bihar reported in (1996) 2 SCC 317 wherein it has been held that for non- examination of the Investigating Officer, the prosecution case need not fail and the case of prejudice likely to be suffered must depend on facts of each case and no universal straight-jacket formula may be laid down. It is submitted that in the present case, the non- examination of the I.O. cannot be a reason to discard the evidence of the injured witnesses. In the case of Ram Gulam Chaudhary and Others vs. State of Bihar reported in (2001) 8 SCC 311 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that the non-examination of the Investigation Officer has caused no prejudice at all. The submission is that from perusal of the records, it would appear that Respondent Nos. 2 to 6 could not show that any prejudice has been caused to them on account of non-examination of the I.O. It is further submitted that the defence did not put any contradiction to the eye witnesses and therefore, it cannot be argued that non- examination of the I.O. has seriously prejudiced the defence of the accused persons. 2 to 6 could not show that any prejudice has been caused to them on account of non-examination of the I.O. It is further submitted that the defence did not put any contradiction to the eye witnesses and therefore, it cannot be argued that non- examination of the I.O. has seriously prejudiced the defence of the accused persons. The submission is that the Respondent Nos. 2 to 6 have committed the alleged occurrence in which PW-1 has received head injury which is grievous in nature and due to which he got paralyzed. Submissions on behalf of the Respondents 18. On the other hand, learned counsel for the Respondent Nos. 2 to 6 and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State have defended the impugned judgment. It is submitted that it is the cardinal principle of criminal jurisprudence that if the trial court has taken plausible view in consonance with the evidence on record that even if another view is possible, the Court of appeal is not justified in interfering with the judgment of acquittal recorded by the learned trial court. It is submitted that in case of acquittal, the presumption of innocence of the accused is in fact further cemented by the judgment of acquittal. 19. It is submitted that the informant besides others has named one Navin Kumar as an injured witness by Sitaram Rai and Bharat Paswan resident of same locality as independent witness who arrived at the scene place and intervened into the matter to pacify the dispute. These three witnesses have not been examined by the prosecution and there is no explanation about their non- examination. This would lead to an adverse inference to be drawn against the prosecution. 20. It is submitted that Mishrilal Shah and Rajesh Kumar Yadav have been named in the charge-sheet as material witness of the occurrence, they had indeed been turn up in the case but they were not examined. No explanation for their non- examination has been given, therefore, there would be a presumption of law that had these witnesses been examined, they would not have supported the prosecution version. No explanation for their non- examination has been given, therefore, there would be a presumption of law that had these witnesses been examined, they would not have supported the prosecution version. It is submitted that prosecution claims that the occurrence was triggered when the glass of the Maruti Van had been broken by the accused persons but the defence claimed that the occurrence had been triggered when the members of the prosecution party had tried to forcibly dispossess the accused persons from the house purchased by them about one year ago. On this vital point, the I.O. would have thrown light reliably to arrive at a positive conclusion but without any cogent reason, this witness (I.O.) has been withheld by the prosecution. It is submitted that the effect of such non-examination of the I.O. will have fatal effect on the prosecution case. 21. It is submitted that Dr. Kamlesh Sharma (PW-5) who is a Surgeon examined the injured of the case. It is submitted that on the protest of the defence regarding the correctness of the report of the Doctor, a medical board had been constituted to re-examine the injured but even on notice, the injured did not turn up before the medical board for re-examination (refer PW-1 para ‘12’). It is, thus, submitted that the medical report is collusive and same cannot be relied upon. 22. As regards the injuries found on Arish Kumar (PW-6) and Nishant Saurav (PW-2), it is submitted that breadth and depth of incised wound found on the head of Arish Kumar suggest that the same having been caused by friendly hands and not by a hostile hand and that too by heavy weapons like sword and farsa. PW-2 has claimed to have suffered injury by sharp cut weapon but no incised wound has been found on his person. It is submitted that the description of occurrence given by the witnesses varies vital from one another. Out of five witnesses examined in all the occurrence, PW-1 is the informant himself while PW-2 is his son and also one of the injured as well as PW-3 is samdhi of the informant. They being closely related to each other became highly interested witnesses. PW-1 is the tenant of the informant while PW-2 is relation of PW-1, so they also became interested persons. They being closely related to each other became highly interested witnesses. PW-1 is the tenant of the informant while PW-2 is relation of PW-1, so they also became interested persons. The independent witnesses who were named in the charge-sheet and might have proved to be competent witnesses have been withheld by the prosecution without any explanation for the same. The prosecution has, therefore, withheld the material witness in this case and it is guilty of suppressing the true version of the case. Sketch of the place of occurrence and tabular chart showing the statement of the prosecution witnesses with regard to the role of the accused persons in the occurrence has been submitted with the written notes of argument on behalf of Respondent Nos. 2 to 6. It is submitted that the different witnesses have narrated the occurrence in different manner. Consideration 23. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State and learned counsel for the informant as also perused the records. This Court being an Appellate Court would not only re-appreciate the evidence on the record but would also see as to whether the findings recorded by the learned trial court based on which the impugned judgment has been passed are perversed and not based on proper appreciation of the evidence. 24. The reason and rationale provided by the learned trial court for passing the impugned judgment may be found in the following findings and observations of the learned trial court recorded in paragraphs ‘10’ to ‘13’ of the impugned judgment:- “10. 24. The reason and rationale provided by the learned trial court for passing the impugned judgment may be found in the following findings and observations of the learned trial court recorded in paragraphs ‘10’ to ‘13’ of the impugned judgment:- “10. … It would not be out of pace to mention here that the injured witness i.e. PW-1, PW-2 and PW-6 have disclosed a mode and manner of assault in there own colour and each of these witnesses have designed it accordingly to there own wish and desire, the entire mode of assault by sword, farsa and rod changes its colour in the vision of each of the witnesses including the alleged injured witnesses and on microscopic analysis of the version of PW-1, PW-2, PW-3, PW-4 and PW-6 it is apparent that they have not deposed in consonance of the case of the prosecution so far the nature of weapon and there use by the accused person and there alleged offence of assault is concerned and this gives strong ground of reasonable doubt regarding presence of the witness at the place of occurrence. 11. It is fair to note here that Sitaram Rai and Bharat Paswan were named as a person, who reached at the place of occurrence on hearing hulla but they were not examined by the prosecution and there is nothing on record to show any cogent reason for keeping them away from the witness box and this gives us opportunity of adverse presumption in view of section 144(g) of the Indian Evidenve Act by the prosecution and in the view of the above discussion along with the due perusal of the contradiction in the version of witness of witnesses, non examination of I.O. has caused prejudiced to the accused person in the case. 12. It is equally fair to note here that the prosecution has not been able to prove its case up to the hilt and as such, it will be futile to discuss the evidence adduced by the accused in there defence. 13. 12. It is equally fair to note here that the prosecution has not been able to prove its case up to the hilt and as such, it will be futile to discuss the evidence adduced by the accused in there defence. 13. Now taking into consideration the above discussion along with the materials brought on record, I find and hold that the prosecution has not been able to prove its case up-to the hilt and as such, I find it judicious to give the benefit of doubt to the accused person and accordingly, the accused namely Krishna Murari @ Murari, Arun Chaudhary, Pinki Chaudhary, Sarvesh Chaudhary and Praveen Kumar are acquitted of the charges. The accused are on bail and as such, they are also discharged from the liabilities and there bail bonds.” 25. On perusal of the evidences available on the record, it would appear that the fardbeyan of the appellant was recorded on 11.12.2008 by S.I. Hareram Singh in Sadar Hospital, Muzaffarpur but it has been registered giving rise to the present FIR on 14.12.2008 at 8:30 AM. On perusal of the fardbeyan, it would appear that Hareram Singh who was the S.I. of Town Police Station, Muzaffarpur had forwarded the fardbeyan to Sadar Police Station, Muzaffarpur (East) after finding that the place of occurrence of this case would fall within the jurisdiction of Sadar Police Station. At the same time a counter case being Muzaffarpur (East) Sadar P.S. Case No. 382 dated 14.12.2008 (Exhibit ‘F’) was registered under Sections 147, 148, 149, 341, 323, 448, 379, 436, 307, 380, 354, 427, 506 of the Indian Penal Code. Sarvesh Chaudhary (respondent no. 5) is the informant of this case. In this counter case, after investigation, Police submitted a chargesheet against Arish Kumar, Jagarnath Singh, Sushil Kumar Sahi and others and the learned Magistrate took cognizance of the offences vide order dated 25.06.2010 (Exhibit ‘F’). 26. In the present case also police submitted a charge-sheet and supplementary charge-sheet, altogether nine persons have been named as witnesses. (1) the informant Jagannath Singh, (2) Nishant Saurav, (3) Sushil Kumar Shahi, (4) Parmanand Thakur, (5) Rajesh Kumar Yadav, (6) Mishrilal Singh, (7) Dr. K. Sharma, (8) S.I. Arun Kumar of Sadar Police Station and (9) M. Ram of Sadar Police Station. (1) the informant Jagannath Singh, (2) Nishant Saurav, (3) Sushil Kumar Shahi, (4) Parmanand Thakur, (5) Rajesh Kumar Yadav, (6) Mishrilal Singh, (7) Dr. K. Sharma, (8) S.I. Arun Kumar of Sadar Police Station and (9) M. Ram of Sadar Police Station. The learned trial court has recorded in the impugned judgment that Sitaram Rai and Bharat Paswan were named as persons who reached at the place of occurrence on hearing hulla but they were not examined by the prosecution and there is nothing on the record to show any cogent reason to keep them away from the witness box. We find that these two persons were not charge-sheet witnesses in the supplementary charge-sheet filed against respondent nos. 2 to 6. 27. In this case, three persons are the injured witnesses. They are Sushil Kumar Shahi (PW-1), Nishant Saurav (PW-2) and Arish Kumar (PW-6). PW-1 has stated that he was a tenant in the house of Jagannath Singh (PW-4) and was vacating his house. 28. He was putting his articles in the Maruti Van of Vijay Kumar Singh which was parked at the southern gate of the compound of PW-4. In the meantime, Sarvesh Chaudhary, Ranjit Chaudhary (since deceased), Pinki Chaudhary, Pappu Chaudhary, Murari and Lakshmikant all armed with farsa, lathi, sword, rod and pistol came and attacked the Maruti vehicle. When Jagannath Singh came outside his house and protested then Murari, Pappu Chaudhary and Lakshmikant out of whom Pappu Chuadhary was having a pistol in his hand placed the pistol on the kanpatti of Jagannath Singh (PW-4) and Lakshmikant and Murari caught hold of Jagannath Singh. When Arish Kumar, son of Jagannath Singh came there to save his father then Sarvesh Chaudhary assaulted Arish on his head by a farsa which caused head injury to Arish and he fell down. Ranjit Chaudhary snatched the chain from the neck of Arish and half of the chain came in the hands of Arish. At this stage, Pinki Chaudhary attacked Arish at his hand by a sword then the hand of Arish was loosen and Ranjit had taken away the chain. Thereafter, this witness came down from his verandah and as soon as he reached there, Sarvesh Chaudhary assaulted him by farsa on his lalat which caused a cut injury and Pinki Chaudhary assaulted on his head by a sword which completely cut his hand. Thereafter, this witness came down from his verandah and as soon as he reached there, Sarvesh Chaudhary assaulted him by farsa on his lalat which caused a cut injury and Pinki Chaudhary assaulted on his head by a sword which completely cut his hand. When his sarhu Navin Kumar came to save him and Mishrilal also came to save him then the accused persons left this witness and they started beating them. Police came thereafter and all the three injured were taken to the hospital. 29. From the examination-in-chief of PW-1, it appears that in the occurrence three persons were injured. The first injured was Arish Kumar, son of the informant and PW-6 of this case. About him, PW-1 has stated that first of all Sarvesh Chaudhary assaulted him on his head by farsa and thereafter Pinki Chaudhary assaulted him by sword on his hand. The second injured of the crime is this witness (PW-1) who was assaulted by Sarvesh Chaudhary by farsa on his head and then Pinki Chaudhary assaulted him by a sword on his head. So, both the injuries were caused to PW-1 on his head by farsa and on hand by sword respectively. Navin and Nishant were also assaulted by the accused persons and it is evident that Nishant (PW-2) is the third injured of the occurrence who was assaulted by Sarvesh Chaudhary and Pinki Chaudhary after leaving PW-1. 30. PW-1, PW-2 and PW-6 were examined by Dr. Kamlesh Sharma (PW-5) who found the following injuries on their bodies:- “ Sushil Kumar Shahi (PW-1) Injury No. 1. Incised Wound on scalp 2” ×1/6” ×1/8” 2. On forehead 1 ½” ×1/5” ×1/8” 3. Both injuries caused by sharp weapon. Patient was hospitalised and CT Scan done at Gautam Diagnostice Centre on 12.12.08. SOC opinion sought on 20.12.2018 so nature of injuries after surgeon opinion. M/I til on neck. Time of injury – within eight hours. Patient was brought by relative. As per radiologist report, C.T. Scan shows fracture in right frontal bone. So nature of injury is grievous. S.K.M.C.H. has no facility of C.T. Scan as reported.” “Arish Kumar (PW-6) 1. Incised wound on scalp 2” ×1/6” ×1/8” caused by sharp weapon. Patient hospitalised in MSW. CT scan was done in Gautam Diagnostic Centre on 12.12.08 shows normal. Nature of injury simple. M.I. 1 st injury mark, brought by relative. So nature of injury is grievous. S.K.M.C.H. has no facility of C.T. Scan as reported.” “Arish Kumar (PW-6) 1. Incised wound on scalp 2” ×1/6” ×1/8” caused by sharp weapon. Patient hospitalised in MSW. CT scan was done in Gautam Diagnostic Centre on 12.12.08 shows normal. Nature of injury simple. M.I. 1 st injury mark, brought by relative. Time of injury – within eight hours.” “Nishant Saurav (PW-2) 1. Diffuse swelling on head. 2. Bruise on back 5” × 1/5” Patient hospitalised (vide BHT 1203, dated 11.12.08). C.T. Scan done in Gautam Diagnostic Centre shows normal Both injuries caused by hard blunt substance, simple in nature. M.I. mole on face, brought by relative. Time of injury – within eight hours.” The injury reports have been marked Exhibit ‘2’, ‘2/1’ and ‘2/2’ respectively. 31. PW-1 had suffered one incised wound on his skull and another on his forehead and both injuries were caused by sharp weapon. PW-6 suffered an incised wound on his skull caused by sharp weapon. PW-2 suffered a diffuse swelling on his head and bruise on back and both the injuries were found caused by hard and blunt substance. The Doctor (PW-5) has stated in his cross- examination that all requisitions were sent by Town Police Station on 11.12.2008 and the injury reports were prepared by him on 20.12.2008 and the persons were hospitalised. The CT scan was done on 12.12.2008 but he had not mentioned the date of perusal of CT scan report. He had no personal knowledge regarding availability of CT Scan on that day but it was reported that CT scan facility was not available in SKMCH, Muzaffarpur. He had not mentioned this fact in the injury report. This witness had prepared the injury reports on the basis of first aid treatment and bed head ticket (BHT). He has also stated that generally these injuries cannot be manufactured. 32. If the evidence of PW-1 is further seen, it may be noticed that he has given the description of the place of occurrence. He has, however, stated in paragraph ‘12’ that his injury report was challenged by the accused persons and on that basis a Medical Board was constituted and Darogaji had given him a notice to appear on 30.06.2010 but he had not appeared before the Medical Board. He has, however, stated in paragraph ‘12’ that his injury report was challenged by the accused persons and on that basis a Medical Board was constituted and Darogaji had given him a notice to appear on 30.06.2010 but he had not appeared before the Medical Board. It is evident from the deposition of PW- 1 that he admits to have received a notice to appear before the Medical Board on 30.06.2010 i.e. after about one and half year of the occurrence. In his cross-examination, the defence drew the attention of this witness towards his previous statement before police, he denied the suggestion that before the I.O. he had not stated that who had assaulted whom. This witness was further suggested that he had informed Darogaji that both the family members of the parties had come to intervene and in that course, both sides of family members had got injured. The case of the defence in Exhibit ‘F’ is that the prosecuiton party of this case had entered into the house of Sarvesh Chaudhary and assaulted them. Sarvesh Chaudhary got recorded his fardbeyan while admitted in Sadar Hospital. It is the stand of the defence that both the sides had abused each other and had indulged in the quarrel. 3 3. The another injured witness Nishant Saurav (PW-2) has supported the prosecution case. He is the son of Vijay Kumar. He has stated that in his Maruti Van, he had brought the household articles of his mausa Sushil Kumar Shahi (PW-1) to the house of Jagannath Babu (PW-4) and he was offloading the articles, in the meantime, the accused persons came and damaged his vehicle and thereafter, when Jagannath Babu came then he also came behind him. When Jagannath Babu asked the accused persons not to damage the vehicle then Lakshmikant and Murari caught hold of the hand of Jagannath Babu and from both sides Pappu Chaudhary placed pistol on his kanpatti, Sarvesh Chaudhary abused and said that he should be killed. When the son of Jagannath Babu, namely, Arish Kumar came there to save his father, Sarvesh Chaudhary abused him and assaulted him on his head by a sword which this witness caught hold of and snatched from his hand and threw that but in the meantime, Pinki Chaudhary came and attacked Arish by a farsa which hit on his head and he suffered injury whereafter he fell down. Ranjit Chaudhary snatched away the chain, this witness stated that Sarvesh Chaudhary assaulted Sushil Kumar Shahi (PW- 1) by farsa and Pinki Chaudhary assaulted him by a sword. About his own injury, the witness (PW-2) has stated that Arun Chaudhary assaulted him on his head by lathi and Pappu Chaudhary assaulted him on the elbow of his right hand and knee of the right leg. Pappu Chaudhary was not chargesheeted and he has not faced the trial. He claims that Pinki Chaudhary assaulted him on his back by sword as a result whereof his sweater was cut and an injury was caused on his back. The discrepancies appear in the evidence of PW-1 who has stated that Pinki Chaudhary had assaulted Arish on his hand. The Doctor (PW-5) has not found any injury on the hand of Arish. As regards his own injury, PW-2 has claimed that he was assaulted by Arun Chaudhary by lathi on his head and then Pappu Chaudhary assaulted him by iron rod on his right hand elbow and right leg. The Doctor (PW-5) has found two injuries on the body of PW-2. First is diffuse swelling on his head which he has attributed to Arun Chaudhary and then bruise on the backside which he has attributed to Pinki Chaudhary. No injury has been noticed by PW-5 on the right hand elbow and right side of the knee of PW-2. The sweater of PW-2 has not been seized. Murari, Laxmikant, Pappu and Arun Chaudhary do not belong to the family of Pinki Chaudhary. He has stated that prior to the occurrence, he had not met the accused persons and there was no prior enmity between the accused persons and his mausa Sushil Kumar Shahi (PW-1) and with him. He has stated that his statement was recorded by Police in the hospital. He was suggested by defence that he had not made such statement before police which he was making in the court. The witness denied the suggestion. He has stated that his statement was recorded by Police in the hospital. He was suggested by defence that he had not made such statement before police which he was making in the court. The witness denied the suggestion. Again, he was suggested that he had given a statement before police that after parking the vehicle on the road, he was taking the articles in front of the house of Sarvesh Chaudhary on which Sarvesh Chaudhary stopped him and in the meantime, abuse started and for this reason, a quarrel broke out between the informant and the accused persons in which they used lathi/danda and fist and when the family members of both sides came to intervene then they became injured. The witness denied the suggestion. Thereafter, the defence suggested that there was land dispute between the informant and the accused persons and he had stated so before the police which this witness denied. Thereafter, this witness was suggested that he was making a false statement and no occurrence had taken place. He also denied the suggestion that accused Pinki Chaudhary had purchased a land which Jagannath Singh wanted to forcibly occupy and in that course, the informant and his parties were assaulted and when the accused persons came then they have been falsely implicated. The evidences available on record clearly show that Pinki Chaudhary wife of Ranjit Chaudhary and Rita Chaudhary had purchased the shares of Baidyanath Singh from his two sons. Exhibit ‘B’ and Exhibit ‘B/1’ are the certified copy of the two sale deeds. Thus, it appears that the defence had rightly suggested that there was a land dispute between the parties. 34. It is evident that the defence had drawn the attention of the PW-1 and PW-2 both towards their previous statements before police, the witnesses denied to have said. So, in these circumstances, if the I.O. of the case would have come to depose, the defence would have been in a position to prove the writing in the case diary and contradictions in the statement of PW-1 and PW-2 could have been taken. There is no seizure of the alleged damaged Maruti Car and no evidence of broken glass of Maruti at the place of occurrence could be adduced by the prosecution. It is evident that the house of Jagannath Singh (PW-4) is just adjacent to and side-by-side to the house of Sarvesh Chaudhary. 35. There is no seizure of the alleged damaged Maruti Car and no evidence of broken glass of Maruti at the place of occurrence could be adduced by the prosecution. It is evident that the house of Jagannath Singh (PW-4) is just adjacent to and side-by-side to the house of Sarvesh Chaudhary. 35. PW-3, Parmanand Thakur is the samdhi of Jagannath Singh (PW-4). He claims to have seen the occurrence. He has stated that Nishant Saurav (PW-2) had snatched the sword from the hand of Sarvesh Chaudhary and threw the same and told him not to indulge in quarrel but Sarvesh Chaudhary took farsa from the hand of Pinki Chaudhary and assaulted Arish Kumar on his head which caused fracture on his head and he started bleeding and fell down on the earth. He has stated that Pinki Chaudhary assaulted Arish by iron rod on his hand and thereafter Ranjit had snatched away the chain. This witness has stated that when the tenant of Arish Kumar, namely, Sushil Kumar Shahi came to save him then Sarvesh Chaudhary assaulted him by farsa and Pinki Chaudhary assaulted him by sword which caused injury to Sushil Shahi and he fell down. Navin went to save then Murari assaulted on his head by lathi causing injury to him and he fled away. Nishant Saurav was assaulted by Arun Chaudhary on his head and Pinki Chaudhary assaulted Nishant Saurav on his back by a sword as a result whereof, his shirt was cut and injury was caused on his back. In his cross-examination, this witness has stated that Jagannath Singh is Samdhi. Apart from this case, there are two other cases and he has deposed as witness on behalf of Jagannath Singh in past. He had stood witness in three criminal cases in which he was an eye witness. His daughter was married with Jagannath Singh’s son Arish Kumar. To this Court, it appears that this witness is a chance witness and is closely related to PW-4 and PW-6. Therefore, his evidence would be required to be appreciated with all circumspection and care. 36. Jagannath Prasad Singh (PW-4) is the informant of this case who has supported the prosecution case. To this Court, it appears that this witness is a chance witness and is closely related to PW-4 and PW-6. Therefore, his evidence would be required to be appreciated with all circumspection and care. 36. Jagannath Prasad Singh (PW-4) is the informant of this case who has supported the prosecution case. He has stated that Maruti Van was damaged by the accused persons and on seeing this when he came down with all other persons and reached at his gate, Pappu Chaudhary placed his pistol on his kanpatti and Murari Chaudhary and his Munshi Jha ji both caught hold of his hand. He has, further, stated that Sarvesh Chaudhary abused and ordered to kill then from behind his son Arish Kumar came and tried to intervene on which Sarvesh Chaudhary assaulted him by sword on his head but Nishant Saurav (PW-2) snatched the sword from him and threw away. Then, Sarvesh Chaudhary took farsa from the hand of Pinki Chaudhary and assaulted Arish on his head by farsa causing fracture. Sarvesh and late Ranjit Chaudhary snatched away the golden chain. Pinki Chaudhary had assaulted his son on his hand by sword. Sarvesh Chaudhary also assaulted Sushil Kumar Shahi by farsa on his head and Pinki assaulted Sushil Shahi on his head by sword. This witness has further stated that 6-7 persons armed with lathi/danda assaulted Nishant, Navin and Saurav. Nishant Saurabh was assaulted by Murari Chaudhary on his head and Pappu, who is the brother of Pinki Chaudhary, assaulted Navin Kumar by iron rod. Pappu Chaudhary assaulted Nishant on his right elbow on the right leg knee. Again, from the deposition of PW-4, it appears that he has changed the sequence and manner of assault. It is stated that Nishant (PW-2) had caught the sword from Sarvesh Chaudhary and threw it but it is not believable. PW-2 has not suffered any injury on his hand or palm by which he caught the sword and threw it. PW-4 has changed the weapon in the hand of Sarvesh Chaudhary and Pinki Chaudhary. 37. PW-4 has proved his signature on the fardbeyan (Exhibit ‘1’). He also proved the signature of the witness Krishna Nandan Prasad (Exhibit ‘1/1’). In paragraph ‘5’ of his deposition, PW-4 has stated that with regard to this occurrence Sadar P.S. Case No. 382 of 2008 was registered in which he, Nishant Saurav etc. are accused. 37. PW-4 has proved his signature on the fardbeyan (Exhibit ‘1’). He also proved the signature of the witness Krishna Nandan Prasad (Exhibit ‘1/1’). In paragraph ‘5’ of his deposition, PW-4 has stated that with regard to this occurrence Sadar P.S. Case No. 382 of 2008 was registered in which he, Nishant Saurav etc. are accused. He has stated that the informant of the said case is Sarvesh Chaudhary. This witness had also lodged Sadar P.S. Case No. 319 of 2007 against Ranjit Chaudhary who is one of the accused in this case. Regarding case number 2022 of 2008, he took a stand that he is not aware, however, he has stated that he had lodged Sadar P.S. Case No. 315 of 2010 and Complaint Case No. 461 of 2009 against the accused persons. In Complaint Case No. 461 of 2009, Parmanand Thakur (PW-3) and Sushil Kumar Shahi (PW-1) had deposed as a witness in his favour. In the proceeding under Section 144 CrPC initiated by police upon the land of the accused persons, this witness was one of the parties. He has also filed a Title Suit No. 521 of 2007 against Pinki Chaudhary but this witness suppressed the fact that the said suit has already been dismissed by the civil court vide judgment and decree dated 11.04.2018 (Exhibit ‘A’). PW-4 had filed case against the District Magistrate, Muzaffarpur and Circle Officer, Mushari. The reason behind all these cases are that Pinki Chaudhary and Rita Chaudhary had entered into a criminal conspiracy and they got registered a piece of land from the nephew of this witness who had no right to sell. The land was purchased without consent of the informant. After police case was registered, they left vacating the house. It further appears from the cross-examination of the informant (PW-4) that the khata and khesra number of the house of the informant and the accused are the same and one. The land was in joint name of the two brothers of the informant. This witness has admitted that Madan and Sadan are the two sons of Late Baijnath Singh. He has further stated that Sadan Kishore Singh who is the son of Baijnath Singh had executed kewala and accused persons are residing illegally in the said house. The land was in joint name of the two brothers of the informant. This witness has admitted that Madan and Sadan are the two sons of Late Baijnath Singh. He has further stated that Sadan Kishore Singh who is the son of Baijnath Singh had executed kewala and accused persons are residing illegally in the said house. In paragraph ‘16’ of his deposition, PW-4 has stated that there is distance of 8 feet in between his house and the house of the accused persons. He has further stated that he can see less and can see using spectacles. In paragraph ‘33’ of his deposition, this witness has stated that he was not involved in marpit because he had been surrounded. The marpit had taken place within 10 minutes and on information given to police, police had come. This Court, therefore, finds that the evidence of the I.O. could have fully thrown light on the circumstances prevailing at the place of occurrence. Whether the place of occurrence was outside the southern gate or it was the house of Sarvesh Chaudhary (the informant in case No. 382/2008) could have been fully established by the I.O. 38. On perusal of the evidence of the informant (PW-4), it is crystal clear that the informant and the accused persons are inimical to each other because of the dispute which has arisen over the sale of land by the nephew of the informant in favour of Pinki Chaudhary. They have several round of litigation. Therefore, the evidence of inimical witnesses are required to be appreciated with full care to avoid chances of false implication of the accused. In a case of present nature, evidence of independent witnesses would have given much confidence to the prosecution story. 39. Arish Kumar (PW-6) is the son of the informant. He is one of the injured witnesses of this case. He has stated in his examination-in-chief that he was in his house on 11.12.2008 and it was 04:30 PM. There was a Maruti Car parked below and he heard a sound of breaking whereupon he and his father came down where Sarvesh Chaudhary, Arun Chaudhary, Ranjit Chaudhary, Laxmi Kant Jha and Murari, were found breaking the glass of the vehicle. On this, his father asked them to refrain from doing it. There was a Maruti Car parked below and he heard a sound of breaking whereupon he and his father came down where Sarvesh Chaudhary, Arun Chaudhary, Ranjit Chaudhary, Laxmi Kant Jha and Murari, were found breaking the glass of the vehicle. On this, his father asked them to refrain from doing it. On this, Laxmi Kant Jha and Murari caught hold of both the hands of his father and Pappu Chaudhary placed his revolver at the kanpatti of his father. At this stage, after hearing hulla his tenant Sushil Kumar Shahi and his two relatives Nishant Saurav and Naveen Kumar both of them came down running and they tried to intervene. PW-5 has stated that Sarvesh Chaudhary attacked on his head by a sword, on this Nishant Saurav (PW-2) came to save him and snatched the sword from the hand of Sarvesh Chaudhary and threw it but his head was torn and he was bleeding and thereafter, he fell down. Contrary to this, PW-4 has stated that afte the sword was thrown away by PW-2, Sarvesh took farsa from Pinki Chaudhary and assaulted PW-6 on his head. He has further stated that Ranjit Chaudhary wanted to pull away his golden chain but he had caught the same by his left hand whereafter Pinki Chaudhary assaulted on his hand by sword and then he left the chain and Ranjit Chaudhary took it away. But no sword injury has been found on the hand of PW-6. PW-6 has further stated that Sushil Kumar Shahi was intervening, he was assaulted by Sarvesh Chaudhary by farsa and Pinki Chaudhary by sword on his head causing fracture to his head and he started bleeding. Murari assaulted on the head of Navin causing him injuries. In his cross- examination, this witness has admitted that Sarvesh Chaudhary had lodged a case with regard to this occurrence being Sadar P.S. Case No. 382 of 2008 which is pending. He has also admitted land dispute and pendency of the title suit. This witness has stated that he was not aware that a medical board was constituted on the challenge made by the accused persons to the injury report. He had not received any information to appear before the Medical Board. He has also admitted land dispute and pendency of the title suit. This witness has stated that he was not aware that a medical board was constituted on the challenge made by the accused persons to the injury report. He had not received any information to appear before the Medical Board. He has stated that the house in which Pinki Chaudhary is residing, east to the said house is Rita Devi, in west there is a road and in north there is house of Jagannath Singh and in south there is main road. He has stated that at the place of occurrence, first of all, his father had gone, his father was not treated and he had received only simple hurt. This witness has stated that in the hand of Sarvesh Chaudhary there was a sword and his second hand was empty. He is not aware as to what weapon Ranjit Chaudhary was holding. Pinki Chaudhary was holding a sword in one of her hands and her second hand was empty. It is evident from this statement of PW-6 that the weapon attributed to Sarvesh Chaudhary and Pinki Chaudhary by the prosecution witnesses are materially inconsistent and the learned trial court has rightly said that PW-1, PW-2 and PW-6 have disclosed a mode and manner of assault in their own colour and each of these witnesses have designed it according to their own wish and desire. PW-6 has further stated that Arun Chaudhary was holding a lathi. Laxmi Kant Jha, Murari and Pappu Chaudhary had no weapon in their hand. Sarvesh Chaudhary and Pinki Chuadhary had assaulted Sushil Kumar Shahi by farsa and sword respectively but how many blows were given he did not remember. 40. In this case, the I.O. has not been examined. To this Court, it appears that non-examination of the I.O. would prove fatal to the prosecution case. In absence of I.O., doubt remains with respect to place of occurrence. Had the I.O. come in dock the defence could have proved the earlier statement of prosecution witnesses recorded in the case diary and contradictions would have also surfaced. 41. To this Court, it appears that non-examination of the I.O. would prove fatal to the prosecution case. In absence of I.O., doubt remains with respect to place of occurrence. Had the I.O. come in dock the defence could have proved the earlier statement of prosecution witnesses recorded in the case diary and contradictions would have also surfaced. 41. The defence has relied upon documentary evidences such as certified copy of the judgment of the Title Suit No. 521 of 2007, certified copy of registered sale deed executed by Sadan Kishore in favour of Pinki Chaudhary, certified copy of registered sale deed executed by Sadan Kishore in favour of Rita Devi, certified copy of registered sale deed executed by Chandeshwar Prasad Singh in favour of Baidyanath Singh and Jagannath Singh, certified copy of rent receipt in the name of Pinki Chaudhary, certified copy of rent receipts and certified copy of khatiyan, certified copy of order dated 25.06.2010 passed in Sadar P.S. Case No. 328 of 2008, certified copy of final form of Sadar P.S. Case No. 382 of 2008, certified copy of deposition of enquiry witnesses in Complaint Case No. 903 of 2003, Report of RTI and C.C. of order dated 17.07.2018 passed in C. Case No. 903/2009, these documents were marked Exhibit A, B, B/1, B/2, C, C/1, C/2, C/3, C/4, C/5, D, E, F, G, H, H/1, I and J respectively on behalf of the defence. 42. On consideration of the entire evidence available on the record, we find that there is a case and a counter case of the same occurrence and it is an admitted case of the prosecution that there is a dispute over the sale of the house by the nephew of the informant in favour of Pinki Chaudhary. According to the fardbeyan of the informant, the occurrence took place, when he was at the verandah of the roof of his house with Sushil Kumar Shahi, Navin Kumar, Nishant Saurav and the son of his brother-in- law (‘sarhu’) Sushil Kumar Shahi who had come with the Maruti Van which was standing outside the southern gate of the house, the accused persons named in the FIR came armed with lathi, farsa, iron rod, sword and country-made pistol and they started damaging the maruti van of the son of ‘sarhu’ of Sushil Kumar Shahi by iron rod. The informant claimed that he having seen the occurrence came down whereafter he had narrated the occurrence which we have taken note of hereinabove. According to him, the place of occurrence in this case is outside the southern gate of the house where the Maruti Van was standing. This witness has stated that in his deposition that there is distance of 8 feet only in between his house and the house of the accused persons. He has given the boundary of his house in paragraph ‘10’ and boundary of the house of the accused in paragraph ‘11’ of his deposition. According to him, there is road in east, west and south of his house and in north, he does not know whose house is there. As regards the boundary of the house of accused Sarvesh Chaudhary, the informant has stated that in north, there is a house of Jagannath Singh (his own house), in south east and west, there is road. It is evident that house of both i.e. the informant as well as the accused are standing on the same plot and they are adjacent to each other but the boundary remains the same. PW-3 has stated in his evidence (paragraph ‘8’) that place of occurrence is the campus of Jagannath Singh (PW-4). He reached at the time of occurrence, therefore, PW-3 is a chance witness. 43. In the present occurrence, though the prosecution has brought on record the injury reports which have been marked Exhibit ‘2’, ‘2/1’ and ‘2/2’ respectively but it has also come in evidence that the injury report of Sushil Kumar Shahi (PW-1) was challenged by the defence and a Medical Board was constituted to take a view on the same. In paragraph ‘12’ of his deposition, PW-1 has admitted that Daroga Ji had given him notice to appear before the Board on 30.06.2010 but he had not appeared before the Medical Board. No explanation at all has been offered by PW-1 for his non-appearing before the Medical Board. From the evidence of the Doctor (PW-5), it would appear that he had examined PW-1, PW-2 and PW-6 on 20.12.2008 on the basis of a police requisition but the said police requisition has not been duly proved. No explanation at all has been offered by PW-1 for his non-appearing before the Medical Board. From the evidence of the Doctor (PW-5), it would appear that he had examined PW-1, PW-2 and PW-6 on 20.12.2008 on the basis of a police requisition but the said police requisition has not been duly proved. In absence of the I.O., the police requisition were not proved but on the backside of the injury report (Exhibit ‘2’), the letter said to have been written by the I.O. to the Medical Officer, Sadar Hospital, Muzaffarpur on 11.12.2008 is available and this Court has just perused it to correlate the same with the date of requisition and the date of injury report (Exhibit ‘2’). It is found that the requisition of 11.12.2008 shows that PW-1 was sent to the Doctor on 11.12.2008, he was having a bandage on his head. The injury report has been prepared on 20.12.2008 and there is an endorsement showing that it is as per Radiologist report. This is on a plain paper. The said Radiologist report and the CT Scan film have not been brought on record. In his examination-in-chief, PW- 5 has stated that on 20.10.2008, he was posted as Medical Officer, Sadar Hospital, Muzaffarpur. On that very date, Police sent three requisitions, namely, (1) Sushil Kumar Shahi, (2) Arish Kumar Shahi and (3) Nishant Saurav. It is not known as to why the receipt of the requisitions is after nine days of the occurrence. By not producing the contemporaneous documents of treatment given to PW-1, PW-2 and PW-6 in the hospital from 11.12.2008 and by not producing the Radiologist report and the film/report of the CT Scan, the prosecution has only led this Court to consider these injury reports which are on plain papers with doubts in its mind as to authenticity of these reports. Under these circumstances, non- appearance of PW-1 before the Medical Board despite having notice of the date fixed would strengthen the belief of the Court that the injury reports are not wholly reliable. PW-1 has stated in his cross-examination that he had not sent the injured persons for CT Scan because they were hospitalized but he had not mentioned this fact in the injury report. He had no personal knowledge regarding availability of the CT Scan on that date but it was the report that the CT Scan facility was not available. PW-1 has stated in his cross-examination that he had not sent the injured persons for CT Scan because they were hospitalized but he had not mentioned this fact in the injury report. He had no personal knowledge regarding availability of the CT Scan on that date but it was the report that the CT Scan facility was not available. PW-5 did not remember that who informed him or reported him. According to PW-5, the injured persons were firstly treated and after that they were hospitalized and he had only given first aid to the injured and thereafter, they were treated by the Surgeon in the Hospital. The details of the injury and management and Surgeon opinion can be had from B.H.T. This Court finds that in the present case, the Bed Head Ticket (B.H.T) of the Hospital has not been brought on record and the Surgeon who treated the injured persons has not been examined. The defence has brought on record the Letter No. 1014 dated 06.05.2016 written by the Superintendent-cum-Public Information Officer of Shri Krishna Medical College and Hospital, Muzaffarpur addressed to Shri Ganga Chaudhary (Exhibit ‘I’) and by this letter, the Public Information Officer has informed in answer to the query made by the applicant that in Shri Krishna Medical College and Hospital, Muzaffarpur, there is a facility of CT Scan since October, 2006. We are of the opinion that the evidence of PW-5 does not inspire confidence. 44. In the light of the discussions made hereinabove, we are of the opinion that in the present case the prosecution has failed to establish the actual place of occurrence and the manner of occurrence by producing wholly reliable witnesses. All the prosecution witnesses except the doctor are either closely related or have close acquaintance and their testimonies are not consistent. The defence has brought on record the judgment and decree of the learned trial court passed in Title Suit No. 521 of 2007 (Exhibit ‘F’) from which it appears that the suit filed by this appellant against Pinki Chauhdary and others for declaration of his title over the disputed land and to declare the sale deed executed by his nephews void, has been dismissed vide judgment dated 11.04.2018. This Court further finds that vide Annexure ‘B’ and ‘B/1’ Sadan Kishore who is the nephew of the appellant had executed absolute sale deed of a portion of the share of his land in favour of Pinki Chaudhary and Smt. Reeta Chaudhary wife of Sri Sarvesh Chaudhary. The rent receipts which have been marked Exhibits ‘C’, ‘C/1’, ‘C/2’, ‘C/3’, ‘C/4’ and ‘C/5’ are showing that Pinki Chaudhary and Reeta Chaudhary are paying rent to the Department of Revenue, Government of Bihar in respect of plot of Khata No. 225 and Khesra No. 202 for the area which they purchased under the sale deeds. We have also noticed that the appellant had filed one Complaint Case being C-903 of 2009 in the court of learned A.C.J.M.-cum-Sub-Judge VIII, Muzaffarpur but could not produce any evidence to support his allegations and after giving several opportunity to the appellant, the learned court closed the evidence and dismissed the complaint case after nine years. This fact would show that the appellant has a tendency to file cases without there being any evidence to support the allegations. The order dated 17.07.2018 passed by learned A.C.J.M.-cum-Sub-Judge VIII, Muzaffarpur is Exhibit ‘J’ on behalf of the defence. 45. In ultimate analysis, we find that the learned trial court has not committed any error in appreciation of the evidences on the record and the findings of the learned trial court would not need any interference by this Court. 46. This appeal is dismissed. Ashok Kumar Pandey, J. - I agree.