ORDER : S VISHWAJITH SHETTY, J. 1. This criminal revision petition under Section 397 of Cr.P.C is filed with a prayer to set aside the judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by Juvenile Justice Board, Bengaluru Rural District in J.C.No.20/2014 dated 10.09.2014 and the judgment and order dated 10.10.2017 passed in Crl.A.No.5003/2014 by the Court of III Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru Rural District (sitting at Anekal). 2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties. 3. The petitioner herein was charge sheeted for the offences punishable under Sections 323 & 307 of IPC in Crime No.73/2014 registered by Hebbagodi Police Station, Bengaluru Rural District. It is the case of the prosecution that on 01.02.2024 at about 8.00 p.m,, the petitioner had quarrelled with PW.2 - Asif @ Asif Khan and had assaulted him with a knife and caused injuries. When his brother Shajjad (PW.3) and Mudasir (PW1) tried to intervene he also assaulted them and caused injuries. The injured were taken to hospital and treated. Based on the first information submitted by PW.1 - Mudasir, FIR was registered against the petitioner for the aforesaid offences. After completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed against the petitioner for the aforesaid offences and he was tried for the charge sheeted offences in J.C.No.20/2014 by the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class and Juvenile Justice Board, Bengaluru Rural District. The prosecution in order to prove its charges against the petitioner had examined seven witnesses as PW.1 to PW.7 and had got marked six documents as Exs.P1 to P6. On behalf of accused he had not led any evidence nor was any documents got marked on his behalf. The Trial Court had recorded the statement of accused under Section 313 of Cr.P.C and heard the arguments addressed on both sides. Vide the impugned judgment and order dated 10.09.2014 the petitioner was convicted for the alleged offences in J.C.No.20/2014 and was sentenced to undergo three years imprisonment in a State Home. The said judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by the Trial Court in J.C.No.20/2014 has been confirmed in Crl.A.No.5003/2014 dated 10.10.2017 by the Court of III Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru Rural District (sitting at Anekal). Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner is before this Court. 4. The prosecution in order to prove its charges against the petitioner had examined seven witnesses as PW.1 to PW.7. District & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru Rural District (sitting at Anekal). Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner is before this Court. 4. The prosecution in order to prove its charges against the petitioner had examined seven witnesses as PW.1 to PW.7. PWs.1 to 3 are said to be alleged eye witnesses in the present case and amongst them PWs.2 and 3 are the injured. According to prosecution, the incident in question had taken place at about 8.00 p.m, on 01.02.2014. PW1 is the first informant in the present case and FIR in Crime No.73/2014 was registered against the petitioner, based in the first information which was submitted at 2.15 a.m, on 02.02.2014. 5. Perusal of the averments found in the first information would go to show that the petitioner / accused was a stranger to the first informant. In the first information, it is stated that initially the injured was taken to Vimalalaya hospital and thereafter to Sparsh hospital and subsequently to Live 100 hospital, Bengaluru. However, during the course of deposition PWs.1 to 3 have stated the injured was initially taken to Narayana Hrudayala hospital before he was taken to Live 100 hospital, Bengaluru. 6. According to PW1, blood stained clothes of the injured and knife which was used by the petitioner / accused to assault PWs.2 and 3 were produced by them before the Police Station. Ex.P4 is the Seizure Mahazar under which the weapon used to commit crime was seized by the police. As per the said document, the seizure of the weapon was from the spot of crime. It is not in dispute that neither the blood stained clothes of the injured nor the weapon used by the petitioner / accused to commit crime has been produced and marked as material object on behalf of the prosecution in the present case. 7. PW.2 is the injured eye witness in the present case. However, this witness has not spoken about the presence of PW1 at the spot of incident nor he has spoken about PW.1 accompanying him to the hospital immediately after the incident in question had taken place. PW2 has stated that his brother Shajjad (PW.3) had come to the spot after the petitioner / accused had assaulted him with a knife. He has stated that when PW.3 tried to intervene the petitioner / accused also assaulted him and caused injury near his left ear. PW2 has stated that his brother Shajjad (PW.3) had come to the spot after the petitioner / accused had assaulted him with a knife. He has stated that when PW.3 tried to intervene the petitioner / accused also assaulted him and caused injury near his left ear. This witness has not mentioned the time of incident nor has he correctly mentioned the name of hospital to which he was shifted immediately after the alleged incident in question had taken place. 8. PW.3 is said to be a injured eye witness in the present case. However, PW.3 has not taken any treatment in any hospital nor his wound certificate has been produced and marked in the present case. Except PWs.1 to 3 there are no other eye witness to the incident in question though the incident in question had taken place in a public place near a college. 9. PWs.4 and 5 are the panch witnesses to the recovery mahazar. According to PW.1 blood stained clothes and the weapon used to commit the crime were produced by them in the Police Station. Even PWs.4 and 5 have stated that they were summoned to the Police Station and blood stained clothes and knife was shown to them in the Police Station. However, the seized blood stained cloths and weapon has not been produced and marked as material objects in the present case. 10. PW.6 is the doctor who had treated PW.2 in Live 100 hospital, Bengaluru. According to PW.6, PW.2 has suffered one grievous injury and remaining injures were all simple in nature. Wound certificate of PW.2 is produced at Ex.P5. According this witness, PW.2 was examined by him in the hospital at about 8.00 p.m, on 01.02.2014. As per the case of the prosecution, the incident in question itself has taken place on 01.02.2014 at 8.00 p.m and before the injured was shifted to Live 100 hospital, Bengaluru, he was earlier taken to two hospitals and in the first hospital first aid treatment was given to the injured PW.2. 11. PW.7 is the police constable who had carried the FIR to the jurisdictional Court from the Police Station. This witness is not a part of investigation conducted in the present case. 11. PW.7 is the police constable who had carried the FIR to the jurisdictional Court from the Police Station. This witness is not a part of investigation conducted in the present case. The police officer who has investigated the case and filed the charge sheet has not been examined as a witness by the prosecution and no explanation has been offered by the prosecution for not examining this witness. The Investigating Officer is a very material witness and non-examination of this material witness would be fatal to the case of the prosecution. The deposition of PWs.1 to 3 is not consistent and Investigating Officer who had recorded their statement during the course of investigation has not been examined in the present case. The Trial Court as well as the Appellate Court have failed to appreciate this aspect of the matter and only based on the deposition of PWs.1 to 3 the petitioner has been convicted for the alleged offences in the present case. In my considered opinion, the prosecution had failed to prove the charges levelled against the petitioner beyond reasonable doubt and the Courts were not justified in convicting and sentencing the petitioner for the charge sheet offences solely based on the evidence of PWs.1 to 3 which is not consistent. The prosecution has failed to not only examine the material charge sheet witnesses, but independent eye witnesses are also not examined in the present case. Under the circumstances, I am of the opinion that the Trial Court as well as the Appellate Court were not justified in convicting the petitioner for the charge sheeted offences and therefore the impugned judgment and order of conviction passed by the Trial Court as well as the Appellate Court cannot be sustained. 12. Accordingly, the following :- ORDER Criminal revision petition is allowed. The impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by Juvenile Justice Board, Bengaluru Rural District in J.C.No.20/2014 dated 10.09.2014 and the judgment and order dated 10.10.2017 passed in Crl.A.No.5003/2014 by the Court of III Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru Rural District (sitting at Anekal) are set aside and the petitioner is acquitted of the charge sheeted offences. His bail bond, if any stands cancelled.