Criminal Appeal (SJ) No. 176 of 1997 Against the judgment and order dated 20.06.1997 passed by Sri Deoki Nandan Prasad, Sessions Judge, Vaishali in Sessions Trial No. 257 of 1989. ****** Bimal Kumar Singh @ Jahal Singh, Son of Agnideo Singh, resident of village – Bishunpur Rajkhand, P.S. – Bidupur, District – Vaishali. .... .... Appellant. Versus The State Of Bihar .... .... Respondent. ****** For the Appellant : Mr. Arun Kumar Tripathi, Amicus Curiae. For the Informant : Mr. Anil Kumar, Advocate. For the Respondent : Mr. Sujit Kumar Singh, A.P.P. ****** P R E S E N T THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE GOPAL PRASAD Gopal Prasad, J. Nobody appears on behalf of the appellant. Mr. Arun Kumar Tripathi, Advocate is appointed as amicus curiae to assist this Court. 2. Heard learned amicus curiae and learned counsel for the State. 3. The appellant has been convicted for the offence under Section 325 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo R.I. for two years. 4. The prosecution case as alleged by the informant is that while the victim Alok Kumar aged about six years was playing by the right side in front of the house of the informant then the appellant got up the 2 boy and threw down with intention to kill causing fracture in the leg. 5. On the fardbeyan of the informant, the FIR was lodged and after investigation charge-sheet was submitted, cognizance was taken and the case was committed to the court of Sessions. However, six witnesses were examined on behalf of the prosecution and two witnesses were examined on behalf of the defence. After considering the oral and documentary evidence the order of conviction and sentence recorded as stated above. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant, however, contended that though the conviction has been maintained under Section 325 of the IPC but the X-ray report has not been proved in accordance with law and hence conviction under Section 325 is not maintainable. 7. However, P.Ws. 1, 2, 3 and 4 have supported the prosecution case about the occurrence as in the fardbeyan. 8. The doctor has proved Ext. 2 but has stated that X-ray was done by the radiologist who is at Patna and the person who took the X-ray has not been examined hence, X-ray plate has not been proved in evidence. The doctor in his evidence stated that the injury report does not mention the time of examination of injured nor mention the identification mark. The doctor in his evidence volunteered to say that in prescription of patient proved as Ext. 3. It is mentioned that patient is injured due to R.T.A. (Road Traffic Accident). This fact was stated to 3 him at the time of examination by his attendant and the patient is six years old boy. Hence, in that view of the matter, the prosecution case becomes doubtful and hence the order of conviction and sentence recorded by the learned lower court is set aside and the appeal is allowed. 9. Shri Arun Kumar Tripathi, shall be supplied a copy of this judgment and he shall be entitled for the fee of hearing payable by Patna High Court Legal Aid Services Committee. (Gopal Prasad, J.) Patna High Court, Patna. Dated, the 22nd July, 2011. N.A.F.R./Kundan.