Criminal Appeal (SJ) No. 255 of 1998 ****** Against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 8th July, 1998 and 10th July, 1998 respectively passed by Shri Alok Chandra Prasad, learned 10th Additional Sessions Judge, Saran, Chapra in Session Trial No. 429/89/168/1997. ****** 1. Durga Singh, Son of Ambika Singh. 2. Ranjit Singh. 3. Rajesh Singh, both S/o. Durga Singh. All resident of village – Chainpur, P.S. – Tariya, District – Saran. .... .... Appellants. Versus The State Of Bihar .... .... Respondent. ****** For the Appellants : Mr. Vindhya Keshari Kumar, Sr. Advocate. Mr. Radheshyam Kumar, Advocate. Mrs. Ranjana Sinha, 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. Heard learned counsel for the appellants and learned counsel for the State. 2. The appellants have been convicted under Section 307/34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years. 3. The prosecution case as alleged in the fardbeyan by the informant, Jay Mangal Singh, is that on 30.04.1989 at 6:30 A.M., Durga Singh was ploughing the land. The informant along with his brother Chandrama 2 Singh, Imrit Singh, Harendra Singh went to protest. Durga Singh along with his sons Ranjeet Singh and Rajesh Singh came armed with Lathi and Chura and attacked the prosecution party causing injury by dagger and Lathi and thereafter informant and his associates fled away. 4. On the fardbeyan of the informant, First Information Report lodged and after investigation, charge-sheet submitted, cognizance taken and the case was committed to the court of Sessions where the charge was framed and four witnesses were examined are P.W. 1 Amrit Singh, P.W. 2 Chandrama Singh, P.W. 3 Awadhesh Kumar Singh and P.W. 4 Dr. Dinesh Kumar Ojha, who examined the injured Jay Mangal Singh and Raj Mangal Singh and considering the evidence of P.Ws. 2 and 4 the trial court convicted the appellants under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced as stated above. 5. Learned counsel for the appellants, however, contended that the injury as suggested in the injury report, does not suggest that the injuries were inflicted with intention to kill and moreover except P.W. 2 none has come forward to support the prosecution case. The two injured which includes the informant and his brother has not been examined and come to depose in the case and the evidence of P.W. 2 is neither specific about assault nor worthy of reliance to record conviction under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code and the I.O. has also not been examined and hence 3 the prosecution has not been able to prove the charges leveled against the accused persons beyond reasonable doubt. 6. From perusal of record and evidence four witnesses were examined. The doctor, informant and one injured have not been examined. Hence, the case hinges only on the evidence of P.Ws. 2 and 4. P.W. 2 has stated that when they learnt Durga Singh is ploughing the land then he along with Jay Mangal Singh, Chandrama Singh, Harendra Singh and Imrit Singh went there and protested, Ranjeet Singh was armed with dagger and rest were armed with Lathi. The accused persons assaulted him and his brother Jay Mangal Singh when Raj Mangal Singh came to rescue then Ranjeet Singh also assaulted him by dagger. However, the evidence of this witness in examination-in-chief is quite vague and omnibus. There is no evidence who assaulted on what part and in cross examination he has stated that his statement was not recorded by police during investigation. He claims that his brother Jay Mangal Singh and Raj Mangal Singh got injured but neither Jay Mangal Singh nor Raj Mangal Singh came to support the prosecution case or support the prosecution case about injury. Hence the evidence of this witness does not inspire confidence. P.Ws. 1 and 3 have been declared hostile. I.O. has not been examined and evidence of doctor shows injury on informant and Raj Mangal Singh but one injury is grievous but X-ray not proved to substantiate and confirm Section 320 of the Indian Penal Code and other 4 injury simple on fingers or back is of no consequence when the substantial evidence that who assaulted whom with specific specification on part of body and weapon used is missing. 7. Hence, taking into consideration the facts and circumstances, since there is no legal evidence to support the prosecution case hence I find and hold that the prosecution has not been able to prove the charges beyond reasonable doubt and hence I acquit the appellants from the charges leveled against them and the order of conviction and sentence recorded by the learned lower court is set aside and hence the appeal is allowed. (Gopal Prasad, J.) Patna High Court, Patna. Dated, the 11th August, 2011. N.A.F.R./Kundan.