The lack of evidence and failure to prove the prosecution case beyond reasonable doubt entitled the appellants to the benefit of doubt.

Hemant Kumar Srivastava. J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the appellants and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.

2. This criminal appeal has been preferred against the judgment of conviction and sentence order dated 17-08-2001 passed by 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Gaya in Sessions Trial No. 179 of 1999/236 of 1993 by which and whereunder. He convicted the appellants for the offences punishable under Section 324 read with Sections-149 & 148 of the IPC and Accordingly, sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year under Section 148 of the Indian Penal Code and ordered that both the sentences shall run concurrently.

3. The prosecution case, in brief is that PW 2 Balsharan Yadav gave his fardbeyan to A.S.I. of Atri Police Station on 23-03-1992 to this effect that on the same day at about 6.00 p.m. while he was near his field, she goat of Sukhdeo Yadav started grazing Rahar crop in his field upon which he ousted the aforesaid she goat from the field but Sukhdeo Yadav came there and started abusing him. PW 2 Balsharan Yadav returned to his home but at about 6.15 p.m. Birendra Yadav being armed with Saif Sukhdeo Yadav being armed with lathi Sanjay Yadav being armed with lathi. Birju Yadav being armed with lathi and Jamendra Yadav being armed with lathi. came there and Birendra Yadav gave Saif blow to Rajdeo Yadav which hit on the right hand of aforesaid Rajdeo Yadav as a result of which he sustained injury and after that. Birju Yadav gave gadansa blow on his leg whereas other persons assaulted him with lathi. The aforesaid occurrence was witnessed by Yogendra Yadav. Rajenera Yadav and others. After the aforesaid occurrence the injured were brought to hospital where treatment of the injured persons was done.

4. On the basis of aforesaid fardbeyan of the PW 2. Atri P.S. Case No. 35 of 1992 was registered for the offences under Sections 147, 148, 149, 353, 324 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code and. Accordingly, formal FIR was drawn against the appellants under the above said sections.

5. The matter was investigated by the police and after completion of the investigation. police submitted charge sheet against the appellants for the offences under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 324, 325, 326 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code. Cognizance of the offence was taken and the case was committed to the Court of Sessions, in usual way.

6. All the appellants were put on trial and appellant No. 1 namely Sukhdeo Yadav, appellant No.2 namely Sanjay Yadav and appellant No.5 namely Jamendra Yadav were jointly charged for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 307/149 of the Indian Penal Code whereas appellant No. 3 namely Dhirendra Yadav was charged for the offences punishable under Sections 148, 326, 307 of the Indian Penal Code and appellant No.4 namely. Birju Yadav was charged for the offences punishable under Sections 148, 324 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code. All the appellants denied the charges and claimed to be tried.

7. To substantiate the charges levelled against the appellants prosecution examined. altogether three witnesses and also got exhibited formal FIR as Ext. 1 injury reports as Exts. 2 & 3. The statements of appellants were recorded under Section-313 of the Cr.P.C. in which they reiterated their innocence. No evidence was adduced on behalf of the appellants in support of their defence.

8. The learned trial Court having analyzed the materials available on the record convicted and sentenced the appellants in the manner as stated above.

9. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant challenged the impugned judgment of conviction submitting that except two so-called injured persons of this case not a single independent witness has come forward to support the prosecution case. He further submitted that I.O. of this case has not been examined and non-examination of the I.O. has caused serious prejudice