Non-examination of the Investigating Officer and inconsistencies in the evidence can create a reasonable doubt and impact the prosecution's case.

Aditya Kumar Trivedi, J.

All the appellants, namely, Balak Mahto, Alakhdeo Yadav, Kuldip Yadav and Sukhdeo Yadav have been found guilty for an offence punishable under Section 323/34 of the IPC and each one has been sentenced to undergo S.I. for one year, under Section 324/34 of the IPC and each one has been sentenced to undergo S.I. for two years, appellant Kuldip Yadav has further been found guilty for an offence punishable under Section 325 IPC and sentenced to undergo S.I. for three years with a further direction to run the sentences concurrently, vide judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 13.07.2015 passed by Ad-hoc Additional Sessions Judge, IInd, Nawada in Sessions Trial No.120 of 2005 /106 of 2014.

2. Birjan Yadav (PW.5) filed written report on 09.10.2000 alleging inter alia that on the same day at about 5:00 AM while he had gone to Lohra Bhaghi Badhar in order to ease himself, his covillager Balak Mahto, Sukhdeo Yadav, Kuldip Yadav and Alakdeo Yadav encircled him and then, began to abuse. They also said that why you without informing them has purchased the land from a person belonging to village-Ratoyee whereupon he said that after paying the consideration amount he has purchased the same. Then thereafter, Balak Mahto gave Khanti blow over his head causing injury thereupon while Kuldeep Mahto hurled indiscriminate lathi blow causing injury over his left hand. On hue and cry, his fatherin-law Ganesh Yadav and his wife Jaso Devi came in rescue who were also assaulted by Sukhdeo Yadav and Alakhdeo Yadav by means of lathi. Awadhesh Kumar, Munna Pasi and others have seen the occurrence.

3. After registration of Roh P.S. Case No.31/2000 investigation commenced and concluded by way of submission of charge sheet, facilitating the trial, meeting with the ultimate result, subject matter of instant appeal.

4. Defence case as is evident from mode of cross-examination as well as statement recorded under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. is that of complete denial. It has also been pleaded that it is an admitted fact that the land belonging to Meena Devi was taken by the accused on Batai wherein paddy crop was standing. The prosecution party forcibly encroached upon the same and filled up the land damaging the crop for which, the accused persons asked for compensation and in the aforesaid background, instant case has been registered putting false and frivolous allegation. Oral evidence has been adduced on that very score.

5. In order to substantiate its case prosecution had examined altogether six PWs who are PW.1-Jaso Devi, PW.2- Awadhesh Kumar, PW.3-Munna Choudhary, PW.4-Kishore Paswan, PW.5-Birjan Yadav and PW.6- Dr. Vidiya Bhushan. Side by side, had also exhibited Ext.1-Written report, Ext.2 Series-Injury report relating to informant, Ganesh Yadav, Yaso Devi, respectively, Ext.3- Additional injury report relating to injured Birjan Yadav. As stated above, though no documentary evidence has been adduced at the end of the defence however, one DW, DW.1-Sheo Shankar Prasad has been examined.

6. While assailing the judgment of conviction and sentence, it has been submitted at the end of learned counsel for the appellant that Investigating Officer has not been examined. Due to non-examination of the Investigating Officer, the interest of the appellant has been found severely prejudiced. In the background of the fact that prosecution has not been able to substantiate the actual place of occurrence. Apart from this, it has also been submitted that on account of non-examination of the Investigating Officer, the defence could not be able to show that the land which has been purchased by the informant and which was under Batai of the appellants wherein paddy crop was standing, was damanged due to illegal activity of the prosecution. Furthermore, it has also been submitted that had there been examination of the Investigating Officer, then in that event, the non-examination of the independent witnesses would have been exposed more