Lack of corroboration of evidence by independent witnesses and material improvements in the prosecution's case led to the acquittal of the petitioners.

H.C. Mishra. J. - Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the State.

2. The petitioners are aggrieved by the Judgment dated 29.1.2000 passed by the learned 1st Addl. Sessions Judge, Gumla, in Criminal Appeal No.8 of 1995, whereby the appeal filed against the Judgment of conviction and Order of sentence dated 24.1.1995, passed by Sri S.B. Ram, learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Gumla, in C.R No. 373 of 1990/T.R. No.145 of 1995, convicting and sentencing the petitioners has been dismissed by the learned Appellate Court below. It may be stated that the petitioner No.3 Ghansia Oraon @ Gharia Oraon has been found guilty for the offences under Sections 324, 148 and 448 of the Indian Penal Code, and upon hearing on the point of sentence, he has been sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for six months for the offence under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code, simple imprisonment for two months for the offence under Section 148 of the Indian Penal Code and simple imprisonment for one month for the offence under Section 448 of the Indian Penal Code, whereas, rest of the petitioners have been found guilty and convicted for the offences under Sections 323, 147 and 448 of the Indian Penal Code, and they have been sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for three months for the offence under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code, simple imprisonment for two months for the offence under Section 147 of the Indian Penal Code and simple imprisonment for one month for the offence under Section 448 of the Indian Penal Code each, and all the sentences have been directed to run concurrently. The appeal filed against the said Judgment of conviction and Order of sentence has been dismissed by the learned Appellate Court below. Hence this revision application.

3. According to the prosecution case, it is alleged that on 5.6.1990, the petitioners and one Jhatru Oraon, forming unlawful assembly and variously armed, came to the house of the informant and dragged the informant from the door of his house and assaulted him. When the daughter of the informant came to his rescue, she was also assaulted by sharp cutting weapon by Ghansia Oraon @ Gharia Oraon, causing injuries on her. Upon alarm raised, Kapil Singh, Bajo Singh and other villagers came to their rescue, whereupon the accused persons fled away. It is alleged that the occurrence had taken place due to previous enmity. The prosecution case was instituted on the basis of the written information given by the informant Taju Singh, on the basis of which, police case was instituted and investigation was taken up. After investigation, the police submitted the chargesheet against the petitioners, on the basis of which, cognizance was taken against them and ultimately, the petitioners were put to trial.

4. In course of trial, the prosecution has examined seven witnesses, including the informant and his daughter, who were examined as PW 2 and PW 1 respectively. Both these witnesses have supported the prosecution case, but they have stated that they were inside the house, when the petitioners entered the house and assaulted them. The informant PW 2 has also proved the written information submitted by him, which was marked as Ext-1 and he has also stated that occurrence had taken place due to previous enmity. PW 3 and PW 4 are the Doctors, who had examined the injuries of the informant and his daughter and their injury reports were proved as Ext2 Series. PW 5 Puneshwar Prasad is a formal witness, who has proved the formal FIR as Ext-3. PW 6 Kapil Singh, who is said to have gone to the place of occurrence on the alarm raised by the informant, has not supported the prosecution case and he has turned hostile. Similarly, PW 7 Vijay Nath Singh has only been tendered by the prosecution. The Investigating Officer of the case has not been examined, and even the wife of the informant, who was named as witness in the charge-sheet, was not examined in the case. On the basis of the