occurrence and therefore, the aforesaid circumstance clearly indicates that appellants had no intention to commit the murder of P.W.5 and P.W.6 because had the appellants been intended to commit murder of P.W.6 and P.W.5, at least, two appellants who were armed with fire arms would have used fire arms. Furthermore, I find that no x- ray plate was produced nor any Radiologist was examined and apart from this, the doctor who is said to have examined P.W.5 in his private clinic at Patna, was also not examined nor supplementary injury report was produced before the learned trial court. Further, I find from perusal of the impugned judgment that an injury report of P.W.6 prepared by a private doctor, namely, R.B. Sharma was filed before the learned trial court but the aforesaid injury report was not proved legally by the prosecution. Furthermore, I find that even though the aforesaid injury report of P.W.5 was not legally proved, the learned trial court relied upon the aforesaid injury report and based his finding on the above stated injury. In my view, the learned trial court committed error in relying on a document which has not been brought in evidence in accordance with law. Therefore, it is clear that there is nothing on the record to prove this fact that P.W.6 and P.W.5 had sustained grievous injury in the alleged occurrence and, therefore, it can easily be said that the prosecution succeeded to prove this fact that P.W.7 found simple injury on the persons of P.W.6 and P.W.5 after the alleged occurrence.
