12. Mr. Amar Prakash, learned counsel appearing for the appellants, submits that on the same set of allegations and evidences, the accused Pramod Yadav, Bishundeo Yadav, Chuvan Yadav, Dillo Yadav, and Shambhu Yadav were acquitted of the charged offences, whereas the present appellants were convicted for the offence under Section 323 of the IPC, though they were acquitted of the more serious offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 324, 326 and 307 of the IPC, for which they had also been charged. It is further submitted that, as regards the manner of occurrence and assault as detailed by the informant in the FIR, contradictory statements were made by the prosecution witnesses. In the FIR, a weapon, namely Katta , was alleged to have been used by the appellant no.2 in assaulting P.W.-7, however, during the course of trial, the material witnesses changed their version and stated that the weapon used was a Katari (dagger) and a Khanti . It is also submitted that the injury reports of P.W.-7 and the informant were not proved by the concerned doctor, who, according to the prosecution, had examined both the injured persons. Further, the Investigating Officer was not examined by
