JUDGMENT Hari Swarup, J. 1. This revision has been filed by the accused against their conviction under Sections 147, 452 and 326/149 IPC and sentences of 12 months, 18 months and 18 months respectively in respect of the three offences. 2. The prosecution case in brief was that on 21-8-70 at about 4 p.m. Bhagwan one of the accused was ploughing his filed and in that process was damaging the sugar-cane crop of the complainant Hari Ram in the nearby field. On this there was an exchange of hot words between the parties. Subsequently at about 7 p. m. all the accused armed with lathis came to the gher of Hari Ram and assaulted him. A police report was lodged by Hari Ram at the police Station Pilana. According to Hari Ram, oral report was not taken down and then he submitted a written report but a copy of the report with police endorsement was not handed back to him. The police did not proceed either to investigate the matter on this report or to prosecute the accused. 3. Hari Ram complainant was examined by Doctor on 21-8-70 at 9.55 P. M. and was found to have 8 injuries on his person. Six were contusions and two traumatic swellings. Three injuries were kept under observation and were found on X-ray examination to have fractures underneath. All the injuries were according to the medical report caused by blunt weapons. 4. On 28-8-1970 a written report was again sent by Hari Ram to the Senior Superintendent of Police and on the same day a complaint was filed in court which has given rise to the present revision. Hari Ram besides himself examined four other eye witnesses. All the accused denied the complainant's version and claimed that they had been implicated due to enmity. There was also the defence evidence that Ishwar accused was in his field watching macca crop when a buffalo of Hari Ram entered the field and damaged the crop. On this Ishwar objected and there was exchange of hot words and Hari Ram gave a slap. When they reached the village a complaint was made by Ishwar and there was again a dispute. At this time Hari Ram and his party assaulted Ishwar with lathis and knife, and Ishwar and his brother assaulted Hari Ram with lathis. The result of it was that Ishwar suffered five injuries. When they reached the village a complaint was made by Ishwar and there was again a dispute. At this time Hari Ram and his party assaulted Ishwar with lathis and knife, and Ishwar and his brother assaulted Hari Ram with lathis. The result of it was that Ishwar suffered five injuries. The injuries of Ishwar were examined by Dr. B. C. Saxena on 22-8-70 and he found on his person two incised wounds measuring 1.5 x 3 cms. x skin deep and 1 cm. x 2 cm. x skin deep and 3 contusions. All the injuries were found to be simple. According to the medical evidence incised wounds were caused by sharp edged weapon and the rest by blunt weapon. In respect of the occurrence the accused filed a report the same day with the police. The police did not take action. The accused also then filed a complaint which was dismissed. 5. The trial court believed the prosecution version and convicted the accused. THE appellate court concurred with the judgment of the trial court and upheld the conviction and the sentences awarded to the accused. 6. In revision learned counsel has contended that the court below was in error in not considering correctly the effect of the lodging of the first information report alleged to be lodged with the police by Hari Ram and of its not being proved by being summoned in court. The contention is that the first information report was either not lodged with the police as alleged by the prosecution or that it contained a version different from the one set up in the complaint. The lower appellate court in respect of this argument has observed "no doubt there is no first information report in the instant case but the fact remains that the occurrence is not challenged. Only the manner and place of occurrence is challenged. The fight is accepted by both the sides. IN view of this non-filing of the first information report in the instant case, in my view does not damage the prosecution case." The court below it is apparent has totally missed the point. When the manner and place of occurrence is challenged, it is the prosecution version itself that is challenged. Acceptance of the fact that there was a fight between the two sides does not mean that the fight took place in the manner alleged by the prosecution. When the manner and place of occurrence is challenged, it is the prosecution version itself that is challenged. Acceptance of the fact that there was a fight between the two sides does not mean that the fight took place in the manner alleged by the prosecution. The purpose for which importance is given by the Courts to the filing of the first information report without delay is to guard against adulteration of the prosecution version by the process of the man's own imagination and the influence on it of the opinion of others. If a first information report is lodged immediately after the occurrence there is greater chance of its containing the true version. With the passage of time the presumption of correctness goes on decreasing. In the present case though the first information report was alleged to have been filed, no attempt was made to summon the same in evidence. Under Section 114 of the Evidence Act a presumption can thus be drawn that if the first information report had been summoned and produced in the case it would have been unfavourable to the prosecution and this can lead to the further inference that the version contained therein may have been different from the version put up in the complaint. 7. The first version in the present case which came before the court is in the form of complaint, and which has been proved to have been made to the investigating agency was through the report sent on the same day to the Senior Superintendent of Police. This happened on 28-8-1970 i.e. about a week after the incident. It was held in Thulia Koli v. The State of Tamil Nadu, AIR 1973 SC 501 that the delay in filing of the first information report is a relevant circumstance for determining the truth of the prosecution version. The Supreme Court went to the extent of observing that a delay of even 20 hours in the making of the report to the police would be sufficient to raise considerable doubt regarding the veracity of the evidence of the witnesses, and it would render unsafe to base the conviction of the accused on such evidence. The situation is worse in the instant case. 8. There is also an infirmity between the version of the prosecution in the complaint and in the evidence. The situation is worse in the instant case. 8. There is also an infirmity between the version of the prosecution in the complaint and in the evidence. In the complaint the injury to the crop was said to have been caused in the process of ploughing while in the evidence a third bullock was introduced and it is this bullock which was said to have caused damage to the sugarcane. The other infirmity in the prosecution case is that the injuries of the accused Ishwar have not been explained. Neither the report lodged with the Superintendent of Police nor the complaint lodged in court though lodged a week after the incident, contained any statement about the causing of injuries in the incident to Ishwar. Even in the statement under Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure there is no such explanation. It is only in the course of evidence that it has come that the injuries were caused by Hari Ram in his self-defence when he wielded Khatpaori. In these circumstances the explanation of the injuries of the accused cannot be deemed to have been promptly made. Out of the five witnesses, four witnesses, have not been held by the court below to be independent witnesses. 9. In the circumstances mentioned above it is not possible to hold that the defence version is necessarily untrue. IN any case the prosecution evidence is not of such a character that it may be possible to hold that the prosecution has succeeded in proving beyond reasonable doubt that the injuries were caused to Hari Ram in the manner alleged by the prosecution. 10. The accused cannot accordingly be held guilty and convicted. In the result the revision is allowed, the conviction of the applicants and the sentences awarded to them are set aside. They are on bail. Their bail bonds are discharged. Revision allowed.