JUDGMENT 1. - This revision application has been preferred by Chander Singh, who was convicted by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Jodhpur district under section 325 I.P.C. and was sentenced to one months rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 100/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo 15 days further rigorous imprisonment. He was also convicted under section 323 I.P.C. and was sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 250/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo one months, simple imprisonment. The conviction and sentence were confirmed in appeal by the Additional Sessions Judge No. 2, Jodhpur by his order dated April 25, 1977. 2. Learned counsel for the appellant argued in this revision petition that it has not been proved by the evidence on record that Damaram suffered a grievous injury as a result of a lathi blow said to have been given by Chander Singh appellant. It was also argued that in the first Information report lodged by P.W. 2 Peeraram, no injury was alleged to have been caused by Chander Singh on the finders of Damaram. In the FIR it was stated that there was injury on the right hand and on the index finger of the right hand. It was also argued that Damaram injured was examined by the Investigating Officer after more than a month and as such the statement given should not have been given any weight. 3. So far as Damaram, P.W. 5 is concerned, he has stated that Chander Singh gave him a lathi blow on his back and on the right hand. P.W. 3 Nanagram, who has been examined by the prosecution as one of the eye-witnesses of the occurrence, has stated that Chander Singh gave a lathi blow on the left hand of Damaram. Thus, the version given by Damaram is in conflict with the statement of P.W. 3 Nanagram. Moreover, the fact that Damaram was examined by the Investigating Officer more than one month after the occurrence cannot also be lost sight of. In Balakrushna Swain v. The State of Orissa, AIR 1971 SC 840 it was observed by their Lordships of the Supreme Court that the statement of a witness who has been examined by Investigating Officer after a long delay, which has not been explained, renders the evidence of the said witness unreliable. In Balakrushna Swain v. The State of Orissa, AIR 1971 SC 840 it was observed by their Lordships of the Supreme Court that the statement of a witness who has been examined by Investigating Officer after a long delay, which has not been explained, renders the evidence of the said witness unreliable. In the present case also, P.W.6 Padam Singh who was Investigating Officer has stated in his cross-examination that he had recorded the statement of injured Damaram at the Police Station on August 28, 1974, while the occurrence had taken place on July 25, 1974. Thus, there was delay of more than one month in examining the injured, who was a very material witness relating to the occurrence. Moreover, the delay has not been explained. The unexplained extra-ordinary delay of over a month in examining the most material witness in the case, namely, the injured Damaram has rightly made the statement of Damaram open to doubt, which is further contradicted by, as I have stated above, the statement of P.W. 3 Nanagram. It may also be mentioned that Damaram as P.W. 5, has stated that Chander Singh had given a blow on his right hand,while according to the medical export Dr. P. Dayal, who has been examined as P.W. 7, there was a fracture of the proximal phalanges of the right index finger and middle finger of the right hand. At the time when Dr. Dayal examined Damaram on July 26,1974, the injury was described as "ill defined swelling over the It forearm at 1/2 and Rt. hand with abrasion over the fingers". The duration of the aforesaid injury was described in the injury report Ex. P. 5 as 3-4 days. On examination, P.W. 7 Dr. Dayal stated that the injury mentioned in Ex. P. 5 cannot be of less than 2 days and the injuries could have been caused by a fall on the ground. The occurrence had taken place on July 24, 1974 at 10.00 a.m. and the first Information report was lodged on the next day i.e. July 25, 1974 at about 3.00 p.m. while the injuries of Damaram were examined by Dr. P. Dayal on 26th July, 1974. The time when the doctor examined the injured Damaram is not specified in the injury report nor it has been mentioned in the outdoor ticket of Damaram. P. Dayal on 26th July, 1974. The time when the doctor examined the injured Damaram is not specified in the injury report nor it has been mentioned in the outdoor ticket of Damaram. Whether the injury in question, namely, the fracture of the proximal phalanges of the index and middle lingers, was caused in the incident complained of is, therefore, doubtful. It is not in dispute between the parties that the trouble arose over drinking of later by the camel of Damaram. And if Damaram would have suffered grievous injury, than it is difficult to understand as to why he did not make a first Information report at the Police Station soon after the occurrence and why the injured Damaram was examined by the Investigating Officer after more than a month. All these circumstance cause serious doubt about the veracity of the prosecution case in this respect. The accused appellant Chander Singh in his statement before the Court has stated that there was an old dispute between the parties on the question of drinking of water by the camel of Damaram and that Damaram made out a false case only on account of enmity. It is not clear from the record of the case as to whether Sang Singh or Chander Singh was the author of the injury on the fingers of the right hand of Damaram. The Court below have ascribed the injuries to Chander Singh, believing the statement of Damaram. But as I have already mentioned above, the statement of witness Damaram is not wholly reliable. The evidence on the question whether Chander Singh gave the blow on the right hand fingers is discrepant and cannot be relied upon. Under these circumstances, I acquit Chander Singh of the offence under section 325 I.P.C., giving him the benefit of doubt. 4. So far as the offence under section 323 I.P.C.is concerned, it is the consistent evidence of the prosecution witnesses that Chander Singh gave a blow on the back of Damaram. The injury report Ex. P. 5 and the statement of Dr. P. Dayal P.W. 7 shows that there is a bruise 5 cm. x 1 cm. on the left scapular region of Damaram. This injury has been ascribed by all the prosecution witnesses to Chander Singh petitioner. The two courts below appear to be right in convicting Chander Singh, petitioner for the offence under section 323 I.P.C. 5. P. Dayal P.W. 7 shows that there is a bruise 5 cm. x 1 cm. on the left scapular region of Damaram. This injury has been ascribed by all the prosecution witnesses to Chander Singh petitioner. The two courts below appear to be right in convicting Chander Singh, petitioner for the offence under section 323 I.P.C. 5. In the result the revision application is partly allowed and the order passed by the Additional Session No. 2, Jodhpur dated April 25, 1977 is modified and Chander Singh, accused-petitioner is acquitted of the offence under section 325 I.P.C., giving him the benefit of doubt, but the conviction under section 323 I P.C. is maintained. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant contends that Chander Singh appellant has remained in prison for 12 days and the same should be considered as sufficient for the offence under section 323 I.P.C. The prayer of learned counsel for the appellant appears to be reasonable and is accepted and the sentence of fine of Rs. 250/-imposed upon the appellant under section 323 I.P.C.is converted into that of imprisonment for the period already undergone with the result that the appellant will not have to deposit any amount by way of fine. The appellant Chander Singh is on bail and the bail bond shall stand cancelled.Revision Partly allowed. *******