S. S. SHARMA, J. ( 1 ) JUDICIAL Magistrate First/class, Bijawar district, Chhatarpur by his judgment dated 17. 12. 1981 convicted the petitioner under Sections 342, 365 and 387 I. P. C. For these offences he was respectively sentenced to R. I. for six months and fine of Rs. 100/-, in default R. I. for one month, to two years R. I. and fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default R. I. for four months and to three years R. I. and fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default R. I. for four months. The substantive sentences were ordered to run concurrently. The petitioner preferred fn appeal. The Additional Sessions Judge, Chhatarpur in Criminal Appeal No. 94 of 1981 by his judgment dated 16. 2. 1983 dismissed that appeal and thus upheld the convictions and sentences. Aggrieved thereby the present revision has been filed. Fool Khan Vs. The State of M. P. ( 2 ) KICHUA (P. W. 9) then aged about 14 to 15 years is the son of Tulsiya (P. W. 11 ). Salla (P. W. 1) and most of the other witnesses including Kichua and Tulsiya are residents of village Sadwa. The petitioner also belongs to the same village. ( 3 ) THE prosecution story briefly stated is that in the night intervening 14th and 15th December, 1978 Salla (P. W. 1) and Ramla (P. W. 4) were sleeping in their khaliyan for keeping a watch on their crop. In the adjoining other khaliyan, Dayaram (P. W. 2), Kichua (P. W. 9) and Kharge (P. W. 10) were sleeping. According to Salla, (P. W. 1), the petitioner and four others came to his khaliyan and enquired about the way for the tank. On that pretext, they took him away from the khaliyan. Dayaram (P. W. 2) and Kichua were even beaten. These accused made a demand of Rs. 10,000/each from Salla (P. W. 1) and Dayaram (P. W. 2 ). They further threatened them that in case the said amount is not received, Kichua would be killed. Dayaram and Salla were Jet off and time till 10 A. M. of the next day was given to them to pay the money. Kichua (P. W. 9) was, however, threatened by them. ( 4 ) SALLA and Dayaram returned back to their house. Dayaram and Salla were Jet off and time till 10 A. M. of the next day was given to them to pay the money. Kichua (P. W. 9) was, however, threatened by them. ( 4 ) SALLA and Dayaram returned back to their house. Salla is said to have informed Darbarilal (P. W. 3) and other persons of his family about this incident. He collected Rs. 7,000/- in cash and three Kgs. of silver ornaments belonging to the ladies of the family. In the morning the petitioner came there and that amount and the ornaments were handed over to him. Dayaram (P. W. 2) could pay only Rs. 3,000/- to the petitioner. The petitioner took Dayaram along with him and after some distance made him to wait. Thereafter the petitioner returned back with Kichua (P. W. 9 ). Thus Dayaram returned back along with Kichua. These witnesses were even threatened by the petitioner that in case any report is lodged they would be killed and their house would be burnt. ( 5 ) ALTHOUGH the alleged incident had taken place in the night intervening 14th and 15th December, 1978, but the first information report Ex, P. 1 was lodged by Salla (P. W. 1) on 14. 4. 1979. It was recorded by Sub-Inspector K. L. Shrivastava (P. W. 20 ). In cross-examination the Sub-Inspector admitted that the other accused could not be arrested in this case. ( 6 ) THE petitioner in his examination denied the prosecution allegations and pleased false implication. He did not examine any witness in defence. ( 7 ) ALTHOUGH in the first information report Ex. P. 1 the ground for delay in lodging the report as mentioned was that the accused had given threats to them, but Salla (P. W. I) in his evidence did not so state. Contrary to this, his version in paragraph 6 of his deposition was that when the petitioner went away with the money he had gone to lodge the report in the police station. Dayaram had also gone with him. The report had been recorded in the police station. In that report he had not mentioned anything about Kichua. Dayaraul (p. W. 2) in his examination stated that he had gone to lodge the report in the police station after a month and his report had been recorded in the police station. Dayaram had also gone with him. The report had been recorded in the police station. In that report he had not mentioned anything about Kichua. Dayaraul (p. W. 2) in his examination stated that he had gone to lodge the report in the police station after a month and his report had been recorded in the police station. He further mentioned that his report was recorded along with the report of Salla. The trial Magistrate does not seem to have at all considered that there was an undue delay in lodging the report. The Additional Sessions Judge has referred to the cause of the delay as was mentioned in the F. I. R. Ex. P. 1. In the F. I. R. it also has been mentioned that: vc cnekk ekjs x;s gsa o idm+s x;s gsa fgeer [kqyh gs A Whether it refers to the alleged co-accused of Is case or to others, is not at all clear. If the persons arrested or killed were the co-accused of this case, it should have found a place on record or atleast it should have been so stated by the Sub-Inspector Srivastava (P. W. 20 ). All that the Sub- Inspector states is that there were other accused also in this case whose arrest was not possible. Admittedly, no report lodged on the same day as has been stated by Salla (P. W. 1) or a month after, as stated by Dayaram (P. W. 2) has been filed by the prosecution. There could certainly be cases where persons in such a dacoity infested area or in view of other peculiar circumstances, may not lodge a report immediately or soon after the incident, but a satisfactory explanation for the delay has to be there. In the instant case, in view of the aforesaid discrepancy there is no option but to bold that there is no explanation what-so-ever about the delay in lodging the report which could be accepted. ( 8 ) YET another fact which needs a serious consideration is that According to Salla (P. W. n, he had been severely assaulted by the accused-persons. Dayaram (P. W. 2) in his cross-examination stated that even he was beaten. Kichua (P. W. 9) has also stated about he having been beaten by the accused. ( 8 ) YET another fact which needs a serious consideration is that According to Salla (P. W. n, he had been severely assaulted by the accused-persons. Dayaram (P. W. 2) in his cross-examination stated that even he was beaten. Kichua (P. W. 9) has also stated about he having been beaten by the accused. Some other witnesses who have been examined by the prosecution to corroborate the version of Salla and Dayaram have also stated that that these persons had told them about they having been beaten. There is no medical evidence to support or corroborate the version of Salla, Dayaram and Kichua about these, persons having been assaulted. That evidence may have possibly helped the prosecution to corroborate their version about they having been assaulted in that night by the culprits. ( 9 ) THE conviction of the petitioner rests entirely on the oral testimony of Salla (P. W. 1), Dayaram (P. W. 2), Kichua (P. W. 9) and others. Darbarilal (P. W. 3) has stated that when Salla had shown his back and the injuries and had narrated the incident about his having been taken away by the culprits and demanding money, other persons were also sitting. The petitioner bad also come at that time and told Salla that the time limit is up to 10. 00 A. M. and so he should hurry up to reach with money. Ramla (P. W. 4) was also in the khaliyan along with Salla and others. Kharga (P. W. 11) was also in the khaliyan along with Dayaram etc. Munni (P. W. 10) was also in the khaliyan along with Salla. The other witnesses to whom the incident had been narrated are the relatives of the persons who were allegedly abducted. Thus apparently, these witnesses are interested. ( 10 ) THE oral evidence of the aforesaid witnesses further goes to indicate that the matter was not being that secretly dealt with and quite a number of persons had come to know about the alleged story. In the circumstances, to say that Salla did not lodge the report because he was threatened for not divulging it to anyone else, stands completely belied. For the aforesaid reasons the Convictions of the petitioner on the mere oral testimony of the witnesses cannot be upheld. The convictions, and sentences have therefore to be set aside. ( 11 ) CONSEQUENTLY this revision is allowed. For the aforesaid reasons the Convictions of the petitioner on the mere oral testimony of the witnesses cannot be upheld. The convictions, and sentences have therefore to be set aside. ( 11 ) CONSEQUENTLY this revision is allowed. The convictions and sentences of the petitioner are set aside. The amount of fine if paid by the petitioner be refunded back to him. The bail bonds of the petitioner discharged and be need not surrender to them. Revision allowed. .