Judgment Ram Naresh Thakur, J. 1. The sole appellant has been convicted under section 326 of the Indian Penal Code and has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years. 2. This appellant alongwith his father Brij Bihari Singh was put on trial on the charge under Sec.307 of the Indian Penal Code on the allegation that on 3rd May 1975, at village Lahang Dumaria, Police Station Bihea, district bhojpur, assaulted Radha Prasad Singh with a bhala with an intention to kill him. Alternatively, a charge under Sec.326 of the Indian Penal Code was also framed against him. It is said that P. W.2 Radha Prasad Singh was going to his khalihan situated to the north of the village at 10 to 11 A. M. on the day of occurrence. When he was about to reach the khalihan, he met accused Brij bihari Singh (since acquitted), this appellant and one Sitaram Singh. (Sitaram singh died before commitment ). The informant asked this appellant and his companions as to why they had not untied the bullocks. from his Dauni (thrashing ). On this, the appellant became angry and started abusing. Brij Bihari Singh and Sitaram Singh asked this appellant to bring a bhala and to kill the informant. The appellant went and brought a bhala and gave a bhala blow to p. W.2. After receiving the bhala blow, P. W.2 fell down and then the appellant and his companions went away. A case was instituted at the police station and after due investigation, chargesheet was submitted against this appellant as well as his father, the acquitted accused Brij Bihari Singh and Sitaram Singh. 3. In the trial Court, six witnesses were examined on behalf of the prosecution. Out of them two are doctors. It appears that by mistake both the doctors have been numbered as P. W.6 instead of P. Ws.5 and 6. P. W.4 is a formal witness P. W.3 is the Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police who had recorded the fardbeyan of Radha Prasad Singh. P. W.2 is the informant himself and P. W.1 is a hearsay witness. The main investigating officer could not be examined. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant has argued that none of the witnesses named in the fardbeyan has been examined in this case. P. Ws.1 and 2 are related among themselves. P. W.2 is the informant himself and P. W.1 is a hearsay witness. The main investigating officer could not be examined. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant has argued that none of the witnesses named in the fardbeyan has been examined in this case. P. Ws.1 and 2 are related among themselves. P. W.1 has stated that sufficient blood had fallen down on the ground from the injury of the victim but he further said in cross examination that when the investigating officer went to the place of occurrence, there was no blood because several heads of cattle had moved over that place. P. W.2, the informant, has said that at the time of occurrence this appellant was a school student. According to the evidence of the informant himself till this appellant brought a bhala from his house, he remained standing silently at the place of occurrence and did not move forward. Dr. J. N. Pandey has deposed that he found one penetrating wound 1" X 1/4" X l 1/4"deep anteriority just below the left costal margin. He has simply said that the injury was grievous in nature. He has not said that the injury was dangerous to life. From the evidence of Dr. I. B. Sinha also it does not appear that the injury was grievous as defined under Sec.320 of the Indian Penal Code. Not a single independent witness has been examined to support the prosecution case. As said earlier, the investigating officer has not been examined. 5. From the record it appears that the First Information Report was received before the Court for the first time on 13th May, 1975, when the occurrence is is alleged to have taken place on 3rd May, 1975, i. e. after ten days of the occurrence. No explanation has been offered on behalf of the prosecution as to why there was so much delay in sending the First Information Report to the court. In such a situation, it is difficult to rely on the solitary evidence of P. W.1. 6. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed and the order of conviction and sentence passed against the appellant is set aside. He is discharged from the liability of bail bond. Appeal allowed.