JUDGMENT 1. - This appeal has been filed against the judgment of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Udaipur dated 30th September, 1978 by which the accused-appellant has been convicted under Section 326 Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs. 300/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo simple imprisonment for three months. The facts of the case giving rise to this appeal may be summarised thus. 2. On January 19, 1975, the informant-injured Asgar Ali (PW ) had gone for the call of nature to the public latrines situated behind Wazirpura, Udaipur. He was accosted and beaten by nine accused while he was returning. He came running to Lanka Chowk where he was surrounded by another set of the accused persons including the accused-appellant who had a knife in his hand. These accused-persons inflicted injuries with their Lathis and knife. He fell down on the ground. The accused-persons left the place thinking, that the injured Asgar Ali had died. His mother came their and took him to her house. He was taken by Naib Hussain (PW 6) to the Hospital where he remained there for treatment for 8 days. On January 30, 1975, report Ex.P/1 was lodged at the Police Station, Dhanmandi (Udaipur) by the injured Asgar Ali (PW 1). On its basis FIR Ex. P/5 was drawn and a case under Sections 147, 148, 144, 307 and 341, Indian Penal Code was registered against 12 accused-persons. After investigation, a challan was filed in the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Udaipur against all the 12 accused-persons under the aforesaid sections. The accused-persons were committed to the Court of Sessions Judge, Udaipur. It was transferred to the Additional Sessions Judge, Udaipur for trial. Charges under Sections 323, 307 and 148 Indian Penal Code, were framed against the accused Zakir Hussain and Ali Mohammed and under Sections 148 323 and 307 read with Section 149 Indian Penal Code against the remaining accused-persons, including the accused appellant Asgar Ali. None pleaded guilty. All claimed trial. The prosecution examined 12 witnesses and produced and proved 7 documents All the accused-psrsons denied the prosecution story. None pleaded guilty. All claimed trial. The prosecution examined 12 witnesses and produced and proved 7 documents All the accused-psrsons denied the prosecution story. The accused appellant Zakir Hussain disclosed in his statement recorded under Section 313 Cr PC that he has falsely been implicated in this case as he was Additional Secretary of the Youth Group of the Bohra Community of Udaipur. The accused-persons examined three witnesses in their defence. After hearing the parties, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Udaipur convicted the accused-appellant Zakir Hussain under Section 326 Indian Penal Code and sentenced him as said above and acquitted all the remaining 11 accused-persons. 3. The learned Counsel for the accused-appellant has contended that the learned trial court has seriously erred in convicting the accused-appellant despite holding that the injured Asgar Ali (PW 1) was not a wholly reliable witness and the remaining so-called eye-witnesses, namely Isak Ali (PW 2), Abas Ali (PW 7) and Akbar Ali (PW 12) had not in fact witnessed the actual occurrence. He further contended that the learned trial court has acquitted 11 accused-persons on the same evidence but has convicted the accused-appellant despite the fact that FIR was lodged after 11 days of the occurrence and no explanation has been offered by the prosecution for this inordinate delay in lodging it. He further contended that the learned Additional Sessions Judge has seriously erred in seeking corroboration of the testimony of Asgar Ali (PW 1) from his FIR Ex. P/1 and the Police statement Ex D/1. He also contended that the learned trial court should have drawn an adverse inference against the prosecution for not producing Asgar Ali's mother despite the fact that she was the first to attend him. 4. The learned Public Prosecutor tried his best to support the judgment under appeal. 5. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Udaipur has observed in his judgment as under: "No satisfactory explanation could be offered by the witness Asgar Ali (PW 1) for the inordinate delay in lodging the report Ex.P/1" He admits that his brother has taken him to the hospital on bicycle. He could have been sent to the Police Station to lodge a report. The explanation that no one was available at his house to lodge it, is not satisfactory. He did not ask him to lodge it. The witness did not request the doctor attending him to inform the Police. He could have been sent to the Police Station to lodge a report. The explanation that no one was available at his house to lodge it, is not satisfactory. He did not ask him to lodge it. The witness did not request the doctor attending him to inform the Police. His mother used to come to Hospital every day. Many injured persons of his group were hospitalised. Any person attending them could lodge a report in the Police Station. Thus, the explanation offered by the witness Asgar Ali (PW 1) that no-one was available to lodge a report is not believable. 6. It has further been observed by the learned trial court: "In the state of affairs, I have no hesitation in holding that the (PW 1) Asgar Ali is not a witness of sterling-worth. I cannot shut my eyes towards inaccuracies, improbabilities and material improvement made in his statement." 7. As regards the remaining three eye-witnesses, the learned trial court has observed: "Taking a cumulative view of these facts, I do not think it safe to hold that the witness Ishaq Ali (PW 2) saw the assault. I do not propose to place reliance on his statement. As such in the light of our discussion, I hold that these two witnesses Abas Ali (PW 7) and Akbar Ali (PW 11) never saw the assault and no reliance can be placed upon their evidence." 8. Admittedly, all the accused-persons except the accused-appellant Zakir Hussain have been acquitted by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Udaipur. The accused-appellant Zakir Hussain has been held guilty on the basis of the solitary statement of the injured Asgar Ali (PW 1), finding corroboration of his testimony from his report Ex.P/1, the Police statement Ex D/1 and the injury report Ex.P/3. It is correct that the name of the accused-appellant finds mention in the report Ex.P/1 and the Police statement Ex.D/1. Similar corroboration was also available in respect of the co-accused who have been acquitted by the learned trial court. The names of these co-accused duly find mention in the report Ex.P/1 and the Police statement Ex.D/1. Asgar Ali (PW 1) has also disclosed in his statement on oath that Shiraj gave knife blows on his hand and Khurshid gave Lathi blows on his left leg. These injuries find mention in the injury report Ex.P/3. Admittedly, these accused have also been acquitted. 9. Asgar Ali (PW 1) has also disclosed in his statement on oath that Shiraj gave knife blows on his hand and Khurshid gave Lathi blows on his left leg. These injuries find mention in the injury report Ex.P/3. Admittedly, these accused have also been acquitted. 9. It is mentioned in the injury report Ex.P/3 that the duration of the injuries Nos. 1 to 6 was of about three hours and that of the injury No. 7 was of about 24 hours. Asgar Ali (PW 1) admits in his cross-examination that he received injury No. 7 a day before the present occurrence. This fact does not find mention in the report Ex.P/1. It cannot, therefore, be said that the statement of injured Asgar Ali finds corroboration from the injury report Ex.P/3. 10. Admittedly, two groups existed in the Bohra community of Udaipur, namely "Shabab" and "Youth" for a couple of years prior to the occurrence and there was incessant fight in between them prior to the present occurrence Asgar Ali (PW 1) admits in his cross-examination that stone pelting took place in between these two groups in the mosque a day before the present occurrence and the members of both the groups received injuries. 11. Admittedly, no knife was recovered from the possession or at the instance of the accused-appellant Zakir Hussain. 12. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, has also observed in his judgment. "Under these circumstances the prosecution has completely failed to earmark the exact location of second assault. I have no hesitation in holding that a feeble attempt has been made by the prosecution to switch over the scene of occurrence from Lanka Chowk to Jamalpura Gate in order to facilitate the views of the two witnesses." It is not denied that the prosecution case is that the accused-appellant Zakir Hussain participated in the second occurrence and not in the first occurrence. 13. Under these facts and circumstances of the case, it would be highly unsafe to hold that the accused-appellant Zakir Hussain participated in the said occurrence and he inflicted injury No. 3 to the injured Asgar Ali (PW 1). He is also entitled for the benefit of doubt. 14. Consequently the appeal is allowed. The conviction and sentence of the accused-appellant are set-aside and he is acquitted of the offence punishable under Section 326 Indian Penal Code. His bail bonds are here by cancelled.Appeal Allowed. *******