JUDGMENT 1. - This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 31.7.82 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Alwar whereby the appellant was found guilty under section 326 IPC and has been sentenced to three years R.I. and a fine of Rs. 300/-; on default of payment of fine to further undergo three months S.I. 2. Brief facts giving rise to this appeal are that Shri Ramkaran lodged a report on 16.2.82 at 7.30 P.M. at police station Laxrnangarh stating therein that on 15.2.82 Girraj was coming from Jungle. At that time he saw the son and grand son of Amra Gujar grazzing their sheeps and goats in his field at about 3.00 P.M. The present appellant was having a Tancha (small axe). Other two co-accused were having lathies, Some hot words were exchanged between Girraj and accused persons. The appellant inflicted a blow by a 'Tancha' on fore-head of Girraj causing injury on his fore-head. The two other persons inflicted lathi blows. Devi Sahai and Kishore are said to be the eye witnesses of the occurrence, who in,formed Ram Karan. Ram Karan thereafter reached :he side and found Girraj in unconscious state on the boundary wall of his field. Ram Karan brought Girraj in to his village and was taken to hospital. On the aforesaid report a case under section 307 and 323 IPC was registered and after investigation the challan was filed against three accused for the aforesaid offences. The learned trial court after recording the evidence of the prosecution witnesses and hearing the parties found that no offence is made out against the co-accused Pyare and Charan. They were acquitted but the accused appellant was found guilty for the said offence and he was sentenced as aforesaid. 3. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the entire record. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that in this case FIR was lodged after 28 hours of the incident. But a look at the FIR shows that the FIR was lodged after" 52 hours as is clear from the statements of PW.2 Ram Karan (Informant). From the statement of his last two lines it appears that the report was lodged after 52 hours. Learned Counsel, therefore contended that delay in lodging the report is fatal for the prosecution. 4. But a look at the FIR shows that the FIR was lodged after" 52 hours as is clear from the statements of PW.2 Ram Karan (Informant). From the statement of his last two lines it appears that the report was lodged after 52 hours. Learned Counsel, therefore contended that delay in lodging the report is fatal for the prosecution. 4. It is settled principle,of law that the FIR should be lodged without any delay and the inordinate delay in lodging the report without any explanation is definitely fatal for the prosecution and it creats a doubt in the mind of the court, the benefit of which should be given to the accused for these observations, reliance can be placed on the case reported in 1989 RLR (1)828. In this case, delay of 30 hours was found to be material and the case of the prosecution was held to be doubtful. 5. The other infirmity which has creept in this case is that as per the statements of the prosecution witnesses, the place of occurrence is changed. As per F.I.R. the occurrence took place in the field of Girraj injured but he was found lying on the Pal' of a tank which was about one mile away from the field of injured Girraj. The learned trial court also observed this infirmity and the same has been mentioned in its judgment. So by shifting the place of occurrence the prosecution case further becomes doubtful. For these observations reliance can be placed on the following reported cases (1)1980 RCC 254, (2) 1976 RLW 56. 6. In the instant case the learned trial court has held that the alleged eye witnesses did not state the scene of occurrence specially the over fact of the accused persons. The trial court further found that the eye witnesses are telling lie, on the point of causing injury on the persons of Girraj at the hands of appellant. Trial court has further disbelieved the prosecution case for the allegation of the other injuries on the person of Girraj. As the alleged injuries were inconsistent with the medical evidence, therefore, the court disbelieved the testamony of P.W. 1 Ramkaran and P.W.3 Devi Sahai, P.W.4 Kishore, P.W.5 Rameshwar regarding causing of the injuries by Charan and Pyare Lal accused persons. On this count these two persons were acquitted by the learned trial court. As the alleged injuries were inconsistent with the medical evidence, therefore, the court disbelieved the testamony of P.W. 1 Ramkaran and P.W.3 Devi Sahai, P.W.4 Kishore, P.W.5 Rameshwar regarding causing of the injuries by Charan and Pyare Lal accused persons. On this count these two persons were acquitted by the learned trial court. The learned counsel for the appellant contended that when the eye witnesses have been disbelieved against the two persons so in that situation there was no reason for believing the same witness against the 3rd person (appellant). The learned trial court further found that P.W. 2 Girraj is not a reliable witness. In these circumstances I fail to understand as to why when part of the witnesses has been believed by the learned trial court. I am of the opinion that whole testimony of the Girraj becomes doubtful and no reliance can be placed on his statement. 7. For these observation I find support from the cases reported in 1978 R.C.C. 379 and 1980 R.C.C.28. After going through the entire record the prosecution case emerges in this way that Girraj was coming from the 'forest and he found the accused persons who were also grazzing their sheeps and goats in the Mustard crop of Girraj. Girraj in his statement admitted that hot words were exchanged in between him and the accused persons. The occurrence took place at a place where none of the persons was present. It is so held by the learned trial court, saying that none of the (illegible) witnessed the occurrence. In such situation this possibility cannot be ruled out that the Girraj sustained injuries accidentally while cutting the branches of the trees for grazzing his, cattles. In view of the aforesaid discussions the case of the prosecution is highly doubtful, the benefit of which goes to the appellant. For these observations reliance can also be placed on the following reported cases : (1) 1980 R. C. C. 219,519, (2) 1987 Cr. L. R. (Raj.) 719. 8. Consequently, this appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment dated 31.7.82 is set aside. The appellant is acquitted from all the charges levelled against him. His bail bonds stand cancelled and he need not surrender, the record be sent forthwith.Appeal Allowed. *******