Judgment : PADMINI JESUDURAI, J. ( 1 ) THIS revision has been filed by the 1st accused in C. C. No. 31 of 1986, on the file of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sivaganga, challenging his conviction for an offence under section 326 of the Indian Penal Code and the sentence of imprisonment for a period of six months and a fine of Rs. 50/-in default to undergo imprisonment for a further period of two weeks which conviction and sentence have been confirmed in appeal by the learned Additional Assistant Sessions Judge, Ramanathapuram at Madurai in C. A. 47 of 1987. ( 2 ) THE gravamen of the charge against the petitioner and two others, tried as co-accused for offences under sections 323 and 326 of the Indian Penal Code was that on 12-9-1985, at 6. 30 P. M. in Vellakurichi village, in front of the rice mills of Parvathi Ammal, the petitioner cut P. W. 1 Palaniyandi with an arrival on his left knee, while the co-accused assaulted him with stones and stick. ( 3 ) THE facts of the prosecution case briefly are as follows:- On 12-9-1985 at 6. 30 p. m. , the petitioner and the co-accused were grazing cattle in their field wherein they had raised cotton plants. P. W. 1 came that way and questioned the petitioner and the co-accused as to why they were grazing cattle in his field. There was a wordy altercation in which the petitioner took out an aruval and cut P. W. 1 on the left knee while A3 assaulted him on his back with stick and A2 pelted stones on him. P. W. 2 ran towards the scene and tried to separate them. The petitioner and the co accused ran away. P. W. 1 went to the police station at Manamadurai and gave Ex. P. 1 statement to P. W. 6, the Sub-Inspector. Ex. P. 1 was registered as Crime No. 248/85 and investigation was taken up. ( 4 ) ON 12-9-1985, P. W. 1 was examined by P. W. 4, the medical officer, attached to the Government Hospital at Manamadurai and the injuries described in Ex. P. 4, Wound Certificate were found by P. W. 4. Since injury No. 1 was grievous, P. W. 1 was sent to the Government Hospital at Madurai. ( 4 ) ON 12-9-1985, P. W. 1 was examined by P. W. 4, the medical officer, attached to the Government Hospital at Manamadurai and the injuries described in Ex. P. 4, Wound Certificate were found by P. W. 4. Since injury No. 1 was grievous, P. W. 1 was sent to the Government Hospital at Madurai. P. W. 5, the Radiologist, examined P. W. 1 on 13-9-1985 and found a fracture of the tibia of the left leg. Ex. P. 3 is the X-ray report. ( 5 ) P. W. 6 during investigation examined the witnesses and after completing it laid charge sheet. ( 6 ) DURING trial, on behalf of the prosecution, P. Ws. 1 to 6 were examined, Exs. P1 to PS marked and M. Os. 1 and 2 produced. The petitioner denied having committed any crime and had no defense evidence. The trial court and the appellate court found the petitioner guilty and convicted and sentenced him as stated above, while the two co-accused were acquitted even by the trial court. The aggrieved 1st accused has filed this revision. ( 7 ) THIRU K. Sathiabalu, the learned counsel for the petitioner went through the evidence and strenuously contended that there was discrepancy between the witnesses regarding the place of occurrence, that there was delay in giving Ex. P. 1 at the Police Station, delay in Ex. P. 1 reaching the court and contradictions between the evidence of P. W s. 1 and 2. The learned counsel also urged that in view of the acquittal of A2 and A3, the petitioner also has to be acquitted. ( 8 ) THE learned Public Prosecutor was also heard. ( 9 ) THE question that arises for consideration is whether the order of the court below suffers from any illegality or impropriety or error so as to call for interference by this court under its revisional jurisdiction. ( 10 ) THE occurrence has taken place at 6. 30 P. M. P. W. 1 is the victim. P. W. 2 is a corroborating witness. Both the courts below had found the evidence of P. Ws. 1 and 2 acceptable. The learned counsel would point out that while in Ex. ( 10 ) THE occurrence has taken place at 6. 30 P. M. P. W. 1 is the victim. P. W. 2 is a corroborating witness. Both the courts below had found the evidence of P. Ws. 1 and 2 acceptable. The learned counsel would point out that while in Ex. P1 the scene is fixed with reference to the rice mill of Parvathi Ammal as being on the road, the evidence of P. W. 1 would indicate that the occurrence was in the field of P. W. 1. I am unable to see any such discrepancy as pointed out by the learned counsel. In evidence, P. W. 1 has stated that he was returning alone his field when the altercation started. The occurrence is actually on the road near the rice mill of Parvathi Ammal. It is true that there is some delay in Ex. P. 1 being given at the police station. Delay by itself would never be a ground for acquittal. It would only call for a greater scrutiny of the evidence of the witnesses. P. W. 1 had sustained a serious injury on the leg resulting in a fracture of I, one of the bones in the leg. One cannot, therefore, expect P. W. 1 to spring to action to go to the police station. The delay in Ex. P. 1 reaching the court of the Magistrate also cannot have any undue significance. The offence was only one under section 326 of the Indian Penal Code and iris common knowledge that such First Information Reports are not sent by express. Further, P. W. 1 has been seen by the medical officer immediately. The two co-accused had been acquitted since there had been no serious corresponding injury. As far as the petitioner is concerned there is not only an injury but also a fracture. It was only on the question of the benefit of doubt that the caucused had been acquitted. While so, it cannot be contended that the present petitioner also must be acquitted. Both the courts had found the evidence of P. Ws. 1 and 2 worthy of acceptance to base a conviction. I see no error in the appreciation of evidence. The conviction is confirmed. The sentence being very lenient is also confirmed. ( 11 ) THE petitioner would be entitled to the benefit of G. O. Ms. Both the courts had found the evidence of P. Ws. 1 and 2 worthy of acceptance to base a conviction. I see no error in the appreciation of evidence. The conviction is confirmed. The sentence being very lenient is also confirmed. ( 11 ) THE petitioner would be entitled to the benefit of G. O. Ms. No. 180 Home (Prisons IV) Department, dated 28-1-1989 and G. O. Ms. No. 781 Home (P. R. and C) Department dated, 11-4-1990, both passed by the Government of Tamil Nadu under section 432 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Each Government Order gives a remission of imprisonment for a period of six, months to convicted persons. The petitioner would be entitled to the benefit of both the Government Orders. The fine has already been paid. Since the entire sentence of imprisonment stands remitted, under anyone of the Government Orders mentioned above, it is needless for the petitioner to surrender to custody. ( 12 ) WITH this observation about the remission of the sentence, this dismissed. ordered accordingly.