Judgment : The accused 1 to 3 are the revision petitioners herein were tried by the learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Kovilpatti on the charges framed against the accused 1 and 2 for the offence under See.341, I.P.C. and for third accused for an offence under Sec.326, I.P.C. for having the accused 1 and 2 restrained P.W.1, Veluchami from moving anywhere by standing in front and the back and allowed the third accused to cut with his palai aruval on the head and on the right cheek etc., on P.W.1 and thereby caused grievous injuries and that after full trial all the accused were found guilty of the charges framed against them and that thereupon the Pest and second accused were fined to a sum of Rs 300 each for the offence under Sec.341, I.P.C. and in default of which to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month and for the third accused found guilty of the offence under Sec.326, I.P.C. and thereby sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years and to pay a fine of Rs.500 and that in default of which to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two months and that on payment of the fine all the accused preferred appeal against the said finding of conviction and sentence in Crl.A.No.79 of 1987 before the learned II Additional Sessions Judge, Tirunelveli and that on appraising and reconsidering the entire recorded oral and documentary evidence during the trial, the lower appellate court has concurred with the findings and sentence recorded by the learned trial Magistrate and that thereupon confirmed the findings recorded against all the accused. Aggrieved with the same, the present revision is filed by all the accused. 2. The case of prosecution in brief are as follows: At about 2.00 P.M. on 30.12.1982, in front of the house of P.W.l situate in the village of Kilnat-tukurichi, within the jurisdiction of Puthur Police Station Crime No.219 of 1982, while P.W.1 was there all the accused came and the accused 1 and 2caught hold of P.W.1 by standing one in his front and another behind his back and thereby restrained him from moving and that consequently the third accused with a palai aruval in his hand cut P.W.1 on his head, right cheek etc. and thereby caused bleeding injuries and this was witnessed by P.Ws.2 and 3. and thereby caused bleeding injuries and this was witnessed by P.Ws.2 and 3. After the transaction was over, all the accused with their weapon of offence went away and that this was happened due to the enmity existed between the accused and P.W.l due to the cutting of fuel in the poramboke land long prior to the date of occurrence and that even on the day of occurrence he was storing the cut fuel in front of his house and that in connection with that the occurrence had happened. Then with the help of one Madasami P.W.l reached the Puthur Police Station, which is situated at about 18 kilometres away from the scene of occurrence and gave an oral complaint to P.W.6, Sub Inspector of Police who was available at that time and to his narration, the complaint was reduced into writing, read over to P.W.l and explained to him as admitted. He put his signature on the right hand side in the presence of Madasami, who happened to attest the same and which has been marked as Ex.P-1, and the same was duly registered by P.W.6 against the accused 1 to 3 under Secs.341 and 326, I.P.C. in Puthur Police Station Crime No.219 of 1982 and that thereafter he took up investigation and sent P.W.l to the Government Hospital, Aruppukot-tai on the police memo for treatment of the injuries inflicted on the body of P.W.l and then proceeded to the place of occurrence and prepared observation Mahazar Ex.P-2 and rough sketch Ex.P-5 and then he recovered the fuel wood under the cover of M.O.I and then proceeded to the hospital. He examined the Doctor, P W.5, who attended the injuries on P.W.l. In this context P.W.6examined P.Ws.2 and 3 and other witnesses and then the Doctor who treated the injuries on P.W.l and other witnesses and sent all the case records and properties to the court on the next day i.e., on 312. 1982. In the course of investigation P.W.6 also recovered M.O.3 blood stained dhothi of P.W.l in the hospital, and M.O.2 iron axe under Ex.P-3 and the same has been attested by witnesses and P.W.7 took up further investigation and laid charge sheet on 12. 1983. 3. P.W.5, the Doctor attached with the Government Hospital, Aruppukottai attended on P.W.l at about 10.00 p.m. on the day of occurrence; found the following injuries: “1. 1983. 3. P.W.5, the Doctor attached with the Government Hospital, Aruppukottai attended on P.W.l at about 10.00 p.m. on the day of occurrence; found the following injuries: “1. A cut injury over right parietal region 2” length cutting into the bone. 2. A cut injury over the right side of the face 2" length 1/2 1/2 depth. 3. A cut injury 2” length x 11/2" depth below the angle of right side of mandible. 4. A cut injury 11/2” length 11/2" depth above the lateral third of right claricle. 5. A linear stein abrasion 2” length over the top of right shoulder. 6. A linear abrasion 1" length over dorsum of right forearm. 7. A cut injury 12” length over the base of right ring finger exposing the bone. 8. A cut injury 1" length over the dorsum of middle of right middle finger 1/2 cm depth.” The Doctor opined that injury No.1 is grievous and injury No.2 to 8 are simple in nature and issued a wound Certificate Ex.P-4. P.W.7 after taking further investigation verified the same and laid charge sheet against the accused 1 to 3 as stated above. 4. It appears from the judgment rendered by both Courts below, the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 in part and P.W.3, the eye witness to the said occurrence pertaining to the complicity of all the three accused in causing several injuries to P.W.l has been exhibited in full, though P.W.2 one of the eye witness has not supported the prosecution case in full but treated as hostile. The medical evidence given by P.W.5, the Doctor, who saw P.W.l at 10.00 p.m. on the day of occurrence, as was held by the Courts below renders full support and corroborates the account of eye witnesses in this case. It is seen further that it was the finding of both the courts below that within 21/2 hours from the time of occurrence P.W.l along with one’ Madasami was able to reach Puthur Police Station and gave complaint Ex.P-1 and thereby set the law in motion and consequently P.W.7 took up investigation and proceeded further and investigated the case, which was also accepted by both the courts below. 5. I have heard Mrs.Surya Selvaraj, the learned counsel for the revision petitioner No.3 and Thiru V.Gopinath, learned counsel for the revision petitioner 1 and 2. 5. I have heard Mrs.Surya Selvaraj, the learned counsel for the revision petitioner No.3 and Thiru V.Gopinath, learned counsel for the revision petitioner 1 and 2. The learned counsel for the third revision petitioner contends that the prose-cution case has to be thrown out for the simple reason firstly that though the alleged occurrence happened at about 2.00 p.m. on 30.12.1982 in front of the house of P.W.1, it was reported to the Puthur Police Station by 6.00p.m. and that evenso after setting the law in motion, the First Information Report, the complaint given by P.W.1, attested by another-Madasami, Ex.P-1 and the printed First Information Report Ex.P-2 prepared by P.W.7, has reached the Magistrate’s Court after four days, which amounts to inordinate delay clinching the fact that a long and considerable time was taken by the prosecution witnesses to implicate the accused in this case falsely, due to the existing motive among themselves and that consequently the name of accused 2 and 3 were not found place in Ex.P-1, a document which came into existence at earliest point of time and that therefore making the accused 2 and 3 get themselves involved in this case is only a subsequent implication made by the prosecution and that thirdly that inasmuch as P.W.5, the Doctor who treated P.W.1, though claims that injury No.1 with half fracture of bone was seen, no X-ray was taken out to prove the fracture, in the absence of any such material, both the courts below misconstrued the evidence of P.W.5 and thereupon brought the injuries one under the grievous nature, which is not correct under the eye of law: Lastly, the actual occurrence has not been properly spoken to by any independent witnesses and that even though P. W.2 claimed to have been one of the eye-witnesses, has not supported the prosecution and that therefore based on the above four points, the learned counsel for the third revision petitioner urged before me that the revision has to be allowed. 6. 6. Therefore Mr.V.Gopinath, learned counsel appearing for the first and second revision petitioners added further that his submission that though P.W.1 the injured and P.W.3, his wife, consistently claim that in the actual occurrence the first and the second accused held P.W.1 by standing one in his front and another behind his back by catching him, which facilitated the third accused to cut P.W.1 with his weapon of offence on several places, which aspect has not been properly appreciated by both Courts below in the sense that the very claim of P.W.1 and P.W.3 has not been looked into an analysed properly and that the learned counsel submits that even assuming the versions of claim of P.Ws.1 and 3 were true, then that aspect cannot be accepted for the simple reason that P.W.1 was simultaneously restrained by two persons, namely, first and second accused while standing one in his front and another behind his back, with both of his hands then facilitating the third accused to cut with his weapon of offence at the back and front of the head of P.W.1 is ultimately impossible and it is the common knowledge that the alleged overt acts of the first and the second accused not support the case of prosecu-. tion of P.Ws.1 and 3 and that therefore their claim became highly improbable, uninterested and so it cannot be accepted and that the finding of both the Courts below on the basis of the claim of P.Ws.1 and 3 had become vulnerable and liable to be set aside. 7.Per contra, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor Mr.R.Raghupathy, contends that this is a fit case in which it has to be seen that P.W.1 a rustic of Kilnattukurichi village has been inflicted with as many as eight injuries with the sharp edged palaiaruval by the third accused in the presence of accused 1 and 2 at about 2.00 p.m. on the day of occurrence and then with the bleeding injuries sustained, with the help of one Madasami, P.W.1 was able to reach Puthur and reported the matter to the Police Sub Inspector, P.W.7 at about 6.00 p.m. by crossing about 18 kilometres. In this context, I am able to see that there was no suggestion put to the witness P.W.1 that the consumption of four hours time to reach the Police Station which is situated about 18 kilometres from the place of occurrence even though there are transport facilities are available in the scene village. Therefore in lodging Ex.P-1 complaint four hours time could not be consumed and that therefore there was a delay by P.W.1 himself. But on the other hand, with the bleeding injuries caused to his body and with the help of one Madasami he was able to report this matter within four hours by crossing 18 kilometres by walk or otherwise and frequently set the law in motion by lodging the report Ex.P-1, which was duly registered by P.W.7, who had taken investigation. 8. At this juncture the learned counsel for the third accused Mrs.Surya Selvaraj, drew myatten-tion to the injuries found on the body of the third accused, which was accused by P.W.1, which was not taken into account in dealing with this matter. I cannot accept such arguments for the simple reason that P.W.1 who was inflicted with several injuries by a weapon like Aruval, and that even though with the bleeding injuries he was to cross a long distance of 18 kilometres with the help of one Madasami and lodged a complaint Ex.P-1 and that in such a situation one would understand that the vicinity of a man who narrates the occurrence proper may be with some minor deviations and that therefore this argument of the learned counsel cannot hold good and sustainable. This view of mine being verified by the evidence of P.W.5, the Doctor who treated and found injuries at about 10.00 p.m. in his hospital at Aruppukottai and described the same in Ex.P-4 wound certificate. The evidence of the doctor who issued the wound certificate is clinching and his opinion is that the injuries could have been caused by a sharp edged weapon like aruval, renders full support to the evidence of P.W.1. 9. The evidence of the doctor who issued the wound certificate is clinching and his opinion is that the injuries could have been caused by a sharp edged weapon like aruval, renders full support to the evidence of P.W.1. 9. In the context of the corroborative piece of evidence by the Doctor-P.W.5 available in support of the injured witness-P.W.1 has been clearly verified with the aided version of P.W.3, his wife, who claims to have been standing in front of her own house proceedings at that time of occurrence and that being the case it is not common and natural for any one to accept that the wife of P.W.1 shall be present in his house or standing in front of the house. On hearing the noise even at least on hearing the noise the wife may be or could have been definitely come out and witness the occurrence proper. Therefore nothing has been elicited or no material is available in this case to suspect the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.3, simply because they happened to be the husband and wife their specific version before the Court of law cannot be rejected or suspected in the context of the corroborating and supporting evidence given by P.W.5. Though P.W.2 turned hostile as he has not been supporting the case of prosecution, but for the reasons given by the learned trial Magistrate, I do not want to probe that matter further. 10. Coming to the main throng of attack devolved by the learned counsel for the third revision petitioner, namely the inordinate delay of four days in sending the First Information Report, I have perused the case records as well as the evidence let in by the prosecution and heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor. Though the learned trial Magistrate has given the reason that despite P.W.1 has reported the occurrence promptly to the Police and thereby set the law in motion Exs.P-1 and P-2 the First Information Report and the printed First Information Report was duly registered by P.W.6 on the day of occurrence and immediately the injured was sent to the hospital for treatment and consequently the injured was treated by P.W.5 at about 11.00 p.m. at Aruppukottai and Exs.P-1 and P-2 reached the Court only after four days with an endorsement of explanation for the inordinate delay of four days. No semblance of evidence was let in by the Investigating Officeror anattempt even was made by him to explain the delay of four days. Even though grave crime was involved in this case. It is plethora of authorities held by this Court as well as by the Apex Court that with a view to avoid the unnecessary criticism and provide room of embellishing the prosecution story implicating false persons in the criminal cases. It was the direction given to the investigating agency to send the First Information Report and other connected materials relating to the case immediately to the court of law as was conspicuously and particularly specified in the Police Standing Orders and this direction by the Court of Law has been reminded time and again repeatedly. In the instant case, the Investigating Officer has deliberately ignored all these directions and so indifferent in letting evidence on this aspect. If this deliberate attitude of the Investigating Officer is taken into account in assessing and identifying the culpability of the crime committed by the accused, then the real person affected by violence will have no remedy and that further which would result in suspecting the real culprit in this case. In this context the court is bound to condemn and depreciate the attitude of the Investigating Officer, namely, P.Ws.6 and 7 in not sending the First Information Report promptly to the Court of Law and that apart not even attempted to explain the delay while letting evidence in the court. But in this regard I have inclined to point out that the learned trial Magistrate has assumed things on the new prospect and thereby recorded the finding that non-sending of the First Inform »-tion Report Exs.P-1 and P-2 to the court after four days was due to the administrative lapses, which aspect has not been adverted to nor considered by the lower appellate court. Courts should always take care and peruse the records and tender evidence in the proper perspective and not assume things beyond its limit, if this being not followed I am afraid that justice may not be rendered in its proper perspective as laid down by the Apex Courts in very many number of cases. 11. However, the injured P.W.1 as I have already observed, reported to the police without any delay and promptly and set the law in motion. 11. However, the injured P.W.1 as I have already observed, reported to the police without any delay and promptly and set the law in motion. The delay in sending the same after the registration of the complaint to the court in my view will not cause an impair in the prosecution case in any manner. Considering the above aspect in respect of the delay of four days in sendingExs.P-1and P-2 to the Court of Law, since it was lodged and registered within four hours from the time of occurrence, I am fully satisfied to hold that the case of prosecution to the extent that the third accused indulged in violence on P.W.1 in causing several injuries and the prosecution has established the complicity of the third accused beyond all reasonable doubt. In this extent I am inclined to accept the findings recorded by the courts below. 12. As regards the complicity of the first and second accused the version of P.Ws.1 and 3 cannot be pleaded as the overt act alleged against them assumes no significance and became highly improbable in the context of practical reality. Except the claim of P.Ws.1 and 2 any other evidence or material are available pertaining to the complicity of the first and second accused to sustain the conviction of an offence under Sec.341, I.P.C., which is not impressive, because of the relationship that the second and third accused are happened to be the sons of the first accused taking advantage of the enmity existing between P.Ws.1 and 2 and the accused all the members of the family has been roped in subsequently by P.W.1. This view of mine being verified by the fact that no specific claim was made by P.W.1 in his report Ex.P-1. However having considered the entire evidence let in by the prosecution, more particularly by P.Ws.1 and 3, I am not inclined to accept the version of P.Ws.1 and 3 with regard to the complicity of the first and second accused for the offence charged against them and to this extent both the courts below are of the firm view and has not persuaded the evidence let in properly. 13. 13. Coming to the question of conviction and sentence for the third accused is concerned, for the reasons stated above, it is seen that P. W.5 has specifically claimed the half fracture of the bone was visible through injury No.1 found on the person of P.W.1 and that was being X-rayed. But admittedly no X-ray has been filed into court nor relied on in the context of the said claim made by P.W.5. It was well laid and accepted principle of law that the X-ray taken by the radiologist to sustain the nature of the injury is to be produced before a court of law and that evidence given by the Radiologist, the gravity and the nature of the injury has to be subscribed as clearly laid down under Sec.320 of the Indian Penal Code, but consequently no attempt has been made by prosecution in this case to let in any evidence on this score. Pertinent at this stage to note, even at the time of registering the complaint given by P. W.1 to P.W.6, the case was registered under Secs.341 and 326, I.P.C. In the context of the specific claim made by P.W.5, the Doctor and in the absence of any materials available to sustain the injury No.1 found in Ex.P-4 is of grievous nature without any material proof and on the failure to discharge the burden rests on the prosecution and having perused the case records and other evidence I am not inclined to accept the findings of both the Courts below in sustaining the conviction and sentence of the third accused under Sec.326 of the I.P.C. Here is the case whether P.W.1 was attacked with a sharp edged weapon by the third accused during the occurrence proper and accused as many as eight injuries as evidenced from Ex.P-4 it is not in evidence relied on by the prosecution that more than 15 days P.W.1 was inpatient in the hospital. Under such circumstances, I am not able to subscribe my view in conviction and sentence recorded by both the courts below, which would mean finding the third accused guilty of the offence under Sec.326, I.P.C. and sentence him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years cannot be sustained and has to be set aside. Under such circumstances, I am not able to subscribe my view in conviction and sentence recorded by both the courts below, which would mean finding the third accused guilty of the offence under Sec.326, I.P.C. and sentence him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years cannot be sustained and has to be set aside. But the several injuries found in Ex.P-4 as spoken to by P.W.5 has been clearly established by the prosecution, was caused by the third accused. Therefore, I am of the firm view that the culpability of the offence committed by the third accused squarely attracts the provisions as adumbrated in Sec.326, I.P.C. Thus having considered the entire case of prosecution and the oral and documentary evidence and the contentions raised by the learned counsels for the revision petitioners and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, I hereby convict the third accused for the offence under Sec.326, I.P.C. In the context of the occurrence happened as early as on 30.12.1982 and the third revision petitioner happened to undergo the ordeal of facing the trial into two courts below and then to this Court and considering the long passage of time, I am not inclined to impose any sentence of rigorous imprisonment against the third accused. In the circumstances, the imposing of sentence with regard to payment of fine of Rs.500 alone for the offence under Sec.326, I.P.C. against the third accused will meet the ends of justice, in this context. As was represented by the learned counsel for the third revision petitioner, he is on bail now and that accordingly he is set at liberty and his bail bond stands cancelled. 14. As regards the first and second accused are concerned, the conviction and sentence recorded by both courts below are set aside and they are set at liberty and the fine amount if paid are directed to be refunded to them immediately. With these directions, the revision is partly allowed and partly dismissed.