Honble DAVE, J.—This appeal is directed against the judgment of learned Addl. Sessions Judge No.2, Alwar, Camp at Behror, dated 22nd, June, 1984, whereby he convicted and sentenced the accused -appellant as under : — For offences-Under S. 333 IPC: two years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 50/-. In default of payment of fine to further undergo one months rigorous imprisonment, and Under S. 332 IPC-six months rigorous imprisonment. (2) Brief facts giving rise to this appeal are that a report was lodged at Police Station, Mandal, Distt. Alwar by one Hookam Singh, P.W.2, who was acting as a Head Master of Government Secondary School, Doomroli, on that day. It was alleged in the report that at about 2.40 p.m. in the day, he came to the school and found that exchange of abuses and beating was going on and a threatening was being given to see the out-side the school and because of this the discipline was spoiled. The accused-appellant came with a lathi and inflicted injury on the person of Vishambhar Dayal, and when the complainant Hookam Singh, wanted to intervene, he also received a blow on his hand. The accused- appellant had threatened all the staff with dire consequences. On this report, the S.H.O. Police Station, Mandal, District Alwar, interrogated Vishambhar Dayal, who had taken the report to him. Vishambhar Dayal, told the S.H.O. that accused Satypal, had given a slap on his face which was not apparently visible. He how- ever, registered the case for offences under Ss. 332 and 353 IPC. Hookam Singh, Vishambhar Dayal and Hari Singh, were medically examined and the Doctor, found a fracture on the right metacorple bone of Hookam Singh and therefore, the case was altered into S. 333 IPC. It is pertinent to mention here that the medical examination of the accused-appellant was also got done on the evening of 4.03.1983 and four injuries were found on his person. (3) After investigation, a charge sheet was submitted in the Court of learned Munsiff and Judl. Magistrate, Behror. Since the offence was under Section 333 IPC it was committed to the Court of Sessions and tried by learned Addl. Sessions Judge, No.2, Alwar. The prosecution examined eleven witnesses in support of its case and produced equal number of documents. Accused-appellant did not lead any evidence. The trial court found the accused-appellant guilty for offences under Ss. Magistrate, Behror. Since the offence was under Section 333 IPC it was committed to the Court of Sessions and tried by learned Addl. Sessions Judge, No.2, Alwar. The prosecution examined eleven witnesses in support of its case and produced equal number of documents. Accused-appellant did not lead any evidence. The trial court found the accused-appellant guilty for offences under Ss. 332 and 333 IPC and convicted and sentenced him as indicated above. Aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment, this appeal is filed. (4) It is contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that in this case the first information report has been drawn on 4.03.1983 at 11.15 a.m. and thus it is inordinately delayed by 22 hours. It is submitted that this case has been levelled against the accused-appellant as a defence to the Head Master who by taking law in his own hand and inflicted injuries on the person of the accused who has sustained as many as four injuries and which had not been explained by him in the first information report. Assuming for a moment that the first information report was lodged on the same day as is shown in (Ex-P3) at 6.30 p.m. then too this is a report which has been drawn during the course of investigation and therefore, the report hits Section 162 Cr.P.C. It is submitted that the I.O. has not been examined in this case which has caused serious prejudice to the appellant in as much as he would have explained the circumstances better since he himself had been in the school on that particular day. It is submitted that the case of the police was that when the report was given to the S.H.O. Police Station, Mandal, by Vishambhar Dayal he immediately left for the spot and since there was no conveyance available, the report was taken down on the next day. It is also submitted that there is a variance between the main report and the report which has been taken down and this could only be explained by the I.O. who appeared before the Court. It is submitted that except Hookam Singh and Vishambhar Dayal, there are no other witnesses who have supported the prosecution case and their statements are inconsistent on material points. It is submitted that except Hookam Singh and Vishambhar Dayal, there are no other witnesses who have supported the prosecution case and their statements are inconsistent on material points. (5) Learned Public Prosecutor, submits that in this case there is over-whelming evidence to support the prosecution story to the extent that the incident took place in the school where both the parties sustained injuries. The injury reports of the complainant party as well as the accused-appellant clearly go to show that the incident had taken place and if the incident took place in the school where the Head Master, sustained the injury, his statement should be relied upon. (6) I have given my due consideration to the rival contentions made by the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the entire record of the case. The learned Judge, has based his conviction on the testimony of P.W.2, Hookam Singh, as corroborated by P.W.3, Vishambhar Dayal and the medical injury report. He has discarded the arguments advanced before him regarding non-examination of the I.O. and about lack of corroboration by independent witnesses. (7) In this case, it cannot be lost sight of that the incident did take place in the School in the noon of 3.03.1983. Unfortunately, the Head Master who lodged the report did not bring out with the entire story in the written report which he addressed to the S.H.O. Police Station, Mandal. In fact, in his enthusiasm in writing the report, he did not even mention the name of the accused in the body of the complaint. On the contrary, the narration gives the impression otherwise. However, that is not very material. The incident took place in the open compound of the school. The prosecution case as developed subsequently was that Shri Krishna Dutta Sharma, was the Head Master of the School but on that day he had gone on some official work. In the after noon of 3.03.1983 at 2.40 p.m. accused came to the school and went to the office and demanded refund of money by the clerk concerned, which was not refunded to him as there was no Head Master. On this some verbal duel between the accused-appellant and the clerk concerned. The Clerk asked the peon Vishambhar Dayal to push the accused out and asked the accused to go to the Incharge Head Master, if he is in hurry. On this some verbal duel between the accused-appellant and the clerk concerned. The Clerk asked the peon Vishambhar Dayal to push the accused out and asked the accused to go to the Incharge Head Master, if he is in hurry. Accused-appellant Satyapal, therefore, it is said, went to the Head Master, who was in the compound, who also told him to come when the Head Master returns. On which accused-appellant started given abuses to him and Shiv Prasad. Hookam Singh, thereupon asked the peon to turn him out, on which accused gave a slap on the face of Vishambhar Dayal, then wanted to beat him with a lathi. Hookam Singh, wanted to intervene therefore, this lathi landed on his hand resulting in the injury. (8) Hookam Singh, admitted in the cross-examination that he was reading News paper in the compound of school at that point of time and he sustained injury not as a result of voluntary infliction of injury but while intervening. He also admitted that the other witnesses had come after Vishambhar Dayal, was already given slap. He also admitted that the Sub-Inspector of Police had also come within 2 to 3 hours. He also admitted that accused had sustained injuries on his person but how he sustained the injuries he does not know. He showed his ignorance as to whether the accused-appellant was the student in the school or not. He admitted that he does not know what had transpired between the clerk and the accused, he had only heard the noise. He denied the suggestion of beating the accused and lodging the report as a defence. He also denied the suggestion that when he was trying to hit the accused, his hand collided against the wall and he sustained injuries. Vishambhar Dayal, P.W.3, has also given the same story in his examination-in-chief but according to the cross -examination, there was an altercation and scuffle between him and the accused and also between Hari Singh, Sher Singh and the accused. He stated that the accused was asked to sit there and he was sent to call the police. He stated that he had not seen any injury on the person of the accused-appellant though he admitted that he had scuffled with the accused. He stated that the accused was asked to sit there and he was sent to call the police. He stated that he had not seen any injury on the person of the accused-appellant though he admitted that he had scuffled with the accused. (9) P.W.4, Mahipal, who was U.D.C. in the school to whom the accused had gone for taking the money but this witness has been declared hostile as he has not supported the story of accused giving injuries to Vishambhardayal or the Head Master. (10) Amar Singh, P.W.5, who is a teacher in the School has not supported the story of accused beating Vishambhar Dayal or Hookam Singh. Same is the case of Shiv Dayal, P.W.6. (11) P.W.8, Hari Singh, is yet another peon of the school who stated that there was an altercation that the accused had come to take his money in the school but it was not returned and therefore, he had not exchange of words with Hookam Singh and when Vishambhar Dayal, came they scuffled and he separated them. He has stated that he has not seen the accused inflicting any injury on Hookam Singh. In cross-examination, he has reiterated that he has not seen any injury being inflicted on the person of Hookam Singh and so far as Vishambhar Dayal and Satyapal, there was an altercation between the two. (12) P.W.9, Dr. Suresh Chandra Meena, who has proved the injury on the person of Hookam Singh. He had also medically examined Vishambhar Dayal but he did not find any injury on his person. He however, proved the injury report (Ex.-D1) of the accused who had four injuries on his person. The last relevant witness is P.W.10, Sher Singh, another teacher in the school who has also not supported the story given by Hookam Singh. (13) A perusal of the evidence shows that there is total lack of evidence to the effect that accused inflicted any injury on the person of Hookam Singh much less one which could come, under S. 333 IPC. Hookam Singh himself did not say that accused caused voluntary hurt on his person. (13) A perusal of the evidence shows that there is total lack of evidence to the effect that accused inflicted any injury on the person of Hookam Singh much less one which could come, under S. 333 IPC. Hookam Singh himself did not say that accused caused voluntary hurt on his person. His own case is that when Vishambhar Dayal, and accused were fighting, accused aimed lathi on Vishambhar Dayal, he sustained this injury while saving Vishambhar Dayal but this is not Vishambhar Dayals case and all other witnesses are categorically saying that no injury worth the name was inflicted on Hookam Singh, by the accused-appellant. I have no reason to disbelieve the witnesses though they have turned hostile as if properly Hookam Singhs statement would have been read by the trial court, there was no occasion to arrive at a conclusion that the accused ever caused voluntary hurt on the person of Hookam Singh. There is no medical corroboration to the injury sustained by Vishambhar Dayal. On the contrary, there are injuries on the person of the accused-appellant which have not been explained by the prosecution. Not only that the prosecution withheld that fact from bringing it before the Court but the entire investigation had taken place subsequent to the police arrived at the place of occurrence. The incident alleged to have taken place at 2.30 p.m. and according to Hookam Singh, the police arrived within two hours but the first information report had been recorded on the next day at 11.30 a.m. i.e. after 22 hours. Even if it is assumed that the report was taken down at 6.30 p.m. it hits Section 162 of the Code of Criminal Procedure as it was during the course of investigation that it had been taken down. In the light of the statement of P.W.2, Hookam Singh himself, according to whose statement police had started an enquiry about the incident in the school at 4.30 p.m. or 5.00 p.m. It is in this back-ground that it was essential to have examined the I.O. in the case, which has not been produced for the reasons best known which in my opinion has caused serious prejudice to the case of the accused. By preponderance probability, there appears to be some truth for what was the cause set-up in the cross-examination that the accused was given beating and in order to save their own skin, a report had been lodged in the Police Station as a defence. Be that as it may the prosecution has failed to prove the case beyond all manners of reasonable doubt and the benefit of doubt is extended to the accused-appellant. (14) The result of the aforesaid discussions is that the appeal is allowed. The conviction and sentence of the accused appellant Satyapal, is set aside. He is acquitted of all the charges. He is on bail and need not surrender his bail bonds.