K. L. ISSRANI, J. ( 1 ) THE present revision petition arises to of the order of conviction passed by both the courts below. The applicant was originally tried for the offence under Section 326/149 I. P. C. , and also under Section 337 read with section 34 I. P. C. , along with the other accused Birsan Bhai. He was sentenced to undergo R. I. for 3 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/-, in default to undergo further R. I. for six months under Section 326 I. P. C. On appeal the sentence was altered. In turn of Section 326 I. P. C. , he was convicted under Section 324 I. P. C. and sentenced to undergo R. I. for a period of four months and pay a fine of Rs. 100/-, in default to further R. I. for one month. ( 2 ) THE submission of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the appellate court having disbelieved the evidence of the Doctor examined by the prosecution, he should have completely disbelieved him on all counts. Further submission is that there is enmity between the parties. The third submission is that there was delay in lodging the First Information Report. The fourth submission is that the version of the defence witness who was cited as a prosecution witness ought to have been believed. ( 3 ) THE learned counsel for the State refutes the arguments of the applicant and submits that the sentence passed against the applicant is proper and does not call for interference in revision petition. ( 4 ) SO far as the evidence of Doctor is concerned, the learned counsel for the applicant has pointed out para 7 of the lower appellate court judgment wherein he has disbelieved the report given by the Doctor which is too late. No doubt the lower appellate court has come to a finding that the defence argument that the opinion of the Doctor was given at a later stage to suit the prosecution cannot be ruled out. But the lower appellate court has not completely ignored it. On the contrary the report relied upon by the prosecution is based on the records which were neither written by the complainant nor were in his hands. Therefore, it cannot be said that not placing reliance by the lower appellate court on such report was wrong. But the lower appellate court has not completely ignored it. On the contrary the report relied upon by the prosecution is based on the records which were neither written by the complainant nor were in his hands. Therefore, it cannot be said that not placing reliance by the lower appellate court on such report was wrong. The discussion by the lower appellate court on such delayed reports is only for giving benefit to the accused for reducing the sentence passed by the Assistant Sessions Judge. Therefore, it cannot be said that the appellate court ought to have completely ignored the statement of the Doctor and the reports on record. So far as the delay in lodging First Information Report is concerned, it is a delay of 5 hours only. The submission of the learned counsel for the applicant is that the injured passed through the Police station but did not lodge the report first and went to the hospital. The submission of the learned counsel for the State on the point is that first-aid treatment was thought pr per by the injured. However, I find that the delay has been explained by the complainant which as been accepted by the courts below. No interference on such account is also called for. Regarding enmity, it is a double-edged weapon. It may be that due to enmity the accused had motive to cause injury on the person of the complainant. Regarding the version of defence it even goes against the accused also. According to the defence, the incident took place, but the injured person was the aggressor. He was having a sword in his hand and first attacked the accused. The accused only wanted to snatch away the sword. If that is believed, then the injury must have been caused in the hands of the accused and not in the hands of the injured person. The incident having been admitted it has also been admitted that the weapon used was the sword. Therefore, it cannot be said that the appellate court was wrong in convicting the accused, taking a lenient view under Section 324 I. P. C. , and sanctioning to undergo four months R. I. only. ( 5 ) IN view of as facts and circumstances of the case, no interference in the revision petition is called for. It is accordingly, dismissed. Appeal dismissed. .