G. S. N. TRIPATHI, J. ( 1 ) IIND Addl. Sessions Judge, Jaunpur, vide his judgment and order dated 25-4-1979 passed in s. T. No. 276 of 77, State v. Achchaiber convicted the accused Sardar on a charge under Section 147, IPC and sentenced him to undergo one years R. I. He further convicted him on a charge under Sections 325/149, IPC and sentenced him to undergo 2 years R. I. He was acquitted on a charge under Section 452, IPC. The accused Jairam was sentenced to undergo R. I. for a period of one year on a charge under Section 148, IPC and one years R. I. on a charge under Sections 325/149, I. P. C. Accused Faujdar was sentenced to one years R. I. on a charge under Section 148, i. P. C. and one years R. I. on the charge under Sections 325/149, IPC. All the sentences of all the accused were ordered to run concurrently. All the accused were acquitted on a charge under section 452, IPC. ( 2 ) THE convicted accused Jairam, Faujdar and Sardar preferred this appeal against the order of their conviction and sentence. The State has not filed any appeal against the acquittal of the accused on a charge under Section 452, IPC. ( 3 ) THE prosecution case started on the basis of an F. I. R. lodged by Meghai, P. W. 1. He has alleged that on 6-7-1976 at about 8 a. m. , the accused Faujdar, Jairam, Bachau, armed with spears and Achchaiber and Sardar armed with lathis raided the house of Moti Lal, P. W. 2 Moti had litigated against the accused in respect of a piece of land over which he got decree in his favour from the consolidation courts and raised his construction, thereon. He was using this house as his residential one. The accused asked Moti to vacate the house. Moti resisted by stating that he had won the case in the courts and he was not in a position to vacate the house. Thereupon, Jairam and Faujdar exhorted other accused to murder him. Thereupon, all the accused pounced upon moti, who fled towards his house for saving his life. He wanted to bolt himself from inside but the accused chased him and brought him from there. They assaulted him with their weapons outside the house. Thereupon, Jairam and Faujdar exhorted other accused to murder him. Thereupon, all the accused pounced upon moti, who fled towards his house for saving his life. He wanted to bolt himself from inside but the accused chased him and brought him from there. They assaulted him with their weapons outside the house. Alarm was raised, hearing which, the complainant P. W. 3 Nokhai and others arrived there. Thereupon the accused retreated. Moti was in a very serious condition. So he was brought to the hospital at Jaunpur. There he was medically examined and was also admitted. His injuries were very serious in nature. After settling Moti in the Hospital properly, the complainant went to the court and got the F. I. R. scribed. Thereupon he lodged the same at police station Sarai khawja at 18. 15 p. m. after negotiating a distance of 6 miles. ( 4 ) MOTI was medically examined on the same day at 10. 40 a. m. He had received four incised wounds caused by spear and seven other wounds caused by lathis including lacerations etc. details of which find place in the judgment of the learned lower court. Hence they are not being repeated. ( 5 ) THE I. O. inspected the spot, recovered the blood stained and ordinary earth from the spot and kept them in separate containers and sealed them, prepared memos, interrogated the witnesses, prepared site plan concluded the investigation and laid the charge-sheet, against the accused. ( 6 ) THE prosecution examined the complainant Meghai, P. W. 1. He has narrated the entire prosecution story as contained in the F. I. R. ( 7 ) P. W. 2 Moti Lal is the injured person. He too has reiterated the same story. ( 8 ) P. W. 3 Nokhai is an outsider. He was grazing his cattle nearby. He heard the alarm and rushed towards the place of occurrence and saw the incident with his own eyes. ( 9 ) OTHER evidence is formal in nature. ( 10 ) DR. Udai Singh has proved the injury report prepared by him and also the X-ray report to the effect that there was a fracture in the bone of the injured Moti on his right leg. He has further opined that the injuries 7, 8, 9 and 10 could have been caused by spear and others by lathis. ( 10 ) DR. Udai Singh has proved the injury report prepared by him and also the X-ray report to the effect that there was a fracture in the bone of the injured Moti on his right leg. He has further opined that the injuries 7, 8, 9 and 10 could have been caused by spear and others by lathis. They were fresh and could have been caused at about 8 a. m. on the same day. The only suggestion made to him was that the injuries could have been received even at about 4 or 5 a. m. on the same day. Injury Nos. 7, 8, 9 and 10 could have been caused even by a fall on a pointed glass piece and injuries Nos. 1 to 4 could have been received by a fall on bricks. ( 11 ) P. W. 7 Triloki Nath Tewari, Constable prepared the chik and G. D. entries, P. W. 6 Daya ram, C. W. 1 Udai Pratap Singh are the Investigating Officers. ( 12 ) THE accused in their statements under Section 313, Cr. P. C. , have generally denied the allegations against them and have said that on account of litigation/ enmity, they have been falsely implicated in this case. The accused have led no evidence in their defence. ( 13 ) IT is relevant to note that in the F. I. R. as many as 5 persons had been named as accused namely, Jairam Achchaiber Bachau, Faujdar and Sardar. Bachau died before the trial began. Achchaiber died during the course of the trial. Jairam died during the pendency of this appeal. Only Faujdar and Sardar accused appellants are before this Court, as the cases against the other accused, as noted above, have abated. ( 14 ) THE learned lower court after appraisal of the entire evidence and circumstances on the record, found that the prosecution case was credible. He convicted the accused and sentenced them as noted above. ( 15 ) FEELING aggrieved, the accused have filed this appeal I have heard learned counsel for the parties at stretch and gone through the record. I find that there is no force in this appeal and it deserves to be dismissed except to the extent that some liniency may be shown in the sentence. ( 15 ) FEELING aggrieved, the accused have filed this appeal I have heard learned counsel for the parties at stretch and gone through the record. I find that there is no force in this appeal and it deserves to be dismissed except to the extent that some liniency may be shown in the sentence. ( 16 ) THE fact that Moti was injured on 6-7-1976 at about 8 a. m. is proved by the evidence of Dr. Udai Singh, P. W. 4. That there was a fracture in the fibuls bone of the victim in the right leg, is also proved by him. Other injuries were simple except one. Injuries Nos. 7, 8, 9 and 10 could have been caused by a spear and other injuries by lathis. They could have been caused at about 8 a. m. on the same day. On all these points there has been virtually no cross-examinations. The suggestions made to Dr. Singh that they could have been caused at about 4 or 5 a. m. or by a fall on a pointed glass piece or bricks are there no doubt but the implied meaning of this suggestion is that the factum of injuries has not been challenged. When Moti Lal and other eye-witnesses entered the witness box and were available for cross-examination, these suggestions were not made to them, specifically to Moti, the victim. So mere suggestion is not a substitute for evidence, Hence it is established from the medical evidence given by Dr. Singh that Moti had received those injuries as found by him. Apart from the statement of Dr. Singh, P. W. 1 Meghai and P. W. 2 Moti Lal the injured person and Nokhi, P. W. 3 have also deposed about the factum of injuries and the weapons used by the different accused. It is important to note that the injuries, their time, their nature etc. were not challenged when Meghai and Moti Lal were in the witness box, nor any suggestion has been made to them that they could have been caused otherwise. No explanations of these injuries were offered or volunteered. So the learned lower Court has rightly concluded that the injuries caused to Moti were caused at about 8 a. m. on 6-7-1976, meaning thereby that it was a broad-day-light incident. No explanations of these injuries were offered or volunteered. So the learned lower Court has rightly concluded that the injuries caused to Moti were caused at about 8 a. m. on 6-7-1976, meaning thereby that it was a broad-day-light incident. ( 17 ) THE fact that there was an enmity due to litigation between Moti and the accused is not disputed, because in their statement under Section 313, Cr. P. C. the accused have said that they have been implicated on account of enmity. What was the enmity has not been specified. But p. W. 1 Meghai and P. W. 2 Moti have clarified the nature of enmity. With regard to said land, there was a litigation between the parties. The court gave a verdict in favour of Moti Lal. He constructed his house over a piece of land and had been residing therein for over 13 years. So the factum of enmity which took the shape of motive in this case was there. These two witnesses have not been challenged on the point of motive against Moti so far the accused are concerned. The accused belong to one family. Jairam and Achchaiber are real brothers. Phaujdar and Sardar are sons of Jairam. Bachau is the son of Achchaiber accused. Therefore all these accused had a common motive and therefore, they could join a common platform against Moti. So all of them had a strong motive to teach a lesson to Moti or to forcibly take possession over a piece of land, which had been given to him by the courts. Therefore, the prosecution has succeeded in proving the factum of motive against the accused which induced them to commit this crime. ( 18 ) AS regards the factum of incident, I find that Moti Lal and his brother Meghai have given a photographic description of the manner in which the accused came and assaulted Moti. Despite a very lengthy cross-examination, both these witnesses have been proved to be correct eye witnesses and they have given an account of the incident which they saw with their own eyes. Moti Lal is the injured person. He had an opportunity to see the performance of the accused, who were known to him from before. So as the case with Meghai, P. W. 1. Moti Lal is the injured person. He had an opportunity to see the performance of the accused, who were known to him from before. So as the case with Meghai, P. W. 1. It is difficult to believe that somebody else might have caused the injuries and the real culprits have been concealed and in their place, some fake enemies have been implicated. It is against the rule of nature. When the victims or the witnesses who are close to him had an opportunity to identify the real culprits, they will certainly not screen them away and substitute them by innocent persons. Such cases have come to the notice of the courts where along with real culprits some innocent persons have also been implicated. But these cases have yet to see the light of the day, when totally innocent persons have been substituted for real culprits. Therefore, the argument advanced by the learned counsel does not serve will. It is accordingly rejected. ( 19 ) I find that both these witnesses have given a correct version of the occurrence. Both had opportunity to see the accused. Several attempts were made to dislodge Meghai and place him at a distance from where he could not see the incident. But the witness has faired well and has gone unscathed. At page 3 in the cross-examination, he states that when he reached near the place, mar-pit had started. He saw the entire incident with his own eyes. He has described the weapons used by different accused in committing this crime. Therefore, it is established that Meghai is giving a correct version of the occurrence because he saw the accused committing this crime. Simply because he happens to be the brother of victim, his testimony cannot be ignored. He is the person who brought the injured to the hospital without delay. Further, he moved the machinery of law by lodging the FIR. He gave a statement before the I. O. as well. Under these circumstances, it cannot be said that he is not reliable. ( 20 ) MOTI Lal has named all the accused, who came to assault him and further he has said that they had assaulted him and asked him to vacate his field, which he refused. Thereafter, he says that seeing the accused, he tried to run away. Under these circumstances, it cannot be said that he is not reliable. ( 20 ) MOTI Lal has named all the accused, who came to assault him and further he has said that they had assaulted him and asked him to vacate his field, which he refused. Thereafter, he says that seeing the accused, he tried to run away. But before he could bolt from inside, he was chased and taken back by the accused and they assaulted him. After receiving injuries on his leg, he became unconscious. The learned counsel laid much stress upon this statement and argued that he was not in a position to see the marpit with his own eyes. It is difficult to entertain such an argument. He has named all the accused, who came and assaulted him. These were the persons who abused him first and asked him to vacate the place, which he refused. They chased him and brought him from his house, where he wanted to make himself secure. Thereafter the assault started. This way the involvement of accused is established beyond any doubt from the testimony of Moti Lal himself. He has clearly admitted at the 2nd page that he could not describe as to who assaulted him first and what was the performance of other individual accused. But he is very sure about involvement of all the accused. He further says that all the accused snatched him away from his house. Jai Ram caught him with collar. Sardar was the first person to wield lathi upon him. Thereafter, he fell down and became unconscious. This way, I find that he has given a pictorial description of the incident that took place. ( 21 ) IT was suggested to him that at the behest of Lorkhar a false case has been launched. But the witness has denied it. Moreover, this suggestion is totally imaginary as the accused themselves did not state so in their statements under Section 313, Cr. P. C. So mere suggestion has no meaning and it has to be unceremoniously rejected as has been done by the learned lower court. ( 22 ) THIS way, from the statements of Meghai and Moti Lal, the prosecution case is proved to the hilt. A cementing force has been added by the statement of P. W. 3 Nokhai. P. C. So mere suggestion has no meaning and it has to be unceremoniously rejected as has been done by the learned lower court. ( 22 ) THIS way, from the statements of Meghai and Moti Lal, the prosecution case is proved to the hilt. A cementing force has been added by the statement of P. W. 3 Nokhai. He is independent person having no grudge against the accused nor having any soft corner for the prosecution. He was grazing his cattle nearly when he heard the alarm, he proceeded towards the place of occurrence and saw the accused committing assault. He also knew the accused from before. Therefore, there was no difficulty in identifying them correctly. Efforts were made to prove that he could not see the incident because he belonged to another village. But he has given a categorical reply to all the questions, meaning thereby, he is not speaking on the basis of imagination but whatever he says is the product of his eye witness account. Learned lower court has scanned his evidence correctly and has drawn a correct conclusion. This way, I find that the statement of Mokhai is a very valuable piece of evidence in the armoury of the prosecution and it has given a robust support to the statements of P. W. 1 and P. W. 2. This way, he is a reliable witness. ( 23 ) I find that there is sufficient explanation for the delay in the FIR. The condition of Moti Lal was very serious. He was admitted in the hospital. He had as many as four incised wounds. So the first consideration of any person related to the victim is to lodge such a person in the hospital and ensure his survival. It is only after securing this facility that one thinks above moving machinery of law by lodging the report. This is what Meghai, P. W. 1 has done in this case. He has frankly admitted that at about 2. 30 or so, he reached the Collectorate, Jaunpur and get the fir scribed from a clerk of a counsel and thereafter, he went to the police station and lodged the report. So the explanation is credible. There is nothing unnatural in it. Hence the prosecution case does not suffer from the so called defect of delayed F. I. R. in this case. So the explanation is credible. There is nothing unnatural in it. Hence the prosecution case does not suffer from the so called defect of delayed F. I. R. in this case. The F. I. R. contains all the ingredients of the case in synopsis and has immense corroborative value. ( 24 ) AFTER a thread-base analysis of the entire evidence and circumstances on the record, I find that the prosecution case is proved beyond a shadow of reasonable doubt and the judgment and order passed by the learned lower court deserves to be upheld. ( 25 ) NOW the question of sentence crops up. Unfortunately, out of 5 accused, only two, namely, faujdar and Sardar are left. Other three accused have died at different stages as noted above. The crime took place on 6-7-1976. The accused are not proved professional and hardened criminals. They have no anterior conviction to their credit. Taking all these factors into consideration, the sentence should be reduced. ( 26 ) THE sentence is accordingly modified. Accused Sardar is hereby sentenced to undergo 4 months R. I. on a charge under Section 147, I. P. C. and 6 months R. I. on the charge under sections 325/149, I. P. C. Faujdar is sentenced to undergo 6 months R. I. on the charge under section 148, I. P. C. and further 6 months R. I. on the charge under Sections 325/149, I. P. C. All the sentences of both the accused shall run concurrently. ( 27 ) THE appeal is substantially dismissed. The order of conviction is upheld. However, the sentence is reduced as noted above. ( 28 ) THE accused are on bail. Their bail bonds and surety bonds are cancelled. They shall be taken into custody forthwith by the C. J. M. concerned, who shall submit a compliance report within a month from today. .