R. K. DASH, J. ( 1 ) THIS appeal is directed against the judgment of the Assistant Sessions Judge, Keonjhar passed in Sessions Case No. 1121 36 of 1992 wherein he has convicted the accused, appellant herein, under sections 420, 364 and 307, I. P. C. and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years for the offence under section 307, I. P. C. , seven years rigorous imprisonment for the offence under section 364 and five years rigorous imprisonment for the offence under section 420, I. P. C. It has been ordered that all the sentences are to run concurrently. ( 2 ) THE prosecution case may briefly be stated thus: Accused is the maternal uncles son of Manorama Maharana, P. W. 5. Taking advantage of his relation, he influenced P. W. 5t husband Giridhari Maharana, P. W. 6 that if he arranges Rs. 7,000/- he could be able to get a job for his son Bijay. P. W. 6 agreeing to his proposal arranged money and paid him half of the amount demanded, where after he left with Bijay in the month of February 1992 and since then Bijayts where about is not known. When the accused was asked about Bijay he replied that he has gone on tour. In the month of May, 1992 a letter said to have been written by Bijay was received in which it was written that if a sum of Rs. 20,000/- is given to accused, he could also arrange a job for, his brother Ashok, P. W. 1. Two days after receipt of that letter, accused came to the house of P. W. 16 and asked for money. Since such huge amount was not immediately available, P. W. 6 arranged money and paid him Rs. 18,700/- in phases. On 19. 6. 1992 accused took Rs. 1,000/- from P. W. 6 and left for Bhubaneswar with P. W. 1 where both of them remained in Aristo Lodge. On 2. 1. 1992 accused gave P. W. 1 an impression that a bodyweight certificate would be required and to obtain such certificate his weight should be increased. So saying, he took him to Khandagiri hill where he administered him some powder with banana to increase his body weight After a while P. W. 1 felt reeling of head. On 2. 1. 1992 accused gave P. W. 1 an impression that a bodyweight certificate would be required and to obtain such certificate his weight should be increased. So saying, he took him to Khandagiri hill where he administered him some powder with banana to increase his body weight After a while P. W. 1 felt reeling of head. The accused then advised him to lie down and if he felt vomitting, he should not vomit or else the medicine might not work. Ultimately, P. W. 1 vomitted and sought for help. But by then the accused leaving him there had left the place. Some time after when P. W. 1 felt little better he climbed down the hill and came to Aristo Lodge where he found the accused absent so with the help of duplicate key of the Manager he unlocked the room and stayed for the night. Next day, keeping all his belongings with the Manager he took Rs. 25/- from him and returned back and narrated the whole incident to his father. On a written report being lodged to the Police a case was registered and after usual investigation, charge-sheet was laid against the accused to stand his trial. ( 3 ) THE plea of the accused was one of denial and false implication. ( 4 ) TO substantiate the charge, prosecution examined eight witnesses of whom P. W. 1 is the informant, P. W. 3 is a witness to certain seizures, P. W. 4 is a witness to alleged payment of certain P. W. 1, P. W. 7 is the proprietor of Aristo Lodge and P. W. 8 is the Investigating Officer. Learned trial court on an evaluation of the evidence of P. Ws. , believed the prosecution case and found accused guilty of the charges. Consequently, he convicted and sentenced the accused as hereinbefore stated. ( 5 ) SHRI Ganeswar Rath, learned counsel for the appellant challenging the correctness of the findings of the trial court contended that even accepting the prosecution case that the accused took money from P. W. 6 giving a false promise to arrange a job for his son, P. W. 1, but for that he cannot be held liable under section 420, I. P. C. According to the counsel, it is a civil liability for which necessary relief can only be had in the civil court. It is further submitted that the accused has been seriously prejudiced since no question was put to him while examining under section 313, Cr. P. C. regarding alleged abduction and therefore, conviction and sentence recorded against him under section 364, I. P. C. cannot be sustained. So far offence under section 307, I. P. C. is concerned, learned counsel argued that there is no clinching evidence that accused had attempted on the life of P. W. 1. Lastly he submitted that there was inordinate delay in lodging F. I. R. to the Police and the same having not been explained, prosecution case should be viewed with suspicion. ( 6 ) THE present case depicts a very sad story. As deposed to by P. Ws. 5 and 6, accused being maternal unclets S. O. R. of P. W. 5, came to their house in the month of December, 1991 and told them that if a sum of Rs. 7,000/- was arranged, he could get a clerical job for their elder son Bijay. P. W. 6 was initially not agreeing to the proposal. But somehow his wife could influence him whereupon he arranged a sum of Rs. 3,500/- and then went to the house of the accused with his wife and handed over him the amount. On 7. 2. 1992 accused left for Bhubaneswar with Bijay saying that he (Bijay) would undergo training there. On return from Bhubaneswar accused expressed before P. Ws. 5 and 6 that Bijay was comfortable there. The second incident which gave rise to the present case began when accused gave impression to P. Ws. 5 and 6 that a job had also been arranged for their second son Ashok, P. W. 1. It is in evidence of P. W. 5 that in phases accused took a sum of Rs. 18,700/- for the purpose. He also took photographs and certificates of P. W. 1 with him. After examination of P. W. 1 was over, he took P. W. 1 with him to Bhubaneswar. But on 3. 7. 1992 P. W. 1 returned back home and narrated as to how the accused attempted on his life after administering poison. Evidence of P. W. 6 runs in the manner as that of P. W. 5. After examination of P. W. 1 was over, he took P. W. 1 with him to Bhubaneswar. But on 3. 7. 1992 P. W. 1 returned back home and narrated as to how the accused attempted on his life after administering poison. Evidence of P. W. 6 runs in the manner as that of P. W. 5. ( 7 ) SUPPORTING the averments made in the F. I. R. , P. W. 1 has given a graphic picture as to how the accused cheated and then attempted to murder him. According to him, in June, 1992 accused came to his house, took Rs. 1,000/- from his father and asked him to accompany with him to Bhubaneswar. In good faith, he left for Bhubaneswar with accused where both of them stayed in Aristo Lodge. The accused then suggested that unless a job was arranged and he was engaged, both of them would have to stay at Bhubaneswar. While staying in the lodge accused left for Jaipur Road saying that he had some discussion with the General Manager, Ferro Chrome Plant. Two to three days thereafter he returned to the lodge and wanted him to accompany him to Khandagiri Hill. Before they started for the hill accused told him that he should take some medicine which he purchased for increase of his body weight as it was necessary for the job. To this P. W. 1 replied, he should take medicine at the lodge and then proceed to Khandagiri Hill. But accused did not agree saying that medicine should be taken immediately before body weight was taken. So saying, he took him to Khandagiri Hill. After reaching the hill accused gave him some powder which he took with a banana and about a minute after he experienced head reeling. The accused then advised him to lie down and not to vomit if he felt vomitting. He, however, felt burning sensation throughout his body and then vomitted. He felt $0 weak that he could not move about for which he called the accused for help; but the accused was not found near about. With much difficulty he climbed down the hill, took some water from nearby shop and with much difficulty returned to the lodge. In the lodge also he found accused absent and the room was locked. With the help of duplicate key he unlocked the room and stayed for the night. With much difficulty he climbed down the hill, took some water from nearby shop and with much difficulty returned to the lodge. In the lodge also he found accused absent and the room was locked. With the help of duplicate key he unlocked the room and stayed for the night. Next day morning he keeping his belongings with the manager took Rs. 25/- from him and returned to village. Reaching at home, he narrated the whole incident to his father. Search was made for the accused, but he was not found. At last on 6. 7. 1992 P. W. 1 lodged F. I. R. to the Police. ( 8 ) P. W. 4 is an independent witness who supports part of the prosecution case. As stated by him, accused visited the house of P. W. 6 about 6 to 7 days prior to Raja festival and took a sum of Rs. 6,000/- from him for arranging a job for his son. He would further say that 5 days after he saw the accused in the house of P. W. 6 and asked him as to what happened to the job of son of P. W. 6. To this accused replied that he had made all arrangements, but additional amount of Rs. 5,000/- would be required for the purpose. So he advised P. W. 6 to pay Rs. 5,000/- to the accused without any hesitation since now-a-days it is difficult to get a job. Accordingly P. W. 6 paid further sum of Rs. 5,000/- to the accused in his presence. On a cursory view of the evidence of P. Ws. 1,4,5 and 6 what transpires is that accused having given a false assurance to P. W. 6 that he could arrange a job for his son, P. W. 1 by giving bribe, took a large sum knowing well that he could not be able to arrange any job as promised. Had he not induced dishonestly, P. W. 6 would not have parted with In my opinion, therefore, it is a clear case of cheating as defined under section 415, I. P. C. and the learned trial court has rightly found the accused guilty and convicted him under section 420, I. P. C. ( 9 ) NEXT coming to the offence under section 364, I. P. C. , from the above discussion of the evidence it is well proved that on 19. 6. 1992 accused left with P. W. 1 for Bhubaneswar assuring that he would employ him there. At Bhubaneswar they both remained in Aristo Lodge till 2. 7. 1992. From the Boarders Admission Register of Aristo Lodge (Ex. 9) it transpires that accused along with another remained in the said lodge from 19. 6. 1992. to 22. 6. 1992. Time of their departure from the lodge as mentioned in the said register was at 1 p. m. There is another entry in the name of accused at No. 1314 showing that accused on the very day, i. e. on 22. 6. 1992 occupied another roof and remained till 1. 7. 1992. There is also a third entry in the register to the effect that on 1. 7. 1992 accused again reserved a room in the lodge and, depth the same under his occupation till 3. 1. 1992. on the first occasion he was allotted room No; no and on the subsequnt two occasions he was allotted room No. 113. In this connection it would be useful to refer to the evidence of P. W. 1 who speaks that the accused leaving him in the lodge left somewhere for 2 to 3 days and then returned on the date of incident. It is, therefore, quite probable that since P. W. 1 had to stay in the throughout, accused reserved one room in his name and not in the name of P. W. 1 because it was he who had brought him to provide employment. ( 10 ) EVIDENCE would further reveal that while staying in the lodge, accused left somewhere and on 2. 7. 1992 returned to lodge and took P. W. 1 to Khandagiri Hill where he gave him some powder like substance to eat saying that if it was taken, his body weight would be increased. Immediately after taking the powder P. W. 1 felt head reeling and vomitted. When he needed for help, accused was not found nearby. He left the hill leaving P. W. 1 there and threw the residue of the powder which was with him in a tin container inside a bush. It is in the evidence of seizure witness P. W. 3 which is supported by the 1. 0. When he needed for help, accused was not found nearby. He left the hill leaving P. W. 1 there and threw the residue of the powder which was with him in a tin container inside a bush. It is in the evidence of seizure witness P. W. 3 which is supported by the 1. 0. , P. W. 8, that accused while in Police custody led the Police to Khandagiri and pointed out a bush where he had thrown the residue of the powder and so saying he brought out a Jan packet which was then seized by the Police. The content of the Jan packet on examination by the Chemical Examiner Was found having contained sodium cyanide. Uti doubted cyanide is a poisonous chemical. From all these facts and circumstances it is proved beyond doubt that the accused with intention to do away with P. W. 1 abducted him to Khandagiri Hill and administered him the poisonous chemical which of course, did not prove fatal since because immediately after taking the powder P. W: 1 vomitted. The motive for the crime is apparent from the circumstances. Accused knew that it would not at all be possible for him to arrange a job for P. W. 1. Despite that, he made a false promise and took large sum from P. W. 1 s false promise and took large sum from P. W. ls father saying that the same would be given as bribe. Lest he may be apprehended and put to trouble for not being able-to arrange job, administered poison to P. W. 1 intending to put an end to his life. He did so because he knew that if P. W. 1 survived he would make public all his mischievous acts. ( 11 ) LEARNED counsel for the accused submitted that there having delay in lodging report to the Police and that the evidence regarding abduction having not been put to accused in his statement recorded under section 313, Cr. P. C. to enable him to explain the same, serious prejudice has been caused to him and, therefore, the entire prosecution case should be thrown out of consideration. ( 12 ) IT is usual argument advanced in every criminal case that the prosecution case should be viewed with suspicion for the delay in either lodging report to the Police or filing complaint in the court. ( 12 ) IT is usual argument advanced in every criminal case that the prosecution case should be viewed with suspicion for the delay in either lodging report to the Police or filing complaint in the court. It is nowhere the law that such delay in all cases affects the truth of the prosecution. In this context reference may be made to the decision of the Supreme Court in Sanganabasappab heemappa Kaligonnavar v. State of Karnataka, where their Lordships while not accepting the contention of the appellants that delay in submitting the report is the result of consultations and deliberations, observed: We must point out at this stage assuming there was delay that by itself will not be fatal to the prosecution case. There should be some indications in the report Ex. P-1 that it could have been a result of consultations and that the delay was utilised for the same purpose. T In the case in hand nothing is borne out from the evidence of P. Ws. nor it has been suggested to P. W. 1 that he has concocted this case falsely against the accused after due deliberation and consultation. Rather the evidence of P. W. 1 would show that after his return from Bhubaneswar, he disclosed the whole incident to his parents, whereupon search was made for the accused and only thereafter F. I. R. was lodged to the Police. In this view of the matter, I am of the opinion that there was in fact no delay in approaching the Police for taking action against the accused. That apart why should the informant initiate a false case against the accused who is no other than his relation through his mother? ( 13 ) COMING to the next grievance of the accused that serious prejudice has been caused to him in not bringing prosecution evidence appearing against him regarding abduction while examining him under section 313, Cr. P. C. so as to enable him to explain the same, this much can be said that this submission is against the weight of the material on record. As would be seen from question No. 2 accused was specifically asked to explain the prosecution evidence about his taking P. W. 1 to Bhubaneswar to get him employed. To this his answer was that it was false. As would be seen from question No. 2 accused was specifically asked to explain the prosecution evidence about his taking P. W. 1 to Bhubaneswar to get him employed. To this his answer was that it was false. Assuming for a moment that no specific question regarding abduction was put to the accused during his examination under section 313, Cr. P. C. , since it is the consistent case of the prosecution that he abducted P. W. 1 to Bhubaneswar and this having been spoken to by P. W. 1 and his parents in presence of accused during trial, no prejudice can be said to have been caused to him. To know as to the effect of not questioning the accused on the evidence and circumstances appearing against him in his examination under section 313, Cr. P. C. , a reference may be made to a decision of the Supreme Court in Suresh Chandra Bahri v. State of Bihar, wherein it is held as under: The provision, of section 313 therefore, make it obligatory on the court to question the accused on the evidence and the circumstances appearing against him so as to apprise him the exact case which he is required to meet But it would not be enough for the accused to say that he has not been question or examined on a particular circumstance, but he must also show that such non-examination has actually and materially prejudice him and has resulted in failure to justice. In other words, in the event of any inadvertent omission on the part of the court to question the accused on any incriminating circumstance appearing against the trial unless it is shown that some prejudice was caused to him, (Emphasis supplied) The above being the position of law, it cannot be said as a rule that the evidence appearing against the accused if not brought to his notice to treble him to explain the same cannot be used against him. ( 14 ) ON a conspectus of the facts, circumstances and the evidence as discussed above I concur with the finding recorded by the trial court and uphold the order of conviction passed against the accused. ( 14 ) ON a conspectus of the facts, circumstances and the evidence as discussed above I concur with the finding recorded by the trial court and uphold the order of conviction passed against the accused. So far as sentence is concerned, I am of the opinion that ends of justice would be better served if the sentence of the accused is reduced to rigorous imprisonment for five years each for the offences under sections 307 and 364, I. P. C. and three years for the offence under Section 420, I. P. C. Accordingly the accused is sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years each for the offences under sections 307 and 364, I. P. C. and three years for the offence under section 420, I. P. C. All the sentences shall run concurrently. ( 15 ) WITH the modification of the sentence as aforesaid, the appeal is dismissed. Appeal dismissed except modification in sentence. .