Judgment : This revision is against the order of acquittal passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate Thuraiyur, in C.C. No. 2628 of 1989 for the alleged offences under Secs. 48, 447, 324 and 323, Indian Penal Code. P.W.1, the revision petitioner herein lodged the complaint against the respondents herein alleging that on 11. 1989 at about 10.15 a.m. in Pahalavadi Village of Thuraiyur Taluk, the respondents accused coming with deadly weapons in their hands, assaulted him with koduwal and thadi causing multiple injuries for the reason that he laid foundation for his construction work in the place where the first respondent accused wanted to put up hut. The prosecution examined as many as 12 witnesses of whom P.Ws. 1 to 6 are the eye-witnesses to the occurrence. The learned Judicial Magistrate, Thuraiyur, observing that as the complaint dated 11. 1989 had reached the court only on 21. 1989, he gave the benefit of doubt to the accused and acquitted the accused persons. 2. Though the learned counsel revision petitioner is absent, the learned Government Advocate, appearing for the first respondent, supported the contention of the revision petitioner and submits that the lower court has not properly considered the evidence especially that of the victim and P.W.3. 3. P.W.1, the victim in this case, has narrated that the place where the foundation was laid by him belongs to him, though it is claimed by the accused to be the village poramboke, that as the first respondent/first accused attempted to put up hut in this place, he gave a complaint to the police on 10. 1988, subsequently he also filed the suit O.S. No. 447 of 1988 in which he obtained the order of injunction in I.A. No. 408 of 1988 and therefore the accused persons joined together to wreak vengeance against him and attacked him on 11. 1989. He narrated that a body of persons consisting of these accused came to his land after informing the village by tom-tom that they would dismantle the foundation laid by him and also has narrated the overt acts against accused 1, 5, 6, 10, 13 and 15. According to him, among these persons, accused 1 and 5 possessed Koduwal in their hands and accused 6, 10, 13 and 15 had sticks in their hands by which he was attacked. His version was corroborated by his sons P.Ws. According to him, among these persons, accused 1 and 5 possessed Koduwal in their hands and accused 6, 10, 13 and 15 had sticks in their hands by which he was attacked. His version was corroborated by his sons P.Ws. 1, 3 and 5 and also P.W.6 to some extent. But the learned Magistrate has observed that P.W.2 on the instructions of P.W.1 immediately left to inform the police while the accused respondents were coming in group and even before his return, P.W.1 was assaulted and therefore he could not have witnessed the occurrence. The learned Magistrate has rejected the testimony of P.W.6 also for the reason that he had spoken the overt acts against only two persons and further though P.W.1 would state that the incident took place on the rear side of his. house, P.W.6 has stated that the occurrence was in front of his house and therefore, his evidence also is not reliable. P.W.4 turned hostile. Certainly, the learned Magistrate is entitled to discard the testimony of these witnesses for the reasons given by him. But the learned Magistrate has not stated anything about the evidence of P.Ws. 1 and 3. He has specifically mentioned that the evidence of P.W.1 has been corroborated by P.W.3 in full. However, nowhere in his judgment he has observed that the evidence of P.Ws. 1 and 3 is unreliable or unacceptable. When P.W.1 is the victim of the occurrence and P.W.3 his son living in the same house, also has corroborated his testimony and P.W.10, the doctor also has found the injuries on P.W.1 as mentioned by him, it is the duty of the learned Magistrate to assess the evidence of these witnesses to give a finding whether their evidence has made out the offence against the respondents accused or not. He was at liberty to take his own view on the evidence of these witnesses, but it was his bounden duty to assess the evidence of those witnesses. The learned Magistrate has observed two grounds for giving the benefit of doubt to the accused persons. The first ground is that P.W.11, the head constable, who recorded the statement of P.W.1, in the hospital has not mentioned in the First Information Report that the statement was recorded in the hospital and the second ground is that the First Information Report had reached the court only on 21. The first ground is that P.W.11, the head constable, who recorded the statement of P.W.1, in the hospital has not mentioned in the First Information Report that the statement was recorded in the hospital and the second ground is that the First Information Report had reached the court only on 21. 1989, that is one week after the occurrence. So far as the first ground is concerned, it is a mistake in the perusal of the records by the learned Judicial Magistrate. In the First Information Report second page, it is specifically mentioned that the head constable, while he was on duty in the police station, received a message at 01.00 p.m. from the Government Hospital, Thuraiyur, and he proceeded to the Government Hospital where he recorded the statement of one Karunakaran, S/o.Perumal as hereunder: When so much is given in the First Information Report, I am unable to understand how the learned Magistrate has observed that in the First Information Report recording of the statement of P.W.1 in the hospital is not mentioned. Anyhow, it is a mistake. 4. No doubt, the second defect pointed out by him is perfectly correct. Though the statement of P.W.1 was recorded on 11. 1989 at about 3.00 p.m. and the case also was registered on the same day, the First Information Report had reached the court only on 21. 1989. Certainly, this delay could be taken note leading to suspicion in the prosecution case. But at the same time, the First Information Report is only the information to the court about the occurrence and the occurrence has been spoken by the witnesses viz., P.Ws. 1 and 3 whose evidence was not at all considered by the learned Judicial Magistrate. Had he considered the evidence of these two witnesses namely P.Ws. 1 and 3 and doubted the reliability, certainly, he is entitled to throw out the case on the ground that the entire oral evidence is not reliable added to the delay in sending the First Information Report. On the other hand, if the evidence of P.Ws. 1 and 3 is unassailable and acceptable establishing the guilt of the accused persons, the mere delay in forwarding the First Information Report to the court cannot weaken the prosecution case. But the learned Magistrate though has repeated the evidence of P.Ws. On the other hand, if the evidence of P.Ws. 1 and 3 is unassailable and acceptable establishing the guilt of the accused persons, the mere delay in forwarding the First Information Report to the court cannot weaken the prosecution case. But the learned Magistrate though has repeated the evidence of P.Ws. 1 and 3, has not given any finding as to the reliability or otherwise of the testimony of these witnesses. Without such a finding, the truth of the prosecution case cannot be ascertained and therefore the order of acquittal passed by the learned Magistrate is clearly an error compelling me to interfere in his order. As the error is only in the omission to assess the evidence, there is no need for any re-trial of this case, and it is sufficient to direct for reassessment of the evidence, by the learned Magistrate. 5. In the result, the order of the court below is set aside and the matter is remanded back to the learned Magistrate to reassess the evidence of the witnesses, for a finding as to the case of the prosecution for disposal according to law.