R. K. DASH, J. ( 1 ) THE accused assails the order of conviction and sentence under Section 307, IPC passed by the trial court and affirmed by the appellate court. The learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Bhanjanagar, who tried the case found him guilty of the said offence and sentenced him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three years. On appeal the learned First Additional Sessions Judge, Berhampur, while upholding the conviction reduced the sentence to two years rigorous imprisonment. ( 2 ) PROSECUTION case, briefly, stated, is that on 23-5-1992 at about 9 p. m. Jayasen Meharana P. W. 8 while returning home from Bhanjanagar found the accused standing near his house with a spear locally known as 'cadisa. ' No sooner he crossed his house, the accused dealt a blow with the handle portion of the spear on his back, as a result he fell down, whereafter he stabbed on his chest causing injuries. Meanwhile Suresh Mishra, brother of the accused, arrived at the spot and tried to bring out the spear that had stuck on the chest of the injured, but he could not. The injured was then brought to his house where the spear was removed. Thereafter he was removed to Bhanjanagar Hospital where he was given treatment. On report being lodged, the police sprang into action, registered a case under Section 307, IPC and after usual investigation laid charge-sheet against the accused to stand his trial for the aforesaid offence. ( 3 ) THE accused denied the prosecution allegation and pleaded innocence. ( 4 ) THE prosecution examined nine witnesses including the doctor and the Investigation Officer and the defence examined two. Trial court on appraisal of the evidence held the accused guilty of the charge and consequently convicted and sentenced him as stated earlier. ( 5 ) THE learned counsel appearing for the accused raised the following contentions: (1) The F. I. R. Ext. 2 had not been despatched to the Magistrate forthwith as provided in Section 157, Cr. P. C. and no explanation was offered for the delay. This indicates that F. I. R. was not lodged on the stated date and time, but much after with a view to introduce improvement in the prosecution case. 2 had not been despatched to the Magistrate forthwith as provided in Section 157, Cr. P. C. and no explanation was offered for the delay. This indicates that F. I. R. was not lodged on the stated date and time, but much after with a view to introduce improvement in the prosecution case. (2) The eye-witnesses, namely, Somanath Pradhan P. W. 6 and Chitragupta Mishra P. W. 7 are highly interested for the prosecution and instead of examining the independent and disinterested witnesses present at the spot, prosecution chose to examine them and therefore, no implicit reliance can be placed on their testimony to the charge. (3) Even accepting the prosecution case that the injured P. W. 8 had been assaulted, the nature of injuries and the attending circumstances do not make out a case punishable under Section 307, IPC. Learned Additional Standing Counsel, on the other hand, supporting the judgement of both the courts below contended that the findings being based on appreciation of evidence, this Court sitting in revision should disturb the same. ( 6 ) COMING to the first submission about the delayed despatch of the F. I. R. it is provided in Section 157, Cr. P. C. that F. I. R. should be despatched forthwith to the Magistrate empowered to take cognizance of the offence. The object of this provision is obvious and it involves more than mere technical compliance with law. It is the duty of the Magistrate to watch the various steps taken by the police during investigation and to advise them whenever necessary. But if any delay has occasioned in sending the F. I. R. it will not provide legitimate basis for suspicion that it was recorded much later than the stated date and time with a view to introduce improvements with distorted version of the incident. Where evidence reveals that F. I. R. was recorded without delay and investigation commenced immediately on that basis, then the delay would not be fatal to the prosecution. (See Pala Singh v. State of Punjab; AIR 1972 SC 2679 : (1973 Cri LJ 52) and State of U. P. v. Gokaram; AIR 1985 SC 131 ) : (1985 Cri LJ 511 ). (See Pala Singh v. State of Punjab; AIR 1972 SC 2679 : (1973 Cri LJ 52) and State of U. P. v. Gokaram; AIR 1985 SC 131 ) : (1985 Cri LJ 511 ). In the case in hand F. I. R. was registered on the very day of the incident, that is, on 23-5-1992 and as would appear from the record it was received by the Magistrate 5 days thereafter. This delay, in my opinion, is not a factor to be seriously reckoned while appreciating the prosecution case. It is abundantly clear from the available evidence that immediately after recording of the F. I. R. the Investigating Officer P. W. 9 hastened to the spot, recorded the statements of the witnesses and sent the injured for medical examination. It further appears that on the same night the doctor P. W. 5 examined the injured on police requisition and gave his report Ext. 3. In this view of the fact and on going through the prosecution evidence, I am of the opinion that the report was lodged on the date and time as mentioned in the F. I. R. and therefore, the delay in despatch of the said report did not affect the prosecution case in any manner. ( 7 ) TO bring home the charge to the accused the prosecution mainly relied upon the evidence of the injured P. W. 8 as well as P. Ws. 6 and 7. P. W. 8 corroborating the F. I. R. story stated that the accused had assaulted him with a spear causing injuries. The defence made a searching and incisive cross-examination, but could not elicit anything to doubt his veracity. The next witness is P. W. 6. He is a disinterested witness who has given detailed narration of the incident. He would say that the accused pierced a spear on the chest of P. W. 8 as a result he received injuries. He was cross-examined at length and nothing substantial could be elicited to taint his evidence. The other witnesses is P. W. 7. He is a highly interested witness for the prosecution. His evidence reveals that he is inimically disposed towards the accused since long. He was cross-examined at length and nothing substantial could be elicited to taint his evidence. The other witnesses is P. W. 7. He is a highly interested witness for the prosecution. His evidence reveals that he is inimically disposed towards the accused since long. Added to that, his name as a witness to the occurrence did not find mention in the F. I. R. In the above view of the matter, I am not inclined to place implicit reliance on his testimony and to act upon it. ( 8 ) THE evidence of P. Ws. 6 and 9 as discussed above, being creditworthy to base a finding of conviction, no fault can be found with the prosecution in not examining other witnesses present during the occurrence. It may be stated that it is not obligatory of the prosecution to examine all the witnesses. If it examines some and drops the rest, the defence cannot have any grievance for it. Of course, the prosecution should not be permitted to examine only interested witnesses leaving independent and disinterested ones whose evidence usually carries much weight. If such a pick and choose method is adopted, in that case the court would be reluctant to rely upon the evidence of those interested witnesses to arrive at a conclusion of guilt of the accused. ( 9 ) ON a conspectus of the prosecution case coupled with the evidence led in support thereof, I concur with the findings of both the courts below that it was the accused who assaulted PW 8 and caused injuries on his person. The above being my finding, the next question arised whether an offence under Section 307, IPC could be made out. The injuries noticed by the doctor PW. 5 were all simple in nature and the same in his opinion were not sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature. This suggests that the accused had no intention to cause the death of the injured 1 what he intended was to give him a beating and to cause injuries. Had he intended to put an end to the life of the injured, he would have given fatal blows when he had sufficient time and opportunity for it. In that view of the matter, I am of the opinion that the offence committed by the accused clearly falls within the ambit of Section 324 and not Section 307, IPC. Had he intended to put an end to the life of the injured, he would have given fatal blows when he had sufficient time and opportunity for it. In that view of the matter, I am of the opinion that the offence committed by the accused clearly falls within the ambit of Section 324 and not Section 307, IPC. ( 10 ) IN the result, the revision is allowed in part. The order of conviction recorded under Section 307, IPC against the accused is altered to one under Section 324, IPC. So far as sentence is concerned, since the injuries sustained by the injured were minor and superficial in nature, it would be hard and harsh if substantive sentence is awarded to the accused. In my opinion, therefore, this is a fit case where the benefit of the provisions of Probation of Offenders Act should be extended to him. Accordingly he is ordered to be released under Section 4 of the Probation of offenders Act on his executing a bond of Rs. 1,000/- without any surety for keeping peace and be of good behaviour for a period of six months. Revision partly allowed.