R. P. NIGAM, J. This criminal appeal has been preferred by the appellants against the judgment and order dated 9-12- 1983 passed by IIIrd Additional Dis trict and Sessions Judge, Barabanki in S. T No. 118of 1982 State v. Kedar andothers, by which the appellants were convicted under Sections 147, I. PC. and 325, I. P. C. read with Section 149, I. P. C. and each appellant was sentenced to undergo rigorous im prisonment for one year under Section 147, I. P. C. and to undergo rigorous im prisonment for two years under Section 325, I. P. C. read with Sect;on 149, I. P. C. It was also ordered that the sentences of the appellants would run concurrently. 2. The case of the prosecution as dis closed in the written report Ex. Ka-1 lodged by Ram Charan P. W, 1 in the police station Ram Nagar, District Barabanki on 29-5-1978 at 8. 35 a. m. is as follows: 3. Ram Charan son of Shiv Ratan is the resident of village Ram Nagar Police Station Ram Nagar District Barabanki. Ram Charan on 29-5-1978 was cutting chara from his machine which was at his Darwaza and in the meantime Kedar Nath son of Lalta, Sia Ram son of Kedar, Prakash son of Beni, Munan son of Kedar and Banarsi son of Jagat Narain came there and these persons started assaulting Ram Charan by lathis and Banka and on alarm of Ram Charan, Shiv Shankar, Ram Saharey and Nandu son of Raja Ram, Jagdish son of Shiv Shankar and Shyam Narain son of Dev Prayag came and then the said persons had left Ram Charan and had run away. Several persons were present at the spot and Ram Charan be came unconscious. Ram Charan had gone to the police station and lodged the report there. 4. On the basis of the written report Ex. Ka-1, Chick F. I. R. Ex. Ka-3 was prepared and the case against the appel lants was registered on 29-5-1978 at 8. 35 a. m. at report No. 12 of the G. D. under Sections 147,148,323,324,504, I. P. C. and copy of report No. 12 is Ex. Ka-4. 5. Sri Jawala Prasad S. I. P. W. 4 was posted as Head Moharrir in the police station Ram Nagar in May, 1978 and on 29-5-1978 at 8. 35 a. m. Ram Charan filed report Ex. Ka-1 in the police station. Ka-4. 5. Sri Jawala Prasad S. I. P. W. 4 was posted as Head Moharrir in the police station Ram Nagar in May, 1978 and on 29-5-1978 at 8. 35 a. m. Ram Charan filed report Ex. Ka-1 in the police station. He has proved the chick F. I. R. Ex. Ka-3 and copy of report No. 12 Ex. Ka-4. 6. Ram Bachan Prasad P. W. 5 was posted as S. I. in the Police Station Ram Nagar on 29-5-1978 and this case was registered in the police station in his ab sence and the investigation of this case was entrusted to him. He copied chick F. I. R. and report in the case diary and issued first parcha. He searched out the complainant and the witnesses but he could not find them and he could not do further inves tigation as he was transferred. 7. Ram Kumar Tripathi P. W 6 was posted as second officer in the police sta tion Ram Nagar in November, 1979 and investigation of this case was entrusted to him on 27-11-1979. Ram Bachan Prasad had issued first parcha on 29-5-1978 and after that nothing had happened and the investigation was entrusted to Ram Kumar Tripathi P. W. 6 on 27-11-1979. He started investigation of this case on 27-11- 1979, He had gone to the spot and recorded the statements of the com plainant and Shiv Shankar, Nandu, Jag-dish and other witnesses, he inspected the spot and prepared site plan Ex. Ka-5. He interrogated the accused persons and after completing the investigation laid charge-sheet Ex. Ka-6 against the accused under Sections 147,148, 323, 324, 325, I. P. C. on 27-11-1979. The appellants were charged under Sections 147 and 307, I. P. C. read with Section 149, I. P. C. by the Court below. 8. The accused denied the prosecu tion case and pleaded not guilty. The ap pellant Kedar has stated that the case had been filed against him on account of en mity and the witnesses deposed against him on account of enmity. He has further stated that his son Surya Pal was assaulted by Vijay and Vijay got false proceedings of this case instituted by Ram Charan by col luding with Ram Charan. The ap pellant Kedar has stated that the case had been filed against him on account of en mity and the witnesses deposed against him on account of enmity. He has further stated that his son Surya Pal was assaulted by Vijay and Vijay got false proceedings of this case instituted by Ram Charan by col luding with Ram Charan. Appellants Banarsi, Sia Ram, Munnon and Prakash have stated that the case had been filed against them on account of enmity and the witnesses had deposed against them on account of enmity. Appellants did not lead any evidence in their defence. 9. The prosecution in order to prove its case against the accused had examined Ram Charan P. W 1, Nandu as P. W. 2, doc tor M. A. Khan as P. W. 3, Jawala Prasad as P. W 4, Ram Bachan Prasad as P. W 5 and Ram Kumar Tripathi as P. W 6. The prosecution have relied upon seven papers which are from Ex. Ka-1 to Ex. Ka-7. The learned Court below after considering the evidence adduced in the case had held that the appellants were guilty of the offences punishable under Sections 147 and 325, I. P. C. read with Section 149, I. P. C. and, therefore, all appellants were convicted under Sections 147 and 325, I. P. C. read with Section 149, I. P. C. and each appellant was sentenced to undergo one year rigorous imprisonment under Section 147, I. P. C. and each of the appellant was further sentenced to undergo two years rigorous imprisonment under Section 325, I. P. C. read with Section 149, I. P. c 10. Ram Charan P. W. 1 is the com plainant of this case and injured witness. Nandu P. W. 2 is eye-witness of the incident. Jawala Prasad P. W 4 is a formal witness. Ram Bachan Prasad P. W. 5 and Ram Kumar Tripathi P. W. 6 are the Investigat ing Officer and they investigate the case as stated above. 11. Dr. M. A. Khan P. W. 3 was posted as Medical Officer of P. H. C Ramnagar on 29-5-1978 and on this day he examined the injuries of Ram Charan at 10. 30 a. m. and prepared injury report whose copy is Ex. Ka-2. He found the following injuries on his person: (1) Contusion 21 cm. x 2 cm. 11. Dr. M. A. Khan P. W. 3 was posted as Medical Officer of P. H. C Ramnagar on 29-5-1978 and on this day he examined the injuries of Ram Charan at 10. 30 a. m. and prepared injury report whose copy is Ex. Ka-2. He found the following injuries on his person: (1) Contusion 21 cm. x 2 cm. on left leg on lateral side of thigh. (2) Contusion 8. cm, x 2 cm. at rightangle with injury No. 1. (3) Lacerated wound 4 cm. x 2 cm. x 1 cm. on the scalp near the forehead. (4) Lacerated wound 4 cm. x 1 cm. x skin deep en the scalp. (5) Lacerated wound 2 cm. x 2 cm. on the left ear. (6) Lacerated wound 2 cm. x 15 cm. on the left leg 10 cm. below the left knee joint X-ray was advised. (7) Contusion 9 cm. x 2 cm. on left hand upward. (8) Contusion 8 cm. x 2 cm. on the left side of chest. 5. 5 cm. above left nipple. 12. According to the opinion of the doctor M. A Khan P. W 3 all the injuries were simple except injury No. 6 and these injuries were one day old and were caused by lathi and injury No. 6 was grievous and infliction of these injuries were not pos sible on 29-5-1978 at 7. 30-8. 00 a. m. He has stated in his cross- examination that these injuries were possible in the night of 27/28-5-1978. Ex. Ka-7 shows that Ram Charan complainant received fracture of upper one-thirdof left fibula. 13. The appellants were charged under Sections 147, I. P. C. and 307, I. P. C. read with Section 149, I. P. C. and the learned Court below had held that the appellants were guilty of offence punish able under Section 147, I. P. C. and 325, I. P. C read with Section 149, I. P. C. and, therefore, the appellants were convicted and sentenced under Section 147 and Sec tion 325/149. The appellants were not fund guilty of offence punishable under Section 307, I. P. C. read with Section 149, I. P. C and, therefore, in the operative portion of the judgment the learned Court below should have recorded an order of acquittal acquit ting the appellants under Section 307, I. P. C. read with Section 149 I. P. C but this had not been done by the learned Court below and it would be deemed that the appellants were acquitted of the offence punishable under Section 307, I. P. C. read with section 149, I. P. C. by the learned Court below. 14. In the operative portion of the judgment of the Court below the names of the accused appellant have been given as Kedar, Siya Rani, Prakash, Munan and Banarsi and these appellants have been convicted and sentenced. The oral evidence adduced in the case shows that Prakash had assaulted Ram Charan along with other accused but in the F. I. R. It had been mentioned that Prakash son of Beni had assaulted Ram Charan. Prakash is son of Beni. It appears that the other name of Prakash is Pragas, In the F. I. R. It had been mentioned that Munan son of Kedar had assaulted Ram Charan along with other accused but the learned Court below has mentioned the name of Munan as Munnu. The learned Court below was negligent in describing Munan as Munnu in its judgment and it should be taken that Munan and Munnu areone person. 15. I have heard the learned nsnel for the appellant who has assailed the judgment given by learned Court below and have also heard learned A. G. A. who has supported the judgment of learned Court below. The learned Counsel for ap pellants has contended that the F. I. R. was not lodged when it is said to have been lodged and it was lodged subsequently after consultation and deliberation, there fore, the F. I. R. lodged in this case loses its importance and cannot be used for cor roborating the statement of Ram Charan P. W. 1. I find that the said contention of the learned Counsel for the appellants is cor rect. In the F. I. R. time of the incident has not been given. According to the state ment of Ram Charan P. W 1 the incident happened at 8. I find that the said contention of the learned Counsel for the appellants is cor rect. In the F. I. R. time of the incident has not been given. According to the state ment of Ram Charan P. W 1 the incident happened at 8. 30 a. m. If the statement of Ram Charan P. W. 1 is taken to be correct that the incident had happened on 29-5-1978 at 8. 30 a. m. then the F. I. R. could not have been lodged by Ram Charan P. W. 1 in the police station on 29-5-1978 at 8. 25 a. m. as the place of occurrence was at a distance of four furlongs from the police station and during five minutes Ram Charan P. W. 1 also got the report written. Thus I find that the F. I. R. was not lodged when it is said to have been lodged and it was lodged subsequently after consultation and deliberation and, therefore, the F. I. R. lodged in this case loses its importance and cannot be used for corroborating the state ment of Ram Charan P. W. 1. 16. The learned Counsel for appel lants has further contended that appellant had no motive to commit the crime of this case. In the F. I. R. no motive has been mentioned. Ram Charan P. W 1 did not state anything regarding motive of the ap pellants to commit the crime in question. Thus I find that the appellants had no motive to commit this crime of this case but the motive is not material as there is anocular evidence in this case. 17. The learned Counsel for appel lants has further contended before me that prosecution witnesses namely Ram Charan P. W. 1 and Nandu P. W 2 were not truthful witnesses and, therefore, the learned Court below was not justified in placing reliance upon their statements and was not justified in convicting and sentenc ing the appellants and, therefore, this criminal appeal deserves to be allowed and the convictions and sentences recorded against the appellants should be set aside and the appellants should be acquitted of the offences punishable under Sections 147 and 325, I. P. C read with Section 149, I. P. C. , as the appellants were convicted and sentenced under Sections 147/325 read with Section 149, I. P. C. 18. Ram Charan P. W. 1 has slated that the incident happened about 5 years ago at 8. 30 a. m. and he at the said time was going with Chara which was placed on Jhaua to place it in Nads of the cattle and these Nads were towards east of his house and as soon as he proceeded with Chara then Kedar, Sia Ram, Munan, Banarsi and Prakash came and Prakash had a Banka and others had lathis and these persons had said to kill him and, therefore, all the said persons started assaulting him and on his alarm Nandu, Shyam Narain, Jagdish and others came in order to save him and on arrival of the witnesses, the accused had left him and had run away and he received injuries and he got the report Ex. Ka-1 written and gave it in the police station and his medical examination had taken place in Ram Nagar hospital on the same day and his X-Ray took place in Barabanki hospital. 19. The statement of cross-examina tion of Ram Charan P. W. I shows that Vijay is his nephew. Ram Charan P. W. 1 has stated in his cross-examination that he cannot say that who was scribe of his report and to which place the belonged and again he stated that his report had been written by Vijay Narain who is his nephew. The written report Ex. Ka-1 does not bear the signature of Vijay. Ram Charan PW 1 did not disclose the name of Vijay earlier who had scribed the written report and ultimately he admitted that Vijay wrote the written report. It appears that the reason for not disclosing the name of Vijay as scribe of the written report earlier was that on 29-5-1978 at 7. 30 a. m. a case was registered against Vijay and others under Sections 308 and 325, I. P. C on the report lodged by Surya son of Kedar appellant as Ex. Kha-I shows and he wanted to conceal this fact but ultimately the admitted it that his report was written by Vijay and this state of affairs shows that Ram Charan PW1 has not come with clean hands to the Court. 20. Ram Charan P. W 1 has stated in his cross-examination that he told Daroga the time otmarpeet as 8. Kha-I shows and he wanted to conceal this fact but ultimately the admitted it that his report was written by Vijay and this state of affairs shows that Ram Charan PW1 has not come with clean hands to the Court. 20. Ram Charan P. W 1 has stated in his cross-examination that he told Daroga the time otmarpeet as 8. 30 a. m. It means that he told the I. O. the time of the inci dent as 8. 30 am. He did not state the said fact before the I. O. under Section 161, Cr. P. C. as cross-examination of Ram Kumar Tripathi P, W 6 shows and this omission is a very material omission which amount to contradiction and proves that Ram Charan P. W 1 is not truthful witness. Ram Charan P. W 1 did not get the time of the incident mentioned in the report and he did not note the time of the incident before the investigating officer purposely, this makes circumstances unbelievable. In juries of Ram Charan P. W 1 was examined on 29-5-1978 at 10. 30 a. m. According to the opinion of doctor M. A. Khan P. W 3 all the injuries were one day old and in view of this statement infliction of the injuries of Ram Charan was not possible on 29-5-1978 at 8. 30 a. m. Dr. M. A. Khan has-stated in cross-examination that infliction of in juries of Ram Charan was possible on the night of 27/28-5-1978. The said statement of Dr. M. A Khan P. W 3 falsify the entire prosecution case and proves that Ram Charanp. W1 is not truthful witness. 21. In the F. I. R. Ram Charan P. W 1 got mentioned the fact that the became unconscious after the incident while his statement in court reveals that he did not become unconscious and this note of dif ference reveals that Ram Charan P. W. 1 is a rotten liar and he has no regard for truth and he is not a truthful witness. According to the statement of Ram Charan P. W 1 all the appellants had assaulted him. He has stated in his cross-examination that Prakash did not assault him by Banka and Prakash did not have any other weapon except Banka. Thus the statement given by Ram Charan P. W. 1 are inconsistent and prove that he is not truthful witness. According to the statement of Ram Charan P. W 1 all the appellants had assaulted him. He has stated in his cross-examination that Prakash did not assault him by Banka and Prakash did not have any other weapon except Banka. Thus the statement given by Ram Charan P. W. 1 are inconsistent and prove that he is not truthful witness. 22. Nandu P. W. 2 has stated that he knows the accused and Kedar accused is his brother-in-law (gainer) and deceased Surya Lal is his Bhanja and accused Sia Ram and Munan are also his nephew (Bhanjas ). He has further stated that five years ago at 8. 00 a. m. he was sitting at the well which was in front of his house and Ram Charan was going to place Chara in the Nand of his she buffalow and then Kedar, Munan, Sia Ram, Prakash and Banarsi came with lathis and danda and had pounced upon Ram Charan to assault him and he also reached on the spot and after him Jagdish and Kallo and others came and he ran to subside the mauer and then he was threatened and Ram Charan received several injuries. 23. Nandu has stated in his cross-ex amination on theday of the incident he was not going to Block and he had no work there and he did not tell to Daroga that he and Jagdish were going to Block and then noise happened. The said statement was given by Nandu P. W 2 before the I. O. Ram Kumar Tripathi P. W. 6. As statement of his cross-examination reveals and this con tradiction shows that Nandu P. W 2 is not a truthful witness. He has further stated in his cross-examination that he told Daroga that marpeet had taken place by lathis and dandas and Banka at 8. 00 a. m. Ram Kumar Tripathi P. W. 6 in his cross- examination has stated that Nandu writer of F. I. R. did not tell him the time of the incident. Thus Nandu P. W 2 did not state the time of the incident before the Investigation Officer and this omission is material omission which amounts to contradiction and shows that Nandu P. W 2 is not a truthful witness. Thus Nandu P. W 2 did not state the time of the incident before the Investigation Officer and this omission is material omission which amounts to contradiction and shows that Nandu P. W 2 is not a truthful witness. The statement of cross-examination of Nandu P. W. 2 shows the accused who had Banka and other accused who had lathi and danda had continuously assaulted Ram Charan. It means that Ram Charan P. W 1 was assaulted by Banka also but no Banka injury was found on the person of Ram Charan at the time of his medical examina tion and this reveals that Nandu P. W 2 is not a truthful witness. Ram Charan P. W. 1 and Nandu P. W. 2 are not truthful wit nesses and no reliance can be placed upon their statements. I therefore, place no reliance upon their statements. 24. Ram Charan P. W. 1 and Nandu P. W. 2 are not truthful witnesses and, therefore, the learned Court below was not justified in placing reliance on the state ments of the said witnesses and was not justified in convicting and sentencing the appellants and, therefore, this criminal appeal deserves to be allowed and the con victions and sentences recorded against the appellants deserve to be set aside and the appellants should be acquitted of the offences punishable under Section 147. I. P. C. and 325 read with Section 149, I. P. C as the appellants were convicted and sen tenced under Section 147, I. P. C, 325, I. P. C. readwith Section 149, I. P. C. This criminal appeal is allowed. The convictions and sentences recorded against the appellants by the Court below are set aside and the appellants are ac quitted of the offences punishable under Section 147 and 325, I. P. C. read with Sec tion 149, I. P. C. the appellants are on bail. Their bail bond are cancelled and their sureties are discharged. They need not sur render. Appeal allowed. .