P. K. JAIN, J. This revision is dire cted against the judgment and order dt. 8-6-94 passed by Sri J. S. Yadav HI Addi tional Assistant Sessions Judge, Rookee, Saharanpur, in Sessions Trial No. 309 of 1981 State v. Baru and others under Sees. 147,148,307,324 & 325, IPC P. S. Roorkee, Saharanpur (now district Haridwar) ac quitting the accused opposite parties of the charges under the aforesaid sections. 2. The incident is said to have oc curred on 17-2-81 at 1. 00 p. m. in Sandhori, a hamlet of village Jaurasi, within the local limits of Police Station Roorkee. The complainants party comprising of Kalian, Maqsood S/o Kalian and Ali Hasan brother of Kalian and the accused persons, Kura, Baru, Mustquim, Saleem, Barkat and Iqbal have their fields adjacent to each other in Sandhori. On the date of incident Maqsood, Kalian and Ali Hasan were busy in their field in doing some earth work. Accused persons among whom Kura was armed with a Tabal and rests with Lathis, arrived at the scene of occurrence and started showering abuses upon the complainants party. On the exhortation of Kura, the accused persons started assaulting complainants party. Kura gave Tabal blow on the head of Kalian and the remaining accused persons assaulted complainants party with lathis. Witnesses Safi, Hanif, Jinda and Shaukat etc. were attracted to the scene of occurrence. It is alleged that Maqsood and others had used phavra (spade) in their self-defence. Ac cording to the first information report Kalian, Maqsood and Ali Hasan had received injuries. They were taken to Manglore hospital where they were medi cally examined. Thereafter, written report (Ex. Ka-1) was got scribed by Safi (PW-1) and was sent to the Police Station, Roorkee through one Tahir alongwith medical examination report. On the basis of this report a case under Sections 147/323/324, IPC was registered. 3. The injured were medically ex amined by PW-8 Dr. N. D. Arora, the then Medical Officer, Manglore Dispensary, between 3. 00 p. m. and 4. 00 p. m. Following injuries were found on the person of each of the injured. KALIAn (1) Incised wound on the scalp 6 cm x 5 cm x 2 cm bone deep. Profuse bleeding taking place. The injury was in the middle of scalp, 14 cm away from left ear. 00 p. m. and 4. 00 p. m. Following injuries were found on the person of each of the injured. KALIAn (1) Incised wound on the scalp 6 cm x 5 cm x 2 cm bone deep. Profuse bleeding taking place. The injury was in the middle of scalp, 14 cm away from left ear. (2) Contusion on the abdomen running oblique on right chest 17 cm x 5 cm away from right nipple 14 cm above and 2 cm away from naval to right side. (3) Contusion on left thigh front side above knee joint 6 cm x 2 cm x obliquely running, diffuse swelling. Marked tenderness. Bone impaired. Shaft of femur fracture. Advised X Ray. (4) Contusion of left thigh front side obli quely running downwards 9 cm x 2. 14 cm away from left knee joint. (5) Complains of pain in the abdomen. General condition is low. In the opinion of the doctor all the injuries were fresh. Injury No. 1 was simple and caused by sharp edged weapon but kept under observation. Rest injuries were caused by blunt weapon. Injuries Nos. 3 and 4 also kept under observation. ALI HASAn (1) Lacerated wound, scalp left side 4 cm x 5 cm on right side running anterior to posterior 9 cm away from right pinna. Blood is oozing. (2) Contusion on the left shoulder supe rior surface 6 cm x 5 cm front backward 5 cm away from left shoulder joint. (3) Abrasion right scapular region 4 cm x 1 cm above downward 11 cm away from right shoulder joint. (4) Scratch mark on right scapular region 2 cm x 2 cm above downward 2 cm away to right side injury No. 3. (5) Swelling on the right forearm 2 cm x 2 cm above lacerated wound on dorsum of the hand 5 cm away from right wrist joint with suspected fracture of radius and plan. Advised Xray. (6) Contusion on the right thigh front from above downwards 1 cm x 2 cm, 16 cm away from right knee joint. All the injuries were fresh. Injury No. 3 was caused by blunt weapon. Injury No. 5 was kept under observation. MAQSOOd (1) Diffuse swelling on the right shoulder. (2) Abrasion 5 cm x 3 cm on the surface of right dorsum. Base of right little finger 1 cm away. All the injuries were fresh. Injury No. 3 was caused by blunt weapon. Injury No. 5 was kept under observation. MAQSOOd (1) Diffuse swelling on the right shoulder. (2) Abrasion 5 cm x 3 cm on the surface of right dorsum. Base of right little finger 1 cm away. (3) Abrasion 3 cm x 3 cm base of right ring finger. Injury No. 1 was caused by blunt weapon. Injuries Nos. 2 and 3 were caused by nail-scratches. Xray report of Ali Hasan disclosed fracture of ulna at lower part Xray report was submitted by PW-5 Dr. U. C. Agrawal, a private Practitioner. 4. During investigation the Inves tigating Officer visited the scene of occur rence and interrogated the witnesses of occurrence and after usual compliance of the formalities submitted charge-sheet against the accused persons. 5. The trial Court framed charges against all the accused persons under Sec tions 147, 307, 325, 323/149 and 324/149, IPC. Accused Kura was further charged under Section 148, IPC. 6. The accused persons denied the charges framed against them and claimed to be tried. 7. In their statements under Section 313, Cr PC the accused persons denied the prosecution allegations. Accused Kura stated that a false report was lodged in order to escape punishment from the case registered on his report. He stated that on the same date complainant-party had as saulted him and his brother. They sus tained injuries and a cross-case was pend ing. 8. In support of the prosecution case, in all, eight witnesses were examined. PW-1 Mohd. Shafi is an eye- witness as well as first informant, PW-2 Maqsood and PW-3 Kalian are injured witnesses. PW-4 H. C. Mange Singh was Head Moharrir and had scribed the chick report as well as the relevant G. D. entry. He had also proved cross report lodged Baru, copy of which is Ex. Kha-2, as well as G. D. entry copy of which is Ex. Kha-1. PW-5 Dr. U. N. Agrawal and PW-8, Dr. N. D. Arora are medical officers who had Xrayed and medically examined the injuries of the vic tims. PW-6 S. I. Bhullan Singh is the Inves tigating Officer and PW-7 S. I. Lakhpat Singh is also Investigating Officer who had done part of the investigation. 9. Besides proving Exs. Kha-1 and Kha-2 the defence also filed certified copies of the statements of Dr. Ahmed Wali Khan and Dr. PW-6 S. I. Bhullan Singh is the Inves tigating Officer and PW-7 S. I. Lakhpat Singh is also Investigating Officer who had done part of the investigation. 9. Besides proving Exs. Kha-1 and Kha-2 the defence also filed certified copies of the statements of Dr. Ahmed Wali Khan and Dr. U. C. Agrawal in STNo. 310 of 1981 and copies of the medical examination reports, Exs. Kha-3 to Kha-5 of accused Baru along with supplementary report. 10. On a consideration of the entire evidence the trial Court disbelieved the prosecution case on grounds that there was no immediate cause for the ace to assault the complainant-party; that there was inordinate delay in lodging the first information report for which no plausible explanation was furnished that the presence of PW-1 was doubtful and further that independent witnesses, although available, were not examined and lastly that the defence version was supported PW-7. 11. Hearing of the revision was ad journed several times on grounds of illness of Sri H. N. Sharma, the learned Counsel for the revisionist. The case was fixed for hearing on 22-10-97 on which date again an illness slip was sent and none appeared to press the revision petition. On behalf of the opposite parties No. 1 to 6 also none appeared to argue the revision. Therefore, the Court heard learned Additional Government Advocate and also perused the material on record. 12. From perusal of the memo of revision it appears that the impugned judgment and order was being challenged on the ground that the fading of the trial Court that delay in lodging the report was not explained, is perverse and against the weight of evidence on record that the trial Court has misread the evidence on record and has wrongly disbelieved the prosecu tion witnesses and lastly that the court has not considered the material on record while holding that the defence case was supported by PW-7. 13. As has already been pointed out earlier the incident had occurred on 17-2-81 at 1. 00 p. m. and the first information report was registered at Police Station Roorkee the same day at 8. 20 p. m. PW-1 is the first informant. In his deposition in the Court he has stated that he had taken the victims to Landora hospital where accused persons were present from before. 00 p. m. and the first information report was registered at Police Station Roorkee the same day at 8. 20 p. m. PW-1 is the first informant. In his deposition in the Court he has stated that he had taken the victims to Landora hospital where accused persons were present from before. Ap prehending some untoward incident he left Landora hospital and took the victims to Manglore hospital. He got the victims medically exmained at Manglore Hospital. The Doctor at Manglore and advised that Kalian be taken to Roorkee hospital. He has also stated that when Kalian was taken to Roorkee hospital, the Doctor was not available there and, therefore, he against went to Manglore hospital where Kalian was admitted to receive treatment. The witness has further stated that no rickshaw was available for Roorkee and rickshaw for Manglore was available and, therefore, he had proceeded to Manglore. He got the first information report scribed and on reaching Roorkee at about 7. 30 p. m. he sent Tahir to Roorkee Police Station for lodging the first information report. On perusal of the medical examination reports Exs. Ka-11 and Ka-12 it will appear that the three victims were medically ex amined between 3. 00 pm. to 4. 00 p. m. by PW-8 Dr. N. D. Arora. Defence has not challenged the statement of PW-1 by giving specific suggestions. The only sug gestion given is that since Kalians samdhi at Manglore had good relations with the doctor and for this reason the victims were taken to Manglore hospital which suggestion has been denied by PW-1. It is also suggested to the prosecution witnesses that no injury was sustained by the victims on prosecution side and false medical examination reports were ob tained to support the case of the prosecu tion. PW-8 Dr. N. D. Arora, had medically examined the victims and had proved their injuries. There is no suggestion to this witness that he had intimate relations with the samdhi of Maqsood and the victims did not have any injury on their persons and false medical examination reports were prepared by him. The statement of PW-1 that accused party was present at Landora hospital when the first informant and the victims reached there is not chal lenged during cross-examination. Medical examination reports Exs. Kha-3 and Kha-5 show that Baru was medically examined at Landora hospital at 1. The statement of PW-1 that accused party was present at Landora hospital when the first informant and the victims reached there is not chal lenged during cross-examination. Medical examination reports Exs. Kha-3 and Kha-5 show that Baru was medically examined at Landora hospital at 1. 50 p. m. and Kare was medically examined at 3. 5 p. m. These reports corroborate the statement of PW-1 that the accused party was there at Landhora hospital between 1. 50 p. m. to 3. 50 p. m. These facts have not been taken into consideration by the trial Court while arriving at a finding that the report was delayed and no plausible explanation was being furnished by the prosecution. The trial Court in its judgment observed that admittedly Kalian was taken to Roorkee hospital and had passed from in front of the Roorkee Police Station while return ing back to Manglore but no report was lodged. There was Police Station in Manglore also where the report could be lodged but no explanation has been furnished why no report was lodged at the Manglore Police Station and thus no plausible explanation is being furnished by the prosecution for delay in lodging the first information report. 14. The trial Court has failed to take notice of the fact that the condition of Kalian was low as stated in the medical examination report, Ex. Ka-11. In such a situation the prime concern of the rela tions of victims as well as their well-wishers would have been to save the life of the victims and not to rush to the Police Station to lodge the first information report. The statement of the complainant, in the circumstances, which has not been challenged in cross-examination and to some extent is corroborated by other material on record, shows that the victims who were first taken to Landhora and thereafter to Manglore where they were medically examined between 3. 00 to 4. 00 p. m. and thereafter Kalian was taken from Manglore to Roorkee hospital and when the doctor at Roorkee was not available he was again taken back to Manglore where he was admitted for treatment. This must have taken sufficient time and the state ment of PW-1 that they reached Roorkee at about 7. 30 p. m. cannot be said to be a false statement. In between this period the first information report, Ex. This must have taken sufficient time and the state ment of PW-1 that they reached Roorkee at about 7. 30 p. m. cannot be said to be a false statement. In between this period the first information report, Ex. Ka-1, was also got scribed by PW-1 in which also at least 20-30 minutes time must have been spent. One of the reasons given by the trial Court for arriving at its conclusion is that none of the victims went to the Police Station Roorkee to lodge the first information report. It is evident that both sides had sustained injuries and the complainant party could have very well foreseen that the accused party may also have lodged the first information report. Although there is no cross-examination from PW-1 as to why report was not lodged when Kalian was taken to Roorkee hospital, yet this may be a reason for the first informant and other injured witnesses who must have been ap prehending that their names may figure as accused in the first information report lodged on behalf of the accused persons. Fearing their arrest, in case they visited Roorkee Police Station, they might have refrained from going to Roorkee Police Station. In any case there is no cross-examination eliciting explanation for not going to Roorkee Police Station. The defence could not have taken advantage of it. In the circumstances since Kalian was having serious injuries and his condition was low, the prime concern of the first informant and other witnesses was to got proper medical treatment of Kalian. As soon as Kalian was admitted in Manglore hospital, the first informant thought of sending Tahir to Roorkee Police Station to lodge the first information report along with the medical examination reports. The trial Court failed to take notice of all these facts. No question is put to PW-1 as to why not report was lodged at P. S. Manglore. In case of being cross-examined on this point, he might have furnished explanation. However, one circumstance which cannot be forgotten is that the incident occurred within the local limits of Police Station Roorkee. The complainants party might have thought it proper to lodge the first information report at Police Station Roorkee instead of at Police Station Manglore. In case of being cross-examined on this point, he might have furnished explanation. However, one circumstance which cannot be forgotten is that the incident occurred within the local limits of Police Station Roorkee. The complainants party might have thought it proper to lodge the first information report at Police Station Roorkee instead of at Police Station Manglore. In any case no explanation was elicited from the prosecution witnesses as to why the report was not lodged at Police Station Manglore, no adverse inference can be drawn against the prosecution. The trial Court has also referred to some minor contradictions in the testimony of the prosecution witnesses which have no bear ing so far as the question of late lodging of the first information report is concerned. The finding of the trial Court that the first information report was lodged with unex plained undue delay is thus perverse and is arrived at without considering the entire material on record. 15. There is substance in the revisionists claim that there has been mis-readings of the evidence by the trial Court which have resulted in failure of justice. The trial Judge cannot be a silent spectator when the prosecution witnesses are being examined and cross-examined. The Court relied upon statement of PW- 7 S. I. Lakhpat Singh who had visited the scene of occurrence on 18-2-81 and had prepared site-plan Ex. Ka-9. The defence case is that the complainant-party had broken the Mend of the accused-party and then the accused-party complained about it. The complainant party started assault ing the accused- party. To support their version the accused persons cross-ex amined PW-7 and brought on record his admission that on visiting the scene of occurrence he had found the Mend in be tween the fields of Kalian and accused persons broken. The trial Court has failed to take notice of the fact that the statement of S. I. , Lakhpat Singh was recorded on 11-10-83 whereas he had visited the scene of occurrence on 18-2-81. He had prepared site-plan (Ex. Ka-9) which was prepared by him at the earliest occasion. In this docu ment there is absolutely no mention about the Mend having been found to be broken. On the other hand, on the eastern side in the field of complainant Kalian the witness had found earth work about which there is mention in the site-plan (Ex. Ka- 9 ). Ka-9) which was prepared by him at the earliest occasion. In this docu ment there is absolutely no mention about the Mend having been found to be broken. On the other hand, on the eastern side in the field of complainant Kalian the witness had found earth work about which there is mention in the site-plan (Ex. Ka- 9 ). The trial Court failed to take notice of the fact that the admission of PW-7 during cross-examination is not corroborated by the earliest statement contained in Ex. Ka-9. PW-6 S. I. Bhullan Singh had again in spected the scene of occurrence on 26-2-81 and had prepared site-plan (Ex. Ka-5 ). There is no suggestion to this witness that the Mend of the accused persons was found to be broken. On the other hand, this witness, in the site plan (Ex. Ka-5), has made a mention that the earth work in the field of Kalian was found to be contiguous to the Mend of the field of the accused persons. He has also made a mention that there is no sign of cutting the Mend. On the other hand, some earth from the Mend appears to have been removed. No cross- examination is directed against these ob servations in site-plan. All these cir cumstances were not taken into considera tion by the trial Court while appreciating the evidence of the parties and considering the admission of PW-7. This has also in fluenced the finding of the trial Court with regard to the truthfulness or otherwise of the prosecution version and correctness of the defence version. Similarly the trial Court, in its judgment, observed that the Presiding Judge himself inspected the scene of occurrence and found that the field of PW-1 Mohd. Safi was at a distance of one furlong from the field of the com plainant. There is on record the inspection note, paper No. 54/a. There is absolutely no mention of having seen the field of Mohd. Safi. Even in the map prepared by the Presiding Officer, field of Mohd. Safi is not shown, still the learned Presiding Judge observed in the judgment that Mohd. Safis field was situated one furlong away from the field of the accused persons. Such observation appears to have been made with a view that from such a distance the witness might not have been able to see the incident. Safi is not shown, still the learned Presiding Judge observed in the judgment that Mohd. Safis field was situated one furlong away from the field of the accused persons. Such observation appears to have been made with a view that from such a distance the witness might not have been able to see the incident. In any case such observations have been made in the judgment by the learned trial Judge without there being any material on record. 16. The learned trial Judge has doubted the presence of PW-1 at the scene of occurrence on conjectures and surmises only and without carefully examining the evidence on record. PW-1 claims that he has a field in village Suniyara. There is no denial of this fact nor there is suggestion contradicting this version of PW-1. On the other hand, during cross-examination it is suggested to this witness that the land in village Suniyara owned and possessed by him, is in joint Khata with Nazir and this Nazir is real cousin brother of his father. Nazir is son of Ali Hasan. This is also admitted. The trial Court has also failed to take notice of the fact that the defence has not disputed the presence of Mohd. Safi. On the other hand, the medical examina tion report of Maqsood shows that he was taken to the hospital by Safi s/o Maru i. e. PW-1 although the other injured are shown to have been taken by Razi Hasan s/o Rahim Bux. There is no suggestion to PW-1 that he was not present at the scene of occurrence. The testimony of this wit ness cannot be disbelieved on the ground that he was an interested witness, being closely related to the accused persons and having appeared or was cited as a witness for the complainant-party in some other case. Relationship or interestedness of a witness can never be a ground to outright discredit his testimony. In the case of such a witness the duty of the Court is to scrutinize the statement more carefully and then come to a finding if the witness is reliable witness or not and his evidence is worth credence or not. This has not been done by the trial Court and evidence of PW-1 has been discarded on flimsy grounds. 17. PW-2 and PW-3 are injured wit nesses. Their presence cannot be dis believed. This has not been done by the trial Court and evidence of PW-1 has been discarded on flimsy grounds. 17. PW-2 and PW-3 are injured wit nesses. Their presence cannot be dis believed. Their evidence cannot be dis believed on the ground that they did not prefer to lodge the first information report or that there were minor contradictions in their evidence. The court below has also failed to take into consideration that from the very beginning the prosecution has come up with a case that some of the victims used spade (Phawra) in their self-defence and thereby explained the injuries of the accused persons. The trial Court has not at all considered if the explanation of the injuries of the accused furnished by the prosecution witnesses was plausible and believable or not. 18. The trial Court also observed that despite independent witnesses being avail able, none was produced by the prosecu tion. This also cannot be a ground to throw away the case of the prosecution. It is now well-known that independent witnesses hardly come forward to depose in favour of or against the contesting parties in a criminal case specially where several criminal litigations are going on between the parties. In the instant case it is ad mitted fact that there were some more criminal cases going on between the par ties. No independent witness, in the cir cumstances, will involve himself to have wrath of one or the other party by deposing in favour of one and against the other party. The law in this regard is settled that the evidence of the prosecution witnesses cannot be discarded on the ground that independent witnesses are not examined by the prosecution. Again where no inde pendent witness is examined, the Court is called upon to scrutinize the evidence with greater care and caution and arrive at a finding if the prosecution evidence is reli able or not. This has not been fairly done by the trial Court. 19. In view of the foregoing discus sions I am of the view that the findings arrived at by the trial Court are based upon misreading of evidence and non-consideration of material facts and cir cumstances. Some of the findings are based upon conjectures and surmises and thus the findings on fact are perverse. The trial Courts judgment, therefore, cannot be sustained. 20. Some of the findings are based upon conjectures and surmises and thus the findings on fact are perverse. The trial Courts judgment, therefore, cannot be sustained. 20. The revision is allowed, Judg ment and order of the trial Court is set aside and the case is sent back for decision afresh after hearing the parties. Revision allowed. .