JUDGMENT R.L. Khurana, J.—The two appellants, hereinafter referred to as the accused, stand convicted for the offences under Sections 307 and 323 read with Section 34, Indian Penal Code, by the learned Sessions Judge, Kangra at Dharamshala, in sessions case No. 26-D/VII of 1998 vide judgement dated 8/15.12.1998. Each of the two accused have been sentenced to :— (i) rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years and fine of Rs. 1,000/- for the offence under Section 307 read with Section 34, Indian Penal Code. In default of fine rigorous imprisonment for a further period of one month; (ii) rigorous imprisonment for a period of three months and fine of Rs. 200/- for the offence under Section 323 read with Section 34, Indian Penal Code. In default of payment of fine rigorous imprisonment for a further period of fifteen days. 2. The two substantive sentences of imprisonment were directed to run concurrently. Briefly, the prosecution story may be thus stated. PW 3 Madan Lai is a resident of village Sakoh in Tehsil Dharamshala of District Kangra. The two accused are also residents of the same village. On 13.3.1998 at about 3.15 p.m. PW 3 was going to his village from Dharamshala in his truck. It was "Holi" on that day. When he reached near the dispensary of Upper Sakoh from where a "Katcha" road leads to his house, he found the two accused standing on such "Katcha" road. They were under the influence of liquor. Since the two accused were standing in the middle of the "Katcha" road, PW 3 had to stop his truck. After getting down from the truck, he asked the two accused to go to the side of the road. The two accused thereupon started abusing PW 3 Madan Lai and pelting stones at him. PW 4 Saroj Kumar, whose house and cow-shed are just close to the said place, was standing nearby. He tried to intervene but he was given a "Khukari blow on his stomach by accused Manjeet. In the meantime, PW 5 Naresh Kumar, brother of PW 3 Madan Lai, happened to reach there on his tractor. He was hit on the head by the stone being pelted by the two accused. On hearing the cries, PW 6 Smt. Surtu, the mother of PW 3 Madan Lai also came to the spot. In the meantime, PW 5 Naresh Kumar, brother of PW 3 Madan Lai, happened to reach there on his tractor. He was hit on the head by the stone being pelted by the two accused. On hearing the cries, PW 6 Smt. Surtu, the mother of PW 3 Madan Lai also came to the spot. She was also hit on her forehead by a stone being pelted by the accused. 3. Information regarding the occurrence was given telephonically to the police by PW 4 Saroj. The injured were removed to the hospital by the persons who had gathered at the spot. On the basis of the statement made by PW 3 Madan Lai under Section 154, Code of Criminal Procedure, a case for the offences under Sections 323 and 326 read with Section 34, Indian Penal Code, came to be registered at Police Station, Dharamshala, vide F.I.R. No, 64/98 (Ex. PW 9/ A). 4. During the course of investigation, the three injured, namely, PW 4 Saroj Kumar, PW 5 Naresh Kumar and PW 6 Smt. Surtu were got medically examined. Such medical examination was carried out by PW 1 Dr. Aloke Singh at Zonal Hospital, Dharamshala on 13.3.1998 and the necessary medico-legal certificate Ex. PW 1/B, PW1/C and PW 1/D were obtained. 5. As per medico legal certificate Ex. PW 1/B, the following injury was found on the person of PW 6 Smt. Surtu : "One inch lacerated cut about 1-1 /2" above right mid eye-brow region. The lacerated cut was freely oozing blood. There was haemotoma with dark blue stains with swelling about 1/2" high around the lacerated cut towards radius of three inches." The injury was opined to be of a simple nature having been caused by a blunt weapon within the probable duration of one to two hours. It was also opined that the injury could have been caused by pelting of stone. Vide medico legal certificate Ex. PW 1/C, PW 5 Naresh Kumar was found to have sustained the following injury : "Haemotoma about 3-1/2" in diameter and about 1/2" thick, soft and tender, on the left occipital region with bleeding from the left ear.” 6. Upon X-ray fracture of right temporal muscularly bone was detected. Vide medico legal certificate Ex. PW 1/C, PW 5 Naresh Kumar was found to have sustained the following injury : "Haemotoma about 3-1/2" in diameter and about 1/2" thick, soft and tender, on the left occipital region with bleeding from the left ear.” 6. Upon X-ray fracture of right temporal muscularly bone was detected. On being subjected to CT scan, it was noticed that there was intra cerebral haemorrhagic contusions in the right front prietal lobes of the brain and fracture of the right temporal mascillary bone. The injury was, therefore, opined to be of a grievous nature having been caused by a blunt weapon within the probable duration of one to two hours. PW 1 Dr. Aloke Singh further opined that the injury could have been fatal in the ordinary course and that the same was possible by pelting of stone. 7. Two simple injuries having been caused by a sharp-edged weapon like "Khukari" were found on the person of PW 4 Saroj Kumar vide Ex. PW 1/C as under:— “1. One inch horizontal incised cut with slight bleeding about one inch above and one inch to the right of the ambilicus; and 2. 1-1/2" incised cut with slight bruising and bleeding starting about one inch above the ambilicus and curving down to its left border." It was opined by PW 1 Dr. Aloke Singh that both the injuries could have been caused by a single blow with a weapon like "Khukari" Ex. P-1. Accused Rakesh Kumar, during the course of investigation is alleged to have made a disclosure statement leading to the recovery of the "khukari” Ex. P-1. After investigation, on a case having been found against each of the two accused under Sections 323, 324 and 307 read with Section 34, Indian Penal Code, they were accordingly sent up for trial. Both the accused were charged for the offences under Sections 307 and 323 read with Section 34, Indian Penal Code, by the learned Sessions Judge. They pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 8. The prosecution in support of its case in order to bring home the offences against each of the two accused examined twelve witnesses in all. 9. They pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 8. The prosecution in support of its case in order to bring home the offences against each of the two accused examined twelve witnesses in all. 9. The two accused in their statements recorded under Section 313, Code of Criminal Procedure, while denying the prosecution story, in answer to question No. 34 have taken a common defence in the following terms:— "I am innocent. In fact, on the Holi festival, when after playing Holi, I was coming back to my house, I saw some people which included Madan Lai complainant, the witnesses and some other people collected on the Katcha road leading to my house, who on seeing us started running towards us on which we fled away from the site. The complainant Madan Lal suspected us for having cut the tires of his vehicle for which he bore ill-will and grudge against us. The injury, if any, sustained by the complainant party and the witnesses, were by falling on the stony surface of the katcha road. Naresh Kumar in an attempt to hastily get down from his tractor, on which he was sitting fell down and sustained the injuries." No defence evidence was, however, led by the accused. 10. The learned Sessions Judge, upon consideration of the material placed before her, held the two accused guilty of the offences charged against them. She, accordingly, convicted and sentenced each of the two accused as aforesaid. Feeling aggrieved, the accused have come up before this Court by way of the present appeal. 11. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record of the case. 12. The learned counsel appearing for the two accused, at the very outset, submitted that in imposing the conviction and sentence upon the two accused, the leanred Sessions Judge has overlooked an important aspect of the case. He pointed out that the F.I.R. (Ex. PW 9/A) which is shown to have been lodged and recorded at about 4.05 p.m. on 13.3.1998 was sent to the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dharamshala, and received by him only at about 10.05 a.m. on 16.3.1998. Though F.I.R. Ex. PW 9/A does not indicate the time and date of its despatch to the learned Magistrate, the endorsement made thereon shows that the same was received by the learned Magistrate only at 10.05 a.m. on 16.3.1998. Though F.I.R. Ex. PW 9/A does not indicate the time and date of its despatch to the learned Magistrate, the endorsement made thereon shows that the same was received by the learned Magistrate only at 10.05 a.m. on 16.3.1998. The police station is located just opposite to the Court building across the road. It is difficult to understand why the report was sent to the Magistrate about three days after its stated hour of receipt at the police station. The learned counsel further contended that Section 157, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, requires that first information report to be sent "forthwith” to the Magistrate competent to take cognizance of the offence. No explanation is forthcoming on behalf of the prosecution for this extra-ordinary delay in sending the report to the learned Magistrate. Therefore, it is a circumstance which provides a legitimate basis for suspecting that the first information was not recorded at the time and on the date indicated therein and that the same was in fact recorded much later by ante-dating and ante-timing the same thereby affording sufficient time to the prosecution to introduce improvements and embellishments and set up a distorted version of the occurrence. The prosecution case thus, is rendered doubtful. In support of his contention, the learned counsel has placed reliance on the decision of the Apex Court in Ishwar Singh v. The State of Uttar Pradesh, (AIR 1976 SC 2423). 13. Be it stated that though there is nothing on the record, judicial notice can be taken of the fact that there were holidays on 13th, 14th and 15th March, 1998 on account of "Holi", "Second Saturday" and "Sunday" respectively. 14. Besides, the decision relied upon by the learned Counsel for the accused does not lay down a general proposition that in every case whenever there is an explained delay in sending the first information to the Magistrate, the same is fatal to the prosecution case. In a subsequent decision, a larger Bench of the Apex Court in Sarwan Singh and others v. State of Punjab (AIR 1976 SC 2304) has held that mere delay in the despatch of the first information report is not a circumstance which can throw out the prosecution case in its entirety. 15. In the present case, it is evident that the first information report was actually recorded without delay and the investigation started on its basis immediately thereafter. 16. 15. In the present case, it is evident that the first information report was actually recorded without delay and the investigation started on its basis immediately thereafter. 16. The Apex Court in Pala Singh and another v. State of Punjab (AIR 1972 SC 2679) faced with similar facts, held:— "But, when we find in this case that F.I.R. was actually recorded without delay and the investigation started on the basis of that F.I.R. and there is no other infirmity brought to our notice, then, however improper or objectionable the delayed receipt of the report by the Magistrate concerned, it cannot by itself justify the conclusion that the investigation was tainted and the prosecution insupportable." 17. Similarly, in Tara Singh and others v. The State of Punjab (AIR 1991 SC 63), it has been held that the entire case of the prosecution cannot be thrown out on the mere ground that there has been delay in the first information report reaching the Magistrate, unless there are indications of fabrication. It was further held that these are all matters of appreciation and much depends on the facts and circumstances of each case. 18. In State of U.P. v. Gokaran and others (AIR 1985 SC 131) it has been held that it is not that as if every delay in sending a delayed report to the Magistrate under Section 157, Code of Criminal Procedure, would necessarily lead to the inference that the first information report has not been lodged at the time stated or has been ante-timed or ante-dated or that the investigation is not fair and forthright. 19. It has further been held that where steps in investigation byway of drawing inquest report and other Panchnamas started soon which could only follow the handing over of the first information report, the delayed receipt of the report by the Magistrate would not enable the Court to dub the investigation as tainted one nor could the first information report be regarded as ante-timed and ante-dated. 20. In view of the law laid down by the Apex Court, the ratio laid down by a learned Single Judge of the Delhi High Court in Bal Krishan Sita Ram Pandit v. The State (1987 Cri. L.J. 479) on which reliance has sought to be placed by the learned Counsel for the accused, is not a good law. 21. 20. In view of the law laid down by the Apex Court, the ratio laid down by a learned Single Judge of the Delhi High Court in Bal Krishan Sita Ram Pandit v. The State (1987 Cri. L.J. 479) on which reliance has sought to be placed by the learned Counsel for the accused, is not a good law. 21. In Appukuttan and others v. The State ( 1989 Cri. L. J. 2362) the occurrence had taken place on 21.1.1984 at about 8.30. a.m. The first information report was lodged at the Police Station on the same day at about 9.15 a.m. Such report was sent to and received by the concerned Magistrate on 23.1.1984, 22nd of January being a holiday. A Division Bench of the Kerala High Court refused to reject the first information report as having been created subsequent to the stated day. While doing so, the Division Bench stressed for the need to send the first information to the Magistrate. It was observed:— ".....we may emphasise the necessity of sending the F.I.R. forthwith to the Magistrate without any delay and point out that there is no justification in putting off the communication of the FIR to a working day as what is contemplated by Section 157 is forwarding the report forthwith’ to the Magistrate and not to the Court. We are mentioning this because we find that in large number of cases the Investigating Officer are not sending the report to the Magistrate expeditiously on the ground that a particular date is not a working day. The expression used is forthwith/ and this requirement should not be taken lightly since it was intended to safeguard the interests of the accused and to plug the possibility of creating the FIR after consultation and deliberation. However, in the instant case, we do not find sufficient reason to reject the FIR as having been created subsequent to the stated date." 22. As stated above, the occurrence in the present case took place at about 3.15 p.m. on 13.3.1998. Statement under Section 154, Code of Criminal Procedure was made by PW 3 Madan Lai to the police at about 3.50 p.m. immediately after the occurrence. Such statement which is Ex. PW 3/A was sent to the police station and was received there at about 4.05 p.m. on the basis of which the present case came to be registered vide F.I.R. Ex. Such statement which is Ex. PW 3/A was sent to the police station and was received there at about 4.05 p.m. on the basis of which the present case came to be registered vide F.I.R. Ex. PW 9/A. Immediately thereafter, investigation of the case was taken up by PW 12 Sub-Inspector Ram Parshad. The three injured were referred for medical examination vide Ex. PW 1/A. They were examined between 4.30 p.m. and 5.10 p.m. on 13.3.1998. Sita plan Ex. PW 12/C was also prepared on 13.3.1998. Blood-stained earth and stones were also taken into possession from the spot on the same day vide memos Ex. PW 3/B and PW 3/C. In view of such circumstances and in the absence of any material to show that there has been by fabrication, the delay in sending the first information report to the Magistrate will not go to show that the F.I.R. Ex. PW 9/A was not recorded at the time stated therein or that the same was ante-timed and antedated. Nor it can be said that the investigation has not been fair and forth-right. 23. As per the defence taken by the two accused in answer in question No. 34 of their statement recorded under Section 313, Code of Criminal Procedure, admittedly some occurrence took place between the parties on the relevant date. They have also admitted the presence of PW 3 Madan Lai, PW 4 Saroj Kumar, PW 5 Naresh Kumar and PW 6 Smt. Surtu at the spot. It is neither the case of the accused nor anything has come on the record to show that the accused were in any manner exercising the right of private defence. 24. In view of the admission on the part of the accused that some occurrence had taken place between the parties on the relevant day, the onus was on them to show that such occurrence had not taken place in the manner stated by the prosecution. 25. PW 4 Saroj Kumar, while supporting the prosecution story, has categorically stated that he was given a "khukari” blow on his stomach by Manju accused. The two injuries on his person were found to have been caused by a sharp-edged weapon like "khukari" Ex. P-l. PW 1 Dr. Aloke Singh has stated that both the injuries were possible with a single blow of "khukari” Ex. P-l. 26. The two injuries on his person were found to have been caused by a sharp-edged weapon like "khukari" Ex. P-l. PW 1 Dr. Aloke Singh has stated that both the injuries were possible with a single blow of "khukari” Ex. P-l. 26. PW 5 Naresh Kumar and PW 6 Smt. Surtu, who had respectively sustained grievous and simple injuries on their person, have specifically stated that they had sustained the injuries as a result of the stones pelted at them by the two accused. PW 1 Dr. Aloke Singh have opined that such injuries were possible with pelting stones. 27. Though the accused have tried to suggest that PW 5 Naresh Kumar and PW 6 Smt. Surtu had sustained the injuries as a result of fall on a stony surface of "Katcha" road, nothing has been suggested as to how PW 4 Saroj Kumar happened to receive injuries with a sharp-edged weapon. 28. A contention was raised on behalf of the accused that no reliance can be placed on the evidence of the three injured, namely, PW 4, PW 5 and PW 6 since they are interested-witnesses. In support of his contention, the learned Counsel for the accused placed reliance on the decision of Patna High Court in Subhash Kamkar and others v. State of Bihar (1985 (2) Crimes 129). 29. The decision relied upon by the learned Counsel for the accused does not lay down the proposition that no reliance can be placed on the evidence of an injured witness. In the said case, while examining the question whether reliance could be placed on the sole testimony of the injured, it was held that if the evidence of the injured was free from any blemish, reliance could be placed and conviction could be based thereon. However, the evidence of the injured in the said case was found to suffer from several blemishes and accordingly, no reliance was placed thereon. It was, therefore, held that the injured was a highly-interested witness and it was not safe to base the conviction on her evidence, though she was an injured untness. (Emphasis supplied) 30. The evidence of PW 4 Saroj Kumar, PW 5 Naresh Kumar and PW 6 Smt. Surtu, the three injured does not suffer from any blemish and as such, the same was rightly relied upon by the learned Sessions Judge in basing the conviction of the accused thereon. 31. (Emphasis supplied) 30. The evidence of PW 4 Saroj Kumar, PW 5 Naresh Kumar and PW 6 Smt. Surtu, the three injured does not suffer from any blemish and as such, the same was rightly relied upon by the learned Sessions Judge in basing the conviction of the accused thereon. 31. In addition to the evidence of the three injured, the prosecution story is also supported by PW 3 Madan Lal and PW 8 Gurmel Singh. It may be stated that the presence of PW 8 Gurmel Singh at the spot has not been denied by the accused. Rather they have themselves suggested his presence at the spot during the cross-examination of PW 3 Madan Lai. 32. The learned Counsel for the accused lastly contended that independent witnesses though were available have not been examined in the case and that the failure of the prosecution to do so, an adverse inference is to be drawn. According to the learned Counsel, it has come in the evidence of the prosecution that a number of persons had gathered at the spot at the time of occurrence. However, the prosecution has examined only the three injured and in addition it has examined PW 3 Madan Lai who is the son of PW 6 and brother of PW 5 and PW 8 Gurmel Singh who is an employee of PW 3 Madan Lal, Nothing has come on the record to show as to who were the persons present at the spot and who had seen the occurrence. Even otherwise, assuming that there was some persons at the spot, their non-examination would not be fatal. 33. The Supreme Court in Sarwan Singh and others v. State of Punjab (supra) has held:— "....The onus of proving the prosecution case rests entirely on the prosecution and it follows as logical corollary that the prosecution has complete liberty to choose its witnesses if it is to prove its case. The Court cannot compel the prosecution to examine one witness or the other as its witness. At the most, if a material witness is withheld, the Court may draw an adverse inference against the prosecution. But, it is not the law that the omission to examine any and every witness even on minor points would undoubtedly lead to rejection of the prosecution case or drawing of an adverse inference against the prosecution. At the most, if a material witness is withheld, the Court may draw an adverse inference against the prosecution. But, it is not the law that the omission to examine any and every witness even on minor points would undoubtedly lead to rejection of the prosecution case or drawing of an adverse inference against the prosecution. The law is well settled that the prosecution is bound to produce only such witnesses as are essential for unfolding of the prosecution narrative. In other words, before an adverse inference against the prosecution can be drawn it must be proved to the satisfaction of the Court that the witnesses who had been withheld were eye-witnesses who had actually seen the occurrence and were, therefore, material to prove the case. It is not necessary for the prosecution to multiply witnesses after witnesses on the same point; it is the quality rather than the quantity of the evidence that matters......". In the instant case the evidence of PW 3, PW 4, PW 5, PW 6 and PW 8 does not suffer from any infirmity or any manifest error on its intrinsic merit. None of the witnesses cited has been withheld. Therefore, no adverse inference can be drawn in the present case for non-joining or non-examination of the persons alleged to have gathered at the spot. 34. On the basis of evidence coming on the record, the learned Sessions Judge has rightly convicted the two accused for the offences under Sections 323 and 307 read with Section 34, Indian Penal Code. 35. Insofar as the question of quantum of sentence is concerned, both the accused have been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years for the offence under Section 307, Indian Penal Code. The sentence for such offence under the law can extend to life imprisonment. Therefore, the two accused have been dealt with leniently by the learned Sessions Judge. As such, no interference is called for even on the quantum of sentence. Resultantly, the present appeal is dismissed. The conviction and sentence imposed upon the two accused by the learned Sessions Judge are maintained. Appeal dismissed.