Judgment A.K.Sinha, J. 1. This appeal has been directed against the order of conviction and sentence dated 6.3.1992 passed by Sri R. Pandey, 5th Additional Sessions Judge, Giridih, in Sessions Trial No. 88/88, whereby and whereunder he convicted the appellants under Section 326/34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentence each of them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years and also to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- each or in default thereof to undergo simple imprisonment for six months. The learned Court below also ordered that a sum of Rs. 1,500/- shall be paid to the injured Jagdish Mahto out of the amount of fine. 2. According to the case of the prosecution, on 31.7.1987 at about 6.30 a.m., the brother of the informant, namely, Jagdish Mahto, who is the injured of the case was going to his field with paddy seedlings and for that the informant along with his brother Gulab Mahto were preparing the field nearabout the place of occurrence. It is alleged that as soon as Jagdish Mahto reached to the field popularly known as Bhorwatand belonging to one Dukhharan Mahto, accused Inshwar Mahto, Daso Mahto and Baleshwar Mahto, who had concealed themselves behind a Mahua tree appeared all of a sudden and surrounded Jagdish Mahto. It is alleged that accused Daso Mahto was armed with farsa, accused Daso Mahto attacked Jagdish Mahto with farsa, as a result of which, the left leg of Jagdish Mahto was cut. The informant and his brother ran along with their further, who was also coming with the paddy seedlings and all of them wanted to catch hold of the assailants but they fled away. The injured Jagdish Mahto disclosed to his brothers and father that accused Daso Mahto had attacked him with farsa on his head but he saved himself from that attack and eventually the farsa hit him on his left leg causing a cut injury of his left leg. Thereafter, the witnesses, namely, Baldeo Prasad Kushwaha, Jhari Prasad Kush-waha, Dumarchand Mahto, Bhagirath Prasad and Indradeo Mahto, who were working in the nearby field came and they also saw the alleged occurrence. It is stated that Indradeo Mahto tied up the injured portion with his dhoti and there was profused bleeding due to severe nature of the injury. Thereafter, the injured was brought to the hospital on a cot and he became senseless. It is stated that Indradeo Mahto tied up the injured portion with his dhoti and there was profused bleeding due to severe nature of the injury. Thereafter, the injured was brought to the hospital on a cot and he became senseless. The motive behind the occurrence is said to be the previous enmity going on between the parties. The fardbeyan of the informant, namely, Prayag Mahto was recorded on the same day at 10 a.m. at Referral Hospital, Dhanuar, by S.I. S.P Singh and at 12.30 p.m. formal FIR was lodged. The police took up the investigation and submitted charge-sheet under Sections 326/307 of the Indian Penal Code and cognizance was taken under both the counts and the case was transferred to the file of Sri R. Pandey, Additional Sessions Judge, Giridih, who passed the impugned order of conviction and sentence against the appellants. 3. The case of the defence is the complete denial of the alleged occurrence and their false implication in the case. 4. The prosecution has examined altogether eight witnesses in this case, out of which, PW 1 Dr. Birendra Kumar Das is the Doctor, who examined the injured, namely, Jagdish Mahto at Referral Hospital, Dharnwar on 31.7.1987 at 9 a.m. and found the following injuries on his person : (1) Commuted fracture of left fibula below knee and its wound was lacerated of size 3 cm x 2.5 cm. x 3.2 cm. (2) Incised wound of left leg 8 cm. lower (distal) to injury No. 1. Only l/4th of the skin was intact and the rest was cut i.e. separated. PW 1 has deposed that both the injuries referred to above were grievous in nature caused by heavy sharp weapon such as farsa and the age of the injury was within 24 hours. PW 1 has proved the injury report (Exhibit-1). In his cross-examination, PW 1 has stated that he treated the injured as outdoor patient and his name was disclosed to him by his attendant. He further stated that the colour of the injury is the determining factor for assessing the age of the injury and he could not remember that when the injured was discharged from the hospital. In his cross-examination, PW 1 has stated that he treated the injured as outdoor patient and his name was disclosed to him by his attendant. He further stated that the colour of the injury is the determining factor for assessing the age of the injury and he could not remember that when the injured was discharged from the hospital. PW 1 has admitted that he examined the injured and prepared the injury report (Exhibit-1) at once but he signed on the injury report on 1.8.1987 and on the same day, he attested the LTI of the injured. There is nothing else worth comment in the testimony of PW 1. 5. PW 2 Jagdish Mahto is the injured of this case, who has deposed that on 31.7.1987 at 6.30 a.m., he along with his father was carrying seedlings and when he reached to Bhorwatand, accused Daso Mahto, Baleshwar Mahto and Ishwar Mahto, who were hiding near the trees, came and he was surrounded by Baleshwar Mahto and Ishwar Mahto and accused Daso Mahto attacked with farsa on his neck but he bent down, as a result of which, the farsa hit on his left leg below the knee and when he fell down, Daso Mahto gave a farsa blow on his left leg below the knee, due to which his left leg was completely cut, but in the same breath, he has stated that some portion of the skin was only left. PW 2 then says that he was unconscious but he was taken to Raj Dhanwar Hospital from there he was reffered to Rajendra Medical College Hospital where his leg was amputated. PW 2 identified the accused Ishwar Mahto and claimed to identify the remaining two accused. In his cross-examination, PW 2 has stated that prior to the alleged occurrence, the accused persons had instituted a case against him and his brother and father under Section 107, Cr PC in which all of them used to appear. PW 2 identified the accused Ishwar Mahto and claimed to identify the remaining two accused. In his cross-examination, PW 2 has stated that prior to the alleged occurrence, the accused persons had instituted a case against him and his brother and father under Section 107, Cr PC in which all of them used to appear. He has further stated that his house is situated at a distance of half kilometre from the field from where he was bringing the paddy seedlings and the distance between the field from where he was bringing the seedlings and the field where he was carrying was about 400-500 yards and he was going through the tand and there is no house near the field rather the field of several persons exists and the villagers were working in their respective fields. He has named Indra Narayan Mahto, Budhan Mahto, Dumar Chand Mahto, Baldeo Mahto, who were working in their respective fields. He has also stated that the accused persons have also got their land below the Tand land. In para 5 of his cross-examination, PW 2 has stated that besides his father, his brothers, namely, Prayag Mahto and Dular Mahto came running at the time of the alleged occurrence and he sustained injuries on plot No. 495 where his brothers were ploughing. He has further stated that plot No. 495 is a very big plot which is possessed by so many villagers and he has given the specific boundary of the land possessed by him. He has also stated that accused Ishwar Mahto has also taken settlement of some land in plot No. 495 and on the day of the alleged occurrence, land of Ishwar Mahto had been sown. In para 12 of his evidence, PW 2 has stated that the regained consciousness at Ranchi but he could not say the date nor he could say on which date the police recorded his statement. PW 2 has admitted about his enmity with the accused-persons regarding land and has stated that the disputed land is in possession of the accused persons. He has denied the suggestion that he has falsely implicated the accused persons due to enemity. 6. PW 2 has admitted about his enmity with the accused-persons regarding land and has stated that the disputed land is in possession of the accused persons. He has denied the suggestion that he has falsely implicated the accused persons due to enemity. 6. It would, therefore, appear from the evidence of PW 2 that he was assaulted twice by farsa and sustained two injuries on his left leg, but in the FIR, there is no allegation that Daso Mahto gave two farsa blows on PW 2, rather, there is allegation of only one farsa blow against Daso Mahto which cut the bone of the left leg of PW 2. It further appears from the evidence of PW 2 that he became unconscious and was taken to Raj Dhanwar Hospital in the state of unconscious. He has nowhere stated that after assault he made any statement to the witnesses, who had assembled on hearing his cries. But, in the fardbeyan (Exhibit-3), the informant has stated that when he along with his brother and father ran after hearing the cries of his brother (PW 2), the assailants had fled away and his injured brother (PW 2) disclosed to him that Daso Mahto had attacked him with farsa on his head with an intention to kill him, but he waved his head and so, the farsa hit on his left leg, as a result of which, his bone was cut. This assertion made by the informant in his fardbeyan has not been supported by PW 2, who has not whispered a word that after assault when his brothers and father came, he narrated to them regarding the assault made by Daso Mahto PW 2 has simply stated that he became unconscious but he was taken to Raj Dhanwar Hospital and later on, he was taken to RMCH, where his leg was amputated. It would, therefore, appear that the prosecution version, as given by the informant (PW 3), has not been supported by PW 2 himself, who is the most important witness being the injured of this case. It would, therefore, appear that the prosecution version, as given by the informant (PW 3), has not been supported by PW 2 himself, who is the most important witness being the injured of this case. PW 2 has admitted that the alleged occurrence took place in the Tand land of Dukhran Mahto, and he has got his land in the lower side of the p.o. land and many people were working in their respective lands, out of whom, he has named Indra Narayan Mahto, Dudhan Mahto, Dumar Chand Mahto and Baldeo Mahto. But save and except Baldeo Prasad Kuswaha (PW 6), other persons named by PW 2, such as Indra Narayan Mahto, Budhan Mahto and Dumar Chand Mahto, who were working in the nearby fields have not been examined by the prosecution. According to PW 2, he was assulated on plot No. 495, which according to him, is a very big plot, out of which, an area of 8 Kattha is in his possession. But, according to PW 9, Suresh Prasad Singh, who is the I.O. of this case, he place of occurrence which is popularly known as Bhorwa Tand belongs to one Dukhran Mahto and nowhere the I.O. has stated that the alleged occurrence took place on plot No. 495. 7. PW 3 Prayag Mahto is the informant of this case, who has proved his signature as Exhibit-2 on the fardbeyan (Exhibit-3). According to PW 3, he along with his brother Gulab Pd. Kusawaha (PW 4) were ploughing in the field and his brother Jagdish Mahto (PW 2) and father had gone to bring paddy seedlings and when they were returning back with the paddy seedlings and had reached on the land of Dukhran Mahto, which is popularly known as Bhorwa Tand accused Baleshwar, Ishwar and Daso surrounded his brother and started abusing. PW 3 has further stated that Daso Mahto attacked his brother Jagdish with farsa on his head which did not hit him and so, he attacked him again and the second farsa blow caused injury on his left leg and his leg was cut. He has further deposed that he along with his brother ran towards the place of occurrence and brought his brother to Dhanwar Hospital where police came and he gave his statement before the police. He has further deposed that he along with his brother ran towards the place of occurrence and brought his brother to Dhanwar Hospital where police came and he gave his statement before the police. PW 3 is none else but the informant himself, who clearly stated in the fardbeyan that his brother Jagdish disclosed to him regarding the assault made by accused Daso Mahto. But, in the evidence of PW 3, he has not whispered a word regarding the disclosure made by PW 2 regarding the manner of assault and, as such, it would appear that PW 3 has suppressed the important part of the prosecution version, as stated in the fardbeyan, that his brother -had disclosed to him that Daso Mahto attacked him with farsa on his head with an intention to kill him but he waved his head and the farsa hit on the left leg cutting the bone. He has also not stated that he wanted to catch hold of the assailants, who fled away. As such, it would appears that PW 3 has suppressed another important fact which he stated in his fardbeyan and it does not appear from his evidence in the examination-in-chief that he had seen the assailants fleeing away from the place of occurrence. PW 3 had also admitted that Inder Mahto, Dumar Chandra, Baldeo Mahto and Bhagirath Mahto were ploughing their lands in the near vicinity but the above named persons have not been examined by the prosecution. In the cross-examination, PW 3 has clearly admitted that he had not seen the accused persons while making assault because he was not present there. This statement made by PW 3 would go to show that he had not seen Daso Mahto while assaulting and, as such, his evidence to the effect that Daso Mahto attacked with farsa on the head of his brother Jagdish and again attacked with farsa causing injury on his left leg does not deserve to be relied upon. PW 3 has stated that he took the cut portion of leg of the injured to the hospital, but in the same breath, he stated that he took the same to Thana and he contradicted his own statement by saying that some portion of leg was attached with the leg. PW 3 has stated that he took the cut portion of leg of the injured to the hospital, but in the same breath, he stated that he took the same to Thana and he contradicted his own statement by saying that some portion of leg was attached with the leg. He has also admitted that other witnesses came after him which means that the other witnesses also did not witness the occurrence. Since PW 3 himself did not see the actual assault. 8. PW 4 Gulab Prasad Kuswaha is another brother to the injured, who was working in the field along with the PW 3 and he has also stated that on hearing halla when he went to the place of occurrence, he saw three accused who had surrounded his brother Jagdish Mahto and Daso Mahto gave a farsa blow on the neck of his brother Jagdish, which hit on his leg and his leg was completely cut and thereafter, the assailants fled away, This witness has also not stated a word that his brother Jagdish stated about the assault made by accused Daso Mahto and he has also not stated that accused Daso Mahto had attacked his brother twice causing two injuries on the left leg of Jagdish Mahto. According to his evidence, Daso Mahto had given only one farsa blow which resulted in the cutting of the left leg of his brother Jagdish. I have stated earlier that PW 3 admitted in his cross-examination that he was the first to reach the place of occurrence and other witnesses came after him and he also admitted that he had not witnessed the actual assault. So, in view of his statement, PW 4 could not have witnessed the actual assault, which he claims. It is the admitted position that PW 3 and 4 both were working in the same field and PW 4 has also admitted that he was at a distance of about 300 steps from the place of occurrence which was on a height of about ten feets. It is the admitted position that PW 3 and 4 both were working in the same field and PW 4 has also admitted that he was at a distance of about 300 steps from the place of occurrence which was on a height of about ten feets. It was rightly argued by the defence that PW 4 or PW 3 could not have seen the actual occurrence because the place of occurrence was situated on a height of 10 feets from the field where PW 3 and PW 4 were working and it was not possible for them to witness the actual occurrence from the distance of 300 steps at such height. It is this reason that PW 3 and 4 have stated in his cross-examination that Daso Mahto had attacked his brother Jagdish with farsa on his leg, although the prosecution version is that Daso Mahto had attacked with farsa on the head of Jagdish, but since Jagdish waved his head, the farsa hit on his left leg which resulted in cutting of bone. 9. It would, therefore, appear from the discussions made above that PWs 3 and 4, who are the own brothers of the injured are not the actual eye-witnesses to the alleged occurrence and had not seen the actual assault and their claim that they had seen the actual assault does not in spite confidence to believe. 10. PW 5 Bhagirath Prasad Kuswaha went to the place of occurrence on hullaand saw that the left leg of Jagdish Mahto was cut with profuse bleeding and he saw Daso Mahto, Ishwar Mahto and Baleshwar Mahto fleeing. PW 5 has stated that on being asked Jagdish Mahto disclosed to him that the assailants tried to kill him but the farsa hit on his left leg and his leg was cut, although PW 2 Jagdish Mahto has not whispered a word which I have referred to above. This witness has stated that at first he took Jagdish Mahto to the Police Station and seeing the condition of Jagdish Mahto, S.I. of Police asked him to take the injured to Danwar Raj Hospital and thereafter, they took him to the hospital. This statement made by PW 5 appears to be a white lie because the informant himself has stated that at first he took the injured to the hospital and the PW 9 Suresh Pd. This statement made by PW 5 appears to be a white lie because the informant himself has stated that at first he took the injured to the hospital and the PW 9 Suresh Pd. Singh, who is the I.O. of this case, has also deposed that he received a requisition from the Referral Hospital, Dhanbad, which he entered into the station diary bearing No. 622 dated 31.7.1987 (Exhibit-3) and thereafter, he proceeded to the hospital where he reached at about 10 a.m. and recorded the fardbeyan (exhibit-4) of Prayag Mahto. As such, it would appear that PW 5 has deliberately made a false statement to the effect that at first the injured was taken to the hospital and on being referred by the S.I. of police, he was taken to the hospital. In the cross-examination, PW 5 has admitted that Inder Mahato was first to reach the place of occurrence and after the occurrence was over many persons assembled near the place of occurrence, but Inder Mahato, who was first to reach, has not been examined by the prosecution. I, therefore, find that the evidence of PW 5 is full of inconsistency and discrepancies which shows that he is not the real witness to the alleged occurrence. 11. The evidence of PW 6 Baldeo Prasad Kuswaha stands on the same footing as that of PW 5. PW 6 has admitted that Gulab Mahto, Prayag Mahto, Etwari Mahto and Indra Narayan Mahato and many persons had reached to the place of occurrence before he reached there and when he enquired from Jagdish, he disclosed to him that Daso attacked him with farsa with an intention to kill him but since he waved his head, the farsa hit on his left leg, as a result of which, the bone was cut. 12. PW 7 Etwari Mahto is the father of the injured, namely, Jaggish Mahto, who was going along with him carrying paddy seedling. 12. PW 7 Etwari Mahto is the father of the injured, namely, Jaggish Mahto, who was going along with him carrying paddy seedling. PW 7 has stated that when he along with his son Jagdish reached on the land of Dukhram Mahto, which is popularly known as Bhorwatand, accused Ishwar Mahto, Baleshwar Mahto and Daso Mahto, who were hiding behind the tree appeared and surrounded them and accused Daso Mahto attacked his son Jagdish with farsa on his neck but he missed and his son fell down on the ground and then Daso gave farsa blow on his left leg causing injury to him. He has further stated that he raised alarm and thereafter, he brought his son to the police station and then to the hospital where the leg of his son was amputated. It does not appear from the evidence of PW 7 that whether Daso gave two farsa blows to Jagdish or only one farsa blow. PW 7 has also not whispered a word that when the witnesses arrived at the place of occurrence, his son Jagdish stated before them regarding the manner of assault made by Daso. PW 7 has also falsely stated that at first he took his son to the police station and from there he took his son to the hospital. It is the consistent case of the prosecution that Jagdish Mahto was shifted to RMCH where he was admitted and his left leg was amputated at RMCH. PW 7 has stated that the leg of his son was amputated at Referral Hospital, Dhanbad, when his son was referred by the police to the Referral Hospital. In the cross-examination, PW 7 has admitted that accused Ishwar Mahto had instituted a case of loot in which he was convicted along with his son and wife but he has preferred an appeal against his conviction. It is, therefore, undisputed that previous litigations are going on between the parties. PW 7 has stated in para 9 of his cross-examination that the place of occurrence is situated at a distance of 10-12 cubic from his field where his sons were ploughing. It is, therefore, undisputed that previous litigations are going on between the parties. PW 7 has stated in para 9 of his cross-examination that the place of occurrence is situated at a distance of 10-12 cubic from his field where his sons were ploughing. PW 4 Gopal Prasad Kuswaha, who is the son of the informant, has clearly admitted that the distance is about 300 steps and this is the vital contradiction appearing in the evidence of PW 7 and the defence has suggested to him that the alleged occurrence did not take place in the field of Dukhram Mahato, which of course he has denied. 13. PW 8 Shiv Mangal Pd. Sinha is a formal witness, who has proved the station diary No. 622 dated 31.71987 (Ex-hibit-3) and the fardbeyan (Exhibit-4). There is nothing worth comment in his cross-examination. 14. PW 9 Suresh Pd. Singh is the I.O. of this case, who has deposed that on getting requisition from the Referral Hospital, Dhanbad, he made entry of the requisition in the station diary and proceeded to the Referral Hospital where he recorded the fardbeyan of Prayag Mahato (Exhibit-4) and recorded the statement of the witnesses. He has further stated that he could not record the statement of the injured, namely, Jagdish Mahto, because he was unconscious and thereafter he returned back to the police station and instituted a formal FIR (Ex-hibit-5) on the basis of the fardbeyan and also visited the place of occurrence where he found two bundles of paddy seedlings and also saw copious blood at the place of occurrence which was mixed with sand and the earth of that place had become red. PW 9 has given the description of the P.O. land and has stated that on 4.10.1987 he recorded the statement of the injured at Bariyatu Hospital. In the cross-examination, PW 9 has stated that he went alone to the place of occurrence and I am really at loss to understand that how he could identify the place of occurrence in absence of anybody showing him the exact place of occurrence. The I.O. has also admitted that he did not seize the blood-stained cloth, nor blood-stained earth. He also did not visit the land from where the injured had brought the paddy seedlings. 15. On behalf of the defence, DW 1 Md. The I.O. has also admitted that he did not seize the blood-stained cloth, nor blood-stained earth. He also did not visit the land from where the injured had brought the paddy seedlings. 15. On behalf of the defence, DW 1 Md. Israil Ansari has proved the sale deed dated 26.12.1983 executed by Ganga Devi in favour of accused Daso Mahto and others (Exhibit-A) and has also proved two rent receipts (Exhibit-B to B/l). The aforesaid documents have been filed to show the land dispute between the parties. 16. On behalf of the defence, it was strongly argued before me that PW 3 to PW 7 are not the eye-witnesses to the actual occurrence which is apparent from their evidence and they could not have seen the occurrence because they were at a distance of 300 steps from the place of occurrence land which was situated at a height of about 10 feet and from the lower level it was not possible to witness the occurrence. The learned APP, however, submitted that the place of occurrence is situated at a hillock which was slopy and so, it was possible for the witnesses to see the occurrence even from the lower level. But, there is nothing in the evidence of any PWs to show that the land was slopy or it was a hillock. So, in the absence of any evidence to that effect, the argument advanced by the learned APP is not acceptable to me. It was next argued before me that the previous enmity between the parties had been admitted and it has also come in evidence that the father of the injured was convicted in a robbery case instituted by accused Ishwar Mahto. So, in view of the inimical relation between the parties the false implication of the appellant cannot be ruled out. 17. The learned Defence Counsel forcefully argued before me that the medical report and the FIR of this case has been fabricated which is evident from the fact that the FIR was lodged on 31.7.1987 at 12.30 p.m. and it was despatched on 1.8.1987, but it was received in the Court on 3.8.1987, which is manifest from the endorsement made by the SDJM on the top corner of the FIR. The prosecution has failed to give any explanation for the delay in receipt of the FIR in the Court and in such view of the matter, FIR becomes highly suspicious. In support of his contention, the learned Defence Counsel has relied upon a decision in the case of Ishwar Singh V/s. The State of Uttar Pradesh (1976 Cri LJ 1883). In the aforesaid decision it was held by the Apex Court that: "The extraordinary delay in sending the FIR is a circumstance which provides a legitimate basis for suspecting that the first information report was recorded much later than the stated date and hour affording sufficient time to the prosecution to introduce improvements and embellishment and set up a distorted version of the occurrence." 18. The learned Counsel cited another decision in the case of Arjun Mari and others V/s. The State of Bihar (1994) 1 East Cr C 281 SC), wherein their Lordships have held that: "Section 157 of the Code of Criminal Procedure mandates that if, from information received or otherwise, an Officer-in-Charge of Police Station has reason to suspect the commission of an offence which he is empowered under Section 156 to investigate, he shall forthwith send a report of the same to the Magistrate empowered to take cognizance of such offence upon a police report. Section 157, Cr PC thus in other words directs the sending of the report forthwith, i.e., without any delay and immediately. Further, Section 159, Cr P.C. envisages that on receiving such a report, the Magistrate may direct an investigation or if he thinks fit, to proceed at once or depute any other Magistrate subordinate to him to proceed to hold a preliminary inquiry into the case in the manner provided in the Code of Criminal Procedure. The forwarding of the occurrence report is indispensable and absolute and it has to be forwarded with earliest despatch which intention is implicit with the use of the word "forthwith" occurring in Section 157, which means promptly and without any undue delay. The purpose and object is so obvious which is spelt out from the combined reading of Sections 157 and 159, Cr. The purpose and object is so obvious which is spelt out from the combined reading of Sections 157 and 159, Cr. P.C. It has the dual purpose, firstly to avoid the possibility of improvement in the prosecu- tion story and introduction of any distorted version by deliberations and consultations and secondly to enable the Magistrate concerned to have a watch in the progress of the investigation." 19. On the basis of the aforesaid two decisions of the Apex Court, learned Counsel for the appellants strongly argued before me that in the instant case also the witnesses have made contradictory and exaggerated version which shows that they are not trust worthy witnesses, inasmuch, as PW 3 to 7 claims themselves to be the eye witnesses to the alleged occurrence, but from their evidence, it appears that they are not the eye-witnesses to the alleged occurrence and distorted version has been given in the FIR after due consultation and this is the reason that the FIR was not despatched to the Court at the earliest opportunity and delay of three days took place in sending the FIR to the Court enabling the prosecution party to concoct/false and imaginary story. 20. It is true that delay in sending the FIR to the Court is a circumstance which provides a legitimate basis for suspecting that FIR was recorded much latter than the stated date and hour affording sufficient time to the prosecution to introduce improvements and embellishments but that is not true in all the cases. Even if there is any delay in receiving the first information report, that itself is not sufficient to come to the conclusion suspecting manipulation in the investigation of the case. 21. It has been observed in the case of Madru Singh V/s. The State of M.P ( AIR 1997 SC 3527 ) that on the facts and circumstances of the case that merely because the copy of the Fist Information Report was received by the concerned Magistrate on 10th August, 1984, no conclusion could be drawn that the FIR was not lodged on 7th August, 1984 at 6 p.m. The Apex Court was pleased to observe that the Courts below were right in rejecting the defence contention. In other words, the mere fact that the copy of the FIR was received by the concerned Magistrate three days after the incidents did not warrant the conclusion that the FIR was not lodged on the same day after the incidents or that it was ante-dated. 22. The aforesaid decision was relied upon by a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Chothi Yadav and others V/s. The State of Bihar (1999-1-PLJR page 427) wherein it has been held that the delay in receipt of the FIR in the Court of the ACJM does not create any doubt whatsoever that the FIR was not recorded on the date, time and place as claimed by the prosecution and it had been antedated and ante-timed with a view of fabricate a false case. 23. Their Lordships relied upon the decisions reported in AIR 1976 SC 2423 , AIR 1985 SC 131 , AIR 1996 SC 3041 , AIR 1997 SC 3527 . 24. In the present case, I find that the FIR was lodged on 31.7.1987 at 12.30 p.m. and it appears from the evidence of the I.O. that he had started the investigation in the case on that very date by recording the statement of the witnesses and issuing injury report to the Doctor and visiting the place of occurrence on the very day of the alleged occurrence which the I.O. has candidly deposed in his evidence. The defence has not even put a suggestion to PW 9 that the FIR of the case was fabricated or contains distorted version. So, merely because the delay of three days took place in receiving the FIR in the Court, it cannot be accepted that there was any ante-dating or antitiming or fabricating the FIR so that it can be looked with suspicision or doubt and I am supported in my view by the decision in the case of Madru Singh (supra). 25. The learned Counsel then argued that according to the FIR, Daso Mahto gave only one farsa blow causing cut injury on the left leg of the injured Jagdish Mahto and there is no whispering in the fardbeyan (Exhibit-4) that Daso Mahto attacked twice upon Jagdish Mahto. The evidence of the witnesses examined by the prosecutions has disclosed that Daso Mahto gave only one farsa blow to Jagdish Mahto. The evidence of the witnesses examined by the prosecutions has disclosed that Daso Mahto gave only one farsa blow to Jagdish Mahto. So, only one injury should have been found on the person of Jagdish and that injury was a cut injury on the left leg of Jagdish Mahto according to the version of the witnesses. But, PW 1 Dr. B.K. Das, who examined Jagdish Mahto at Reforal Hospital, Dhan-bad, on 31.7.1987 at 9 a.m. found two grievous injuries caused by heavy sharp weapon and those injuries are : (i) Commuted fracture of left fibula below knee and its wound was lacerated of size 3 cm x 2.5 cm x 3.2 cm. (ii) Incised wound of left leg 8 cm. lower (distal) to injury No. 1 Only 1 /4th of the skin was intact and the rest was cut i.e. separated. It was, therefore, submitted that the prosecution has failed to give any explanation regarding the first injury found by the doctor and the evidence given by PW 2 Jagdish Mahto in his evidence that he was given two farsa blows by Daso Mahto falls short of belief, inasmuch, as the FIR is conspicuously silent on the point that Daso Mahto gave two farsa blows to him. The other witnesses examined by the prosecution have also not stated about two farsa blows given by Daso Mahto and they have unequivocally stated about only one farsa blow given by Daso Mahto. As such, the evidence of PW 2 does not deserve to be relied upon that he was given two farsa blows by Daso Mahto and, such statement made by PW 2 does not inspire confidence to believe and it appears that he has given such statement to fill up lacuna since the Doctor found two injuries on his person. The argument advanced by the learned Counsel for the appellants carries force in it, inasmuch, as I also find from the FIR, which is the earliest version of the informant that there is no whispering of giving two farsa blows to PW 2 by Daso Mahto since there is nothing in the FIR to show that the witnesses also found two injuries on the left leg of PW 2. The fact remains that immediately after the occurrences, the witnesses reached near PW 2 and saw the injuries on his person and thereafter, the fardbeyan was lodged by the informant. The fact remains that immediately after the occurrences, the witnesses reached near PW 2 and saw the injuries on his person and thereafter, the fardbeyan was lodged by the informant. So, in all probabilities, the informant should have stated in his fardbeyan that he noticed two injuries on the left leg of PW 2. But in his fardbeyan, the informant has clearly stated that Daso Mahto gave one farsa blow aiming on the head of his brother Jagdish Mahto, who waved his head, as a result of which, farsa hit on the left leg cutting (sic) bone of his left leg and he has not stated anything about any other injury in his fardbeyan. Similarly, PW 3 Prayag Mahto has also stated that Daso Mahto gave on blow to Jagdish, which did not hit him and the second farsa blow hit on his left leg by which the bone of his left leg was cut. PW 4 Gopal Pd. Kuswaha has also stated about only one blow of farsa given by Daso Mahto to PW 2. In other words, the witnesses have stated that Daso Mahto gave only one farsa blow which caused cut injury on the left leg of PW 2. I, therefore, find that the medical evidence on record belies the prosecution story regarding the manner of assault and the evidence of PW 2 that he was given two farsa blows by Daso Mahto appears to be a distorted statement which does not deserve to be relied upon. 26. The learned Counsel for the appellant argued before me that the injury report granted by PW 1 is also highly suspicious and does not deserve to be relied upon, inasmuch, as PW 1 has admitted that he examined the injured at once and prepared the injury report (Exhibit-1.). So, in all probability, he should have singed the injury report on 31.7.1987 itself, but the PW 1 has admitted that he signed the injury report on 1.8.1987 and no explantion has been given by him that why he signed on the injury report on 1.8.1987 and, as such, the injury report (Exhibit-1) granted by PW 1 becomes highly doubtful. I find force in the submission advanced by the learned Counsel for the appellants. I find force in the submission advanced by the learned Counsel for the appellants. I am also of the view that the injury report (Exhibit-1) is doubtful because the doctor has not given any reason for signing the injury report after one day, i.e., on 1.8.1987 and in the absence of any explanation from him, it has to be accepted that the injury report prepared by PW 1 is antidated document which does not deserve to be relied upon. The learned Counsel submitted that according to PW 1, the age of the injury was within 24 hours. If the Doctor examined PW 2 on 31.7.1987 at 10 a.m. then in all probability, he should have mentioned the age of the injury between 3-6 hours because the injury was so fresh and there was no reason for him to mention in his injury report that the age of injury was within 24 hours. So, this circumstance also shows that the injured was not examined immediately after the occurrence, i.e., 10 a.m. and he might have been examined much later and this is the reason that why PW 1 has mentioned the age of injury as within 24 hours. This submission of the learned Counsel also looks convincing. I find that the Doctor has also not mentioned the colour of injury, although he has admitted that the colour of injury is the determining factor of the age of injury. So, he should have mentioned the colour of injury in his injury report so that it could be ascertained that what was the age of the injury. In absence of the colour of injury in the injury report and the evidence of PW 1 that the age of injury was within 24 hours, an inference can be drawn that the injured was not examined by PW 1 on 31.7.1987 at 10 a.m. and he might have been examined later on and this is the reason that why PW 1 has mentioned the age of injury as within 24 hours without mentioning the colour of injury. 27. Learned Counsel further submitted that PW 2 became unconscious immediately after receiving the injuries. According to the evidence of the witnesses, there was no occasion for PW 2 to give a detailed version of the manner in which the assault took place. 27. Learned Counsel further submitted that PW 2 became unconscious immediately after receiving the injuries. According to the evidence of the witnesses, there was no occasion for PW 2 to give a detailed version of the manner in which the assault took place. It has also been admitted by PW 2 himself that he regained his consciousless at RMCH, Ranchi, where his statement was recorded by the I.O. So, the evidence of the witnesses that PW 2 gave detailed account of the manner of assault is proved to be false. The learned Counsel also submitted that according to PW 2, his leg was amputated at RMCH, but the other witnesses have deposed on oath that it was completely cut and the cut portion of the leg was carried to the police station. So, the prosecution should have explained the aforesaid discrepancies, but neither the Doctor of RMCH has been examined nor any explanation has been given by the prosecution to remove the aforesaid discrepancies occourning in the evidence of the witnesses. 28. On careful consideration of the evidence, facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view mat the learned trial Court was not justified in convicting the appellants for the offences under Section 326/34, IPC, inasmuch as the prosecution had not proved the charge beyond all reasonable doubts and at any rate, the learned Court below should have given the benefit of doubt to the accused-persons. 29. I, therefore, give benefit of doubt to the appellants and hold that the prosecution had not proved the charge under Sections 326/34, IPC against the appellants beyond all reasonable doubt. Accordingly, the order/judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the Court below are set aside. The appellants are, therefore, held not guilty to the charges levelled against them and are acquitted of the same. They are also discharged from the liabilities of the bail bonds. 30. In the result, this appeal is allowed.