JUDGMENT 1. - This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 1.5.1986 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Merta in sessions case No. 38/83 convicting and sentencing the accused as under : 2. Accused Ganpat, Narain, Champa, Badri, Malla, Ghevar, Sukhdeo, and Gudar; under section 325/149 I.P.C., 2 years' R.I. and fine of Rs. 1000/-each, in default, to further undergo six months S.I. 3. Accused Nar Singh; under section 325 I.P.C., 2 years' R.I. and a fine of Rs. 100/- in default, to further undergo 6 months' S.I. 4. Accused Nar Singh, Ganpat, Narain, Champa, Badri, Mella, Ghevar, Banshi, Sukhdeo and Gudar under section 148 I.P.C., 1 year's R.I., under section 447 I.P.C. 3 months R.I. and under section 323 I.P.C. 1 year's R.I. All the substantive sentences have been ordered to run concurrently. 5. Accused Labura, Suwatiya, Smt. Champa Devi and Smt. Sayari under section : 148, 447, 323/149, 325/149 I.PC. 6. With the assistance of the learned counsel for the appellants and the learned Public Prosecution for the State, I have scrutinised the record and re-appreciated the evidence on record. 7. Brief facts of the case are that first information report was lodged by one Dhula on 15.8.1983 at 5.00 p.m. at police station, Padu Badi alleging therein that at about 12.00 noon when he and 16 other persons were at Bera Lamda, all the accused persons having lathis, farsis, axes and swords came there and started abusing to the complainant party and warned them for stopping the work of `dhora'. Accused Narsingh said the other accused that all should be assaulted, thereupon the accused persons assaulted the complainant party, some of them ran away from the scene of occurrence. Accused Gulab, Ghamadia, Ganesh, Chandria and Padu Shanker received grivious injuries on their person. On this information, a case was registered for the offence as stated above and investigation was commenced. 8. The prosecution has examined witnesses in support of its case. But none of them is independent witness to prove the case of prosecution. The witnesses' statements are on record, therefore, I see no reason to reiterate the same here. 9. On rescrutiny of the record, I find that the first information report was Aged after five hours of incident, whereas the Police Station was 12 k.m. away from the scene of occurrence. The prosecution has not explained injury caused to the accused-persons by the complainant. 9. On rescrutiny of the record, I find that the first information report was Aged after five hours of incident, whereas the Police Station was 12 k.m. away from the scene of occurrence. The prosecution has not explained injury caused to the accused-persons by the complainant. Therefore, finding of the learned Judge in convicting the accused are perverse. Hence, the order of conviction passed by the learned Sessions Judge convicting the accused as aforesaid is liable to be quashed and set aside. 10. In the result, the appeal succeeds and is allowed. The order of conviction dated 1.5.1986 is quashed and set aside. The accused are on bail, their bail bonds are cancelled.Appeal Allowed - Conviction set aside. *******