JUDGMENT 1. - This criminal appeal owes its origin in the judgment dated 26.5.2000 of the learned Sessions Judge, Kota convicting the accused-appellant under sections 304 Part II, 325 & 323 IPC to undergo five years rigorous imprisonment, two years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 500/- in default to further undergo three months simple imprisonment and one year rigorous imprisonment, respectively. The appellant was directed to serve all these sentences simultaneously. 2. The prosecution story as set out in the FIR is that on 3.10.1997 around 9.30 p.m. when Brij Mohan @ Raju, Dinesh Kumar, trader Dinesh and Satish Kumar were together, the accused-appellant alongwith other co-accused armed with pipes, sticks and iron rods came over there. Accused-appellant inflicted pipe blows on the person of Brij Mohan and other co-accused inflicted blows on the person of Satish Kumar, Dinesh Kumar and trader Dinesh. Intervenor Puran Prasad, the father of Satish Kumar was severely beaten by the accused person. Injury on his head was attributed to accused-appellant. When Hari Ram brought Jeep No. RJ 20/T 0474 to carry injured Puran Prasad to the Hospital, the accused-appellant inflicted blows on his right hand, right thigh and back. After admitting Puran Prasad in the Hospital, Satish Kumar lodged the FIR at 12.00 hrs. in the intervening night of 3/4.10.1997. Initially case under sections 147, 148, 149 & 307 was registered but after the death of Puran Prasad on 4.10.1997 it was converted under sections 147, 323, 325, 302/149 IPC. After completion of investigation charge-sheet was filed. The case was committed to the Court of learned Sessions Judge Kota. Charges under sections 302/34, 325/34 & 323/34 IPC were framed against the accused-appellant, who denied the charges and claimed trial. As many as 22 witnesses were examined by the prosecution. Thereafter statements of the accused u/ section 313 Cr.P.C. were recorded. The accused examined four defence witnesses. Learned trial Court after hearing the submissions convicted and sentenced the accused-appellant as indicated hereinabove. 3. Mr. Ravi Kasliwal, learned counsel appearing for the accused-appellant canvassed that the trial Court was in serious error while believing on the testimony of related and interested witnesses. There are material contradictions in their statements and they could not have been relied upon. It was contended that Smt. Umesh PW 2 and Hariram PW 15 are made up witnesses and they did not see the occurrence. There are material contradictions in their statements and they could not have been relied upon. It was contended that Smt. Umesh PW 2 and Hariram PW 15 are made up witnesses and they did not see the occurrence. The FIR was lodged after so much delay without any reasonable explanation. As per the prosecution case at the time of incident there was no light and in the absence of light it was very difficult to ascertain that which accused caused the injuries on the person of the deceased. It was lastly contended that the Court below ought to have given the benefit of Probation of Offenders Act to the accused-appellant. Reliance was placed on Suresh Rai & Ors. v. State of Bihar, (2000) 4 SCC 84 and various other pronouncements. 4. On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor Mr. Rizwan Alvi, supported the impugned judgment and contended that the prosecution witnesses were rightly believed by the Court below. 5. I have reflected over the rival submissions and carefully scanned the material on record. According to the post-mortem report of deceased-Puran Prasad, his death was caused due to coma as a result of ante-mortem head and brain injury sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature. Ex.P /19 is the injury report of Puran Prasad-deceased, according to which' Puran Prasad sustained as many as 6 injuries on his person. There were two lacerated wounds on his right parietal region and left upper eye lid and these injuries have been attributed to accused-appellant-Govind. 6. I was taken through the statements of eye-witnesses and other witnesses, Kamlesh PW 9, Brij Mohan, PW 22, Satish PW 18, Dinesh PW 19 and Yogendra Joshi PW 21 during the course of arguments. Kamlesh PW 9 is the wife of the deceased. She is the injured eye-witness and in her examination-in-chief she categorically stated that accused-appellant-Govind inflicted blow on the head of her husband. Her evidence could not be shattered even after a detailed cross-examination. She has categorically stated in her cross-examination that the occurrence had taken place in the light, after the light connection was repaired. The injury report of witness Kamlesh is Ex.P/ 27, according to which she sustained as many as four simple injuries. 7. Witness Hariram PW 15, stated in his examination-in-chief that the accused-appellant and other co-accused persons obstructed him while he was driving the jeep. 8. The injury report of witness Kamlesh is Ex.P/ 27, according to which she sustained as many as four simple injuries. 7. Witness Hariram PW 15, stated in his examination-in-chief that the accused-appellant and other co-accused persons obstructed him while he was driving the jeep. 8. I have also carefully scrutinised the statements of Brij Mohan PW 22, Satish PW 18, Dinesh PW 19 and Yogendra Joshi PW 21. Witnesses Brij Mohan, Satish and Dinesh are injured eye-witnesses and I am unable to pursuade myself to agree with the submission advanced before me that the presence of the said witnesses on the spot is doubtful. These witnesses have been made in the FIR and two and half hours delay in instituting the FIR is not fatal in the facts and circumstances of the case. On an over all assessment of the circumstances of the case, I find reasonable explanation in respect of lodging FIR after two and half hours of the incident. The case law cited by the learned counsel appearing for the accused-appellant does not help him. In the case of Suresh Rai v. State of Bihar (supra) on facts it was held that the entire investigation was wholly tainted and the accused were implicated in the case on collective mischief of the informant and the investigating officer. I do not find such circumstances in the instant case. As already stated the presence of Kamlesh PW 9 who is wife of the deceased as well as the presence of Brij Mohan PW 22, Satish PW 18 and Dinesh PW 19 on the spot is natural. All these witnesses have sustained injuries and their testimony could not have been shattered in the cross-examination. The conclusion arrived at by the learned trial Court cannot be termed as illegal and erroneous. I do not see any infirmity in the said conclusion. In the case on hand the testimony of eye-witnesses has been corroborated by the medical evidence and the accused-appellant is rightly convicted under sections 304 Part II, 325 & 323 IPC. Looking to the nature of the offence I do not intend to give benefit of Probation of Offenders Act to the accused-appellant. 9. Resultantly, the appeal has no force and it is accordingly dismissed.Appeal dismissed. *******