Judgment 1. The prosecution case, in brief is that on 17-4-90 at about 7 p.m., Mohinder Singh son of Partap Singh of village Ahrod was coming back to his house from the field. When he reached near the house of Amar Singh, he found Mahesh and Rajesh altercating with his nephew Rakesh Kumar. When he asked them why they were altercating with his nephew, Rakesh Kumar, Mahesh accused gave two fist blows on the stomach of Mohinder Singh. Accused Rajesh also gave slaps to Mohinder Singh and gave him leg blows on his waist. Mohinder Singh raised alarm. His alarm attracted Sultan and Chander Bhan to the spot. They rescued him from the onslaught of Mahesh and Rajesh. Thereafter, the accused went to their house. Mohinder Singh also went to his house. For one day, he remained at home and gave fomentation to his injury. Since he did not get any relief, on 19-4-90, he was shifted to Rewari by his brother Vidya Nand. Police came to the hospital, recorded his statement Ex. PG which he thumb marked. From Rewari, he was taken to PGIMER, Rohtak where he was operated upon. About a month prior, the accused had quarrelled over kurdi with Mohinder Singh. Since then, they were not on speaking terms and they kept grudge against Mohinder Singh. On 7-6-90, case FIR No. 132 was registered under Section 307/34, IPC at Police Station Khol. After the investigation, the accused were challaned. 2. Case was committed to the Court of Session by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rewari vide order dated 29-9-92. Accused were charged under Section 307, IPC by Additional Sessions Judge, Rewari. They pleaded not guilty to the charge and claimed trial. 3. With a view to bring home the charge against the accused, prosecution examined Dr. Ram Avtar Gupta, Medical Officer, Civil Hospital, Rewari, PW1, Dr. Ramesh Chand Sharma, PW2, Mohinder Singh PW3, Rakesh Kumar PW4, Nand Lal PW5, HC Rajpal, PW6, SI Surender Singh, In-charge, PP Gokal Gate, Rewari, PW7, HC Basant Lal, PS Khol, PW8, Dr. Sanjay Marwaha, Registrar, Surgery, PW10, Shri Sunder Lal PW9, record keeper, Central Registration, Medical College and Hospital, Rohtak who brought only the summoned record. 4. Accused when examined under Section 313, Cr. P.C. denied the imputations appearing against them and stated that it is a false case due to the grudge being entertained against their parents by the complainant party. Sanjay Marwaha, Registrar, Surgery, PW10, Shri Sunder Lal PW9, record keeper, Central Registration, Medical College and Hospital, Rohtak who brought only the summoned record. 4. Accused when examined under Section 313, Cr. P.C. denied the imputations appearing against them and stated that it is a false case due to the grudge being entertained against their parents by the complainant party. Complainant was already suffering from some disease and was getting treatment. There was no dispute between them over any kurdi as the kurdi of the accused or that of the complainant is not adjoining each other. They did not produce any evidence in their defence. 5. At the conclusion of the trial, learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rewari found the charge under Section 307, IPC not proved against the accused but found charge under Section 325/34, IPC to have been proved against them. He accordingly convicted them under Section 325/34, IPC and sentenced thm to undergo RI for one year and to pay fine of Rs. 1,000.00 each or in default to undergo further RI for 3 months vide order dated 20/21-9-94. Not satisfied with the order dated 20/21-9-94 convicting and sentencing them, both the accused have come up in appeal before this Court. 6. It was submitted by the learned Counsel for the appellants that there is delay in the giving of first information to the police. Occurrence is alleged to have taken place on 17-4-90 at 7 p.m. First information was given to the police on 19-4-90 at 6.15 p.m. It was submitted that there is thus two days delay in the lodging of the first information with the police. If there is delay in the lodging of the first information, what happens is that there is twist to actual facts, there is exaggeration, there is roping in of some innocent person and the citation of false witnesses. It was submitted that Mohinder Singh came up with this version after two days and, therefore it should not be taken that there is gospel truth in what he has stated. It was submitted that there is no explanation why this inordinate delay in the furnishing of first information to the police. 7. Suffice it to say, the matter was not reported to the police soon after 17-4-90 as it was thought to be a trivial incident. Mohinder Singh got fomentation at home in the night for his injury. It was submitted that there is no explanation why this inordinate delay in the furnishing of first information to the police. 7. Suffice it to say, the matter was not reported to the police soon after 17-4-90 as it was thought to be a trivial incident. Mohinder Singh got fomentation at home in the night for his injury. When fomentation at home did not provide him any relief and the pain to him aggravated, his brother Vidya Nand brought him to Civil Hospital, Rewari. It was then that his statement was recorded at 6.15 p.m. at Civil Hospital, Rewari on 19-4-90 where the police reached on being informed by Dr. Ram Avatar Gupta, Medical Officer, Civil Hospital, Rewari through ruqa. In this case, thus the nature of injuries was such that Mohinder Singh did not take serious note of them in the beginning. It was when the injuries were found to be of serious nature by the doctor that the police rached the hospital and the law was set into motion. 8. It was next submitted that there is no independent evidence to support Mohinder Singh and Rakesh Kumar PWs. Chander Bhan and Sultan are both related to the injured. Suffice it to say, if delay had been utilized in the citation of false witnesses, they could have cited some body else as witnesses. Similarly, if delay had been utilized for roping in some innocent person, they would have implicated some body else also and made some attributation to him. It is apparent that there is no twist to actual facts, no citation of false witnesses, no roping in of innocent persons. It was further submitted that there is no independent corroboration to the statement of Mohinder Singh. Even Chander Bhan and Sultan have not been produced. Suffice it to say, ocular account given by Rakesh Kumar and Mohinder Singh PWs finds support in the medical account given by Dr. Ram Avtar Gupta, PW1, Dr. Ramesh Chand Sharma PW2 and Dr. Sanjay Marwaha PW10. Dr. Ram Avtar Gupta PW1 stated that he medically examined Mohinder Singh on 19-4-90 who was complaining of pain in his abdomen due to some fist blow given to him on 17-4-90. There was no visible mark of injury though some rigidity was present all over the abdomen with tenderness. There was slightly distended with bowel sound were diminished. Dr. Ram Avtar Gupta PW1 stated that he medically examined Mohinder Singh on 19-4-90 who was complaining of pain in his abdomen due to some fist blow given to him on 17-4-90. There was no visible mark of injury though some rigidity was present all over the abdomen with tenderness. There was slightly distended with bowel sound were diminished. He had not passed stools since the last 24 hours. He was passing the urine. Flatus passed once in the last 24 hours. He advised X-ray and referred him to the Surgeon for expert opinion. He kept the injury under observation. He could not give the duration of injury. He could not give the kind of weapon used. Injured was referred to PGIMER, Rohtak. He gave his opinion on the basis of the record shown to him prepared at Medical College and Hospital, Rohtak. Initially, he found the injured unfit to make statement. It was later that he found at 5.30 p.m. that he was fit to make statement. Dr. Ramesh Chand Sharma radiographically examined the injured on 20-4-90 and found no fracture in the chest. Heart size was normal, lung fields were clear. On examination of abdomen, he found free air, under right dome of diaphragm with multiple air fluid levels and dilated gut loops. 9. Dr. Sanjay Marwaha, Registrar, Surgery, Medical College and Hospital, Rohtak PW10 stated that he was admitted on 19-4-90 in emergency with diagnosis of multiple injury. He started vomiting at about 12.00 mid-night and had persistent pain in the abdomen. No history of hematuria. No history of hematemasis/Melana. On examination, he was found to be conscious with normal vital signs. His chest was clinically normal. Abdominal examination revealed tenderness, guarding all over. Liver dullness was marked. X-ray examination revealed free air under right dome of diaphram with multiple air fluid levels. He was operated upon on 20-4-90. Exploration revealed single perforation 1.5 cm. in size on ante-mesenteric border of Jejunum 20 cms. distal to D. J. junction. There was local peritonitis, pus flakes and adherent omentum to the perforation. The gut was decompressed, perforation was closed and peritoneal lavage was done. Further exploration revealed that whole of the remaining gut, large gut, stomach, duodeenum, pancreas, liver, spleen, both kidneys were normal. He stated that perforation can be because of traumatic inflammatory infective or can be malignant. Perforation was transversly placed and was oval shaped. The gut was decompressed, perforation was closed and peritoneal lavage was done. Further exploration revealed that whole of the remaining gut, large gut, stomach, duodeenum, pancreas, liver, spleen, both kidneys were normal. He stated that perforation can be because of traumatic inflammatory infective or can be malignant. Perforation was transversly placed and was oval shaped. Patient can walk after this perforation. The patient was having peritonitis. After peritonitis, if not treated, leads to septicemia and death. Peritonitis is inflammation of peritoneum. The patient was treated at the stage of peritonitis. 10. Additional Sessions Judge, Rewari found the charge under Section 325, IPC proved against the appellants. He did not find the charge under Section 307, IPC proved against them as in his opinion, there was no evidence that the injured was, at any point of time, in the Jaws of death or the injury was dangerous to life. 11. In my opinion, accused were rightly convicted under Section 325, IPC. Faced with this position, learned Counsel for the appellants submitted that the appellants are first offenders. They were less than 21 years old at the date of commission of the offence. There was no serious attribution to them. It was due to the lack of care on the part of the injured that the injuries assumed that proportion. It was submitted that it was otherwise petty case of giving of fist blows, leg blows and slaps. It was submitted that keeping in view that the appellants have been writhing under the uncertainties of this criminal case since the year 1990 and we are in the year 2001 and the attribution to them is not of a grave and serious nature, they should be released on probation of good conduct under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958. I think this submission of the learned Counsel should be given weight and accepted. In consequence, the sentence of imprisonment and that of fine is set aside. Instead, they are ordered to be released on probation of good conduct under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 on their furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs. 10,000.00 each together with surety bond of the like amount for a period of 3 years. During this period, they shall keep peace and be of good behaviour. In addition, they shall pay Rs. 10,000.00 each together with surety bond of the like amount for a period of 3 years. During this period, they shall keep peace and be of good behaviour. In addition, they shall pay Rs. 12,500.00 each as compensation payable to Mohinder Singh injured. Copy of this order be sent to the Commanding Officer of accused-appellant Mahesh Kumar so that watch is kept on him during this period with a view to seeing whether he keeps peace and maintains good behaviour. Subject to this modification in sentence, this appeal fails and is dismissed.