Honble GARG, J.–This appeal has been filed by the State of Rajasthan against the judgment and order dated 10.4.87 passed by the Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nohar in Sessions Case No. 27/1986 by which he acquitted the accused respondents for offence under Sections 307/34, 325/34 and 323 I.P.C. (2). This appeal arises in the following circumstances: (i) On 17.4.86, in the hospital at Bhadra, P.W.8 Mahaveer Prasad, SI recorded the statement of P.W.1 Dharam Pal and the same is Ex.P/1 and P.W.1 Dharam Pal narrated before him that his field was near to the field of accused respondent Deshraj and cattle of Deshraj used to damage their crop and for that the accused respondent Deshraj and another accused Mahaveer (son of accused respondent Deshraj) became aggrieved. On 16.4.86 in the evening, he heard cries ``Mare-Mare of his father P.W.5 Biru Ram near the house of P.W.3 Amar Singh, then he went there and saw that accused respondent Desh Ram was armed with Jai and his son accused respondent Mahaveer was armed with lathi and both were beating his father P.W.5 Biru Ram. Both the accused respondents caused injuries on his head. After hearing cries, P.W.6 Ranjeet S/o Har Lal and P.W.4 Ranjeet S/o Birbal came there and when they intervened, the accused respondent ran away. It was further stated that his father P.W.5 Biru Ram became unconscious after receiving injuries and he got P.W.5 Biru Ram admitted in the hospital in the night. Thereafter he went to his village back. He further stated that both the accused respondents had given beating to P.W.5 Biru Ram with an intention to murder him. On that statement, P.W.8 Mahaveer ordered for registration of the case. (ii) That statement Ex.P/1 was sent by P.W.8 Mahaveer through messenger to the Police Station, Bhadra where P.W.9 Prithvi Raj lodged a first information report and the same is Ex.P/7 and started investigation. (3). It is also the case of the prosecution that when P.W.5 Biru Ram was got admitted in the hospital at Bhadra Dr. P.W.2 Brij Mohan gave letter Ex.P/3 dated 16.4.86 to the SHO, Police Station Bhadra and sent information that P.W.5 Biru Ram was admitted in the Hospital. (4). P.W.2 Dr. (3). It is also the case of the prosecution that when P.W.5 Biru Ram was got admitted in the hospital at Bhadra Dr. P.W.2 Brij Mohan gave letter Ex.P/3 dated 16.4.86 to the SHO, Police Station Bhadra and sent information that P.W.5 Biru Ram was admitted in the Hospital. (4). P.W.2 Dr. Brij Mohan got medically examined P.W.5 Biru Ram on 16.4.86 and found eight injuries on his person and all were caused by blunt object and injury No.3 was found to be grievous one and was on the head of P.W.5 Biru Ram. The injury report of P.W.5 Biru Ram is Ex.P/4. (5). Another letter Ex.P/6 was written by P.W.8 Mahaveer to P.W.2 Dr. Brij Mohan enquiring from him: (i) When P.W.5 Biru Ram was admitted in the hospital. (ii) Whether when P.W.5 Biru Ram was admitted in the hospital, he was conscious or not? (iii) When P.W.2 Dr. Brij Mohan referred him to PBM Hospital, Bikaner. (5A). P.W. 2 Dr. Brij Mohan replied on back of Ex.P/6 that on 18.4.86 P.W. 5 Biru Ram was referred for treatment to PBM Hospital and upto that he was unconscious. (6). The accused respondent Mahaveer was arrested through fard Ex.P/9 on 25.4.86 and accused respondent Deshraj was arrested through fard Ex.P/10 on 25.4.86. (7). On 4.8.86, the learned Additional Sessions Judge framed charges for offence under Sections 307/34, 325/34 and 323 I.P.C. against accused respondents, but both pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. (8). During trial, as many as 9 witnesses were produced on behalf of the prosecution and statements of accused respondents were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and no evidence was led in defence by accused respondents. (9). After conclusion of the trial, the learned Additional Sessions Judge acquitted the accused respondents for all the charges framed against them through his judgment and order dated 10.4.87 inter alia holding that: (i) Since there was enmity between the accused respondents and complainant party, therefore, evidence of prosecution was not relied on by the learned Additional sessions Judge. (ii) Since the incident took place in the night of 16.4.86 and P.W. 1 Dharam Pal gave statement on the next day at noon, though he was in the hospital and thus, according to the learned Additional Sessions Judge, there was delay in lodging the report and that delay was found fatal as the same has not been explained by the prosecution. (iii) Apart from P.W.1 Dharam Pal, other brothers of P.W.5 Biru Ram were in the hospital, and they could have lodged the report. (iv) P.W.1 Dharam Pal has improved his statement in the court and therefore he was not found reliable witness. (v) Statement of P.W. 5 Biru Ram was recorded by the police on 22.5.86 and the same is Ex.D/1 and that statement was recorded with delay and hence no reliance can be placed on the statement of P.W.5 Biru Ram and thus, he acquitted accused respondents. (10). Aggrieved from the said Judgment and order, the present state appeal has been filed. (11). In this appeal, it has been argued by the learned P.P. that the findings of acquittal recorded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge are erroneous one and they should be set aside and the case is well proved from the statement of P.W.5 Biru Ram itself and his statement gets corroboration from the medical evidence and, therefore the judgment and order of acquittal are liable to be set aside and accused respondents should be convicted for the charges framed against them. (12). On the other hand, the learned counsel for the accused respondent vehemently argued that the judgment and order of the trial judge are based on correct appreciation of evidence and the same do not call any interference by this Court. (13). I have heard both and perused the record. (14). Before proceeding further, medical evidence in this case has to be seen. (15). From the statement of P.W.2 Dr. Brij Mohan, it is very well established that in the night of 16.4.86, P.W.5 Biru Ram was admitted in the hospital at Bhadra and for that he sent information to the SHO, P.W.8 Mahaveer through letter Ex.P/3. From the statement of P.W.8 Mahaveer, he went to the Hospital to record the statement of P.W.5 Biru Ram, but since he was unconscious, therefore, he could not record the statement of P.W.5 Biru Ram in the hospital at Bhadra. (16). From the statement of P.W.2 Dr. Brij Mohan it is also clear that on 18.4.86, since condition of P.W.5 Biru Ram was not found good one and he was not in a position to give statement, therefore, he was referred for treatment to PBM Hospital, Bikaner. From the statement of P.W.2 Dr. (16). From the statement of P.W.2 Dr. Brij Mohan it is also clear that on 18.4.86, since condition of P.W.5 Biru Ram was not found good one and he was not in a position to give statement, therefore, he was referred for treatment to PBM Hospital, Bikaner. From the statement of P.W.2 Dr. Brij Mohan, it is also well proved that on 16.4.86, he examined the injuries of P.W.5 Biru Ram and found eight injuries on his person and all were caused by blunt object and out of that 8 injures Injury No.3 bruise with swelling 6-1/2 x 3 on parietal temporal region was found to be grievous one. Thus, from the statement of P.W.2 Dr. Brij Mohan, it is well proved that P.W.5 Biru Ram received the injuries mentioned in injury report Ex.P/4 and thus, he has proved injury report Ex.P/4. (17). P.W.2 Dr. Brij Mohan has further stated in his statement that he advised x-ray for injury No.3 and after seeing x-ray plate Ex.P/5, he further came to the conclusion that the injury No.3 was grievous one, but he had stated that he could not opine whether it was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death or not, but this injury was on very sensitive part of the body i.e. head. (18). The next question that arises for consideration is whether the injuries mentioned in injury report Ex.P/4 were caused by the accused respondents or not. (19). In this regard, the best evidence in this case would be that of the injured himself and he has been examined by the prosecution as P.W.5. (20). P.W.5 Biru Ram has clearly stated that on the fateful day, when he reached near the house of P.W.3 Amar Singh, at that time accused respondent Mahaveer was having a lathi and he gave a lathi blow on his head and accused respondent Deshraj also beat him and he became unconscious and on hearing his cries, P.W.4 Ranjit S/o Birbal and P.W.6 Ranjit S/o Harlal came there. He has further stated that he had dispute with the accused respondents over land and further on cattle also. (21). He has further stated that he had dispute with the accused respondents over land and further on cattle also. (21). In cross-examination P.W.5 Biru Ram has admitted that at the time when the incident took place, except P.W.4 Ranjit S/o Birbal and P.W.6 Ranjit S/o Harlal, none was there and he has further admitted that after 15 days of the assault in PBM Hospital Bikaner he came to senses. (22). Thus from the statement of P.W.5 Biru Ram, the fact that he was beaten by both the accused respondent is well proved and his statement further gets corroboration from the medical evidence just discussed above. (23). From the statement of P.W.5 Biru Ram, it is also clear that only two persons were found on the scene and they are P.W.4 Ranjit S/o Birbal and P.W.6 Ranjit S/o Harlal and in their statements both corroborates to the testimony of P.W.5 Biru Ram. (24). In these circumstances, P.W.1 Dharam Pal cannot be regarded as an eye witness and thus, since P.W.1 Dharam Pal was not an eye witness and P.W.5 Biru Ram was unconscious, if there is delay in lodging the report that cannot be regarded as fatal to the prosecution case and the argument that somebody else must have reported the matter to the police cannot be appreciated as for the personal matter nobody wants to came forwards and submit report to the police. (25). The FIR can be lodged by anybody. The principal object of the first information report from the point of view of the informant is to set the criminal law in motion and from the point of view of the investigating authorities is to obtain information about the alleged criminal activity so as to be able to take suitable steps to trace and bring to book the guilty. The FIR in a criminal case is extremely vital and valuable piece of evidence for the purpose of corroborating the oral evidence adduced in the trial. The object of insisting upon prompt lodging of FIR is to obtain prior information regarding the circumstances in which crime was committed, the names of actual culprits and the part played by them as well as the names of eye witnesses. The object of insisting upon prompt lodging of FIR is to obtain prior information regarding the circumstances in which crime was committed, the names of actual culprits and the part played by them as well as the names of eye witnesses. There is no rule or principle of evidence requiring that the injured should always be the first informant, but a first information report which sets the process of law in motion can come from any quarter. (26). Thus, FIR is not supposed to be a detailed document. FIR is a document which sets the criminal law into motion and it has to be appreciated keeping in mind the facts and circumstances of each individual case. It is valuable for corroborating or contradicting the maker. (27). It may be stated here that FIR has three necessary ingredients: (i) It should neither be vague nor indefinite, but it should be an information of facts disclosing the commission of a cognizable offence. (ii) It may be given by anybody: and (iii) It is not necessary that the offender or the witnesses should be named. (28). From these essential ingredients of FIR, it is very much clear that it can be lodged by anybody. In the present case statement of P.W.1 Dharam Pal was recorded by P.W.8 Mahaveer Prasad on the next day at near about noon and the incident took place on the previous day at night. Therefore, in these circumstances and P.W.1 Dharam Pal was son of the injured and he has not seen the occurrence, if there is delay of few hours in lodging the report, such delay cannot be called fatal to the prosecution case, nor it can be inferred that it is a fabricated document and therefore, for the reasons mentioned above, findings of learned Additional Sessions Judge that there is delay in lodging the report are to be ignored and are to be set aside. (29). (29). In the present case, no doubt, there is enmity between the complainant party and accused party, but the fact that P.W.5 Biru Ram received the injuries at the hands of accused respondents stands clearly proved from the statement of P.W.5 Biru Ram and from the statement of P.W.5 Biru Ram, it is also clear that the accused respondents were the authors of the injuries received by P.W.5 Biru Ram and these circumstances it cannot be said that the P.W.5 Biru Ram has falsely implicated the accused respondents. Apart from this, statement of P.W.5 Biru Ram gets corroboration not only from the medical evidence but also from the statements of independent witnesses P.W.4 Ranjeet S/o Birbal, P.W.6 Ranjeet S/o Harlal and P.W.3 Amar Singh. Thus the fact that P.W.5 was inimical towards the accused respondents by itself cannot be a ground to reject his testimony. (30). No doubt P.W.4 Ranjeet S/o Birbal has admitted in his statement that he has been declared 10 numberi by the police, but the testimony of the eye witness cannot be rejected merely on the ground that he was not the man of character above suspicion. If the statement of such type of witness is found otherwise credible, then reliance can be placed on his statement. Since names of these two witnesses P.W.4 Ranjeet S/o Birbal and P.W.6 Ranjeet S/o Har Lal are found even in the statement Ex.P/1 given by P.W.1 Dharam Pal and further more, P.W.5 Biru Ram had further stated that these witnesses were present on the scene of occurrence, therefore, their presence cannot be doubted. Thus, the case of the prosecution that the injuries which have been received by P.W.5 Biru Ram were caused by both the accused respondents in furtherance of their common intention stands proved and the findings of learned Additional Sessions Judge on this count are liable to be set aside. (31). The next question which arises for consideration is whether the injuries which were caused by the accused respondents on the person of P.W.5 Biru Ram are sufficient to make out a case for offence under Sec. 307 I.P.C. or not. (32). To prove the charge for the offence under Sec. 307 I.P.C. the prosecution has to prove : (1) That the accused did an act. (32). To prove the charge for the offence under Sec. 307 I.P.C. the prosecution has to prove : (1) That the accused did an act. (2) That it was done (i) with the intention, or (ii) with the knowledge (a) of causing death ; (b) of causing such bodily injury as the accused knew to be likely to cause the death of the person to whom the harm was attempted to be caused : or (c) of causing bodily injury to a person and bodily injury intended to be inflicted would have been sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death ; or (d) that the act if completed would have been so imminently dangerous that it would have in all probability caused death or such bodily injury as is likely to cause death; and the act attempted was committed without any excuse for incurring the risk of causing death or such injury as aforesaid. (33). In order to attract the penalty under Sec. 307 I.P.C. the murderous intent is an essential element. That intention can be gathered from the nature of weapon, the parts of the body where injury is inflicted, nature of injuries inflicted and the opportunity available which the accused gets. (34). It may also be pointed out here that in coming to the conclusion, the act of the accused should be kept in mind and not the result. In other words, the angle of guilt has to be viewed from the point of intention and not from the result achieved. (35). Keeping the above principles in mind, the present case is being examined. (36). In the present case all the injuries which were received by P.W.5 Biru Ram are of blunt nature and only one injury was found grievous one. the dangerous weapon has not been used by the accused respondents and P.W.2 Dr. Brij Mohan has not stated that the injuries received by P.W.5 Biru Ram were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death and therefore, in these circumstances, it cannot be said that the accused respondent had intention to murder P.W.5 Biru Ram, but they are found guilty for offence under Sec. 325 read with Sec. 34 I.P.C. and they are liable to be convicted accordingly. So far as conviction for offence under Sec. 323/34 I.P.C. is concerned, no separate conviction is necessary as they are going to be convicted for offence under Sec. 325/34 I.P.C. (37). The argument that it is not established as to who caused grievous injury on the head of P.W.5 Biru Ram loses its importance when common intention is established and when common intention is established, it is irrelevant as to who gave vital blow. In the present case both accused respondents caused injuries to the injured P.W.5 Biru Ram. (38). For the reasons stated above, it is held that the prosecution by producing cogent and reliable evidence has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt for offence under Sec. 325/34 I.P.C. and the accused respondents are liable to be convicted for offence u/Sec. 325/34 I.P.C. but the findings of acquittal recorded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge for offence u/Sec. 307 I.P.C. are not to be interfered with. (39). Since the findings of acquittal have been reversed, therefore, something should be said about the power of the High Court while hearing appeal against acquittal. (40). The Honble Supreme Court in Hari Ram vs. State of Rajasthan (1), has held that power of the High Court while hearing an appeal against the order of acquittal is as wide as an appeal against conviction. (41). The Court is cautious of the principles governing and regulating the hearing of appeal by the High Court against an order of acquittal passed by the trial Court as laid down by the Honble Supreme Court in Ajit Savant Majagavi vs. State of Karnataka (2), and keeping these principles in mind, the findings of the learned Special Judge are being reversed and set aside to some extent as they are perverse and erroneous and there is manifest error and the learned Special Judge misread the evidence and indulged on conjectural inferences and surmises. On Point of Sentence (42). In the present case, the accused respondent Mahaveer has remained in jail from 25.4.86 to 8.8.86 and accused respondent Desh Raj has remained in jail from 25.4.86 to 10.4.87. On Point of Sentence (42). In the present case, the accused respondent Mahaveer has remained in jail from 25.4.86 to 8.8.86 and accused respondent Desh Raj has remained in jail from 25.4.86 to 10.4.87. The learned counsel for the accused respondents has argued that in case the court comes to the conclusion that any offence is found proved against the accused respondent, this aspect that they have remained in jail for sufficient period may be taken into consideration and if found proper they may be released for the period already undergone by them. (43). Looking to the fact that the incident took place on 16.4.86 and more than 16 years have passed and looking to the fact that the accused respondents have remained in jail for some period and that period would be sufficient for offence under Sec. 325/34 I.P.C. to meet the ends of justice and it is a fit case in which the accused respondents should be sentenced to the period already undergone by them. However, some compensation should be awarded to the injured P.W.5 Biru Ram at the hands of accused respondents. (44). In the result this appeal filed by the State of Rajasthan is partly allowed in the following manner: The appeal against acquittal of accused respondents Mahaveer and Deshraj for offence under Sec. 307 I.P.C. is dismissed after confirming the judgment and order dated 10.4.87 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nohar, but the accused respondents Mahaveer and Deshraj are convicted for offence under Sec. 325/34 I.P.C. and the judgment and order dated 10.4.87 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nohar acquitting the accused respondents for offence under Sec. 325/34 I.P.C. are set aside. However, for the offence under Sec. 325/34 I.P.C., the accused respondents are sentenced to the period already undergone by them. It is further ordered that each accused respondent shall pay Rs. 5000/- as compensation to P.W.5 Biru Ram and for depositing the said amount of compensation in the trial Court, the accused respondents are granted three months time from today and after depositing the said amount of compensation, the same be paid to P.W.5 Biru Ram.