JUDGMENT 1. - This appeal has been filed by the State against the judgment and order dated 24.4.90 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, Jhadol, Dist. Udaipur in Criminal Case No.46/82 by which he acquitted the accused respondent for the offences under Sections 324 and 323 IPC. 2. This appeal arises in the following circumstances : (i) On 18.5.82, RW.6 Jhamku lodged an oral report at about 8.30 p.m. alleging inter alia that on the previous night, she was in her lodge house at Chohanwas and early in the morning at about 4 a.m. her neck was tied down by a rope by her husband i.e. accused respondent Bhera upon which she cried and her nose was cut by knife by her husband and she raised her arms above. The accused respondent Bhera further caused injuries on her arms. Thereafter after opening rope, she ran towards the village and informed to RW.8 Uda, RW.9 Sava and Kamla. Thereafter sitting in the motor and after informing her brother Babu, RW.7, she lodged this report which was registered by police in Rojnamcha and the same is Ex.P/6. Upon this report, officers of Police Station Sayra got medically examined RW.6 Jhamku by Dr. P.W.5 Dr. Navratan and her injury report is Ex.P/3. (ii) In the meanwhile, the accused respondent Bhera also lodged an oral report in the Police Station, Ogna on 19.5.82 at about 11.30 a.m. of the same incident stating that since her wife RW.6 Jhamku was adament to go to her parents's house, thereupon, he himself cut her nose with a knife and he also produced in the Police Station a piece of nose which was cut by him. On this report, the police chalked out FIR Ex.P/8 and started investigation. 3. After usual investigation, the police submitted challan against the respondent Bhera in the Court of Magistrate for offence under Sections 326, 324 and 323 I.P.C. 4. The learned Magistrate on 26.3.83, framed charges against the accused respondent Bhera for offences under Sections 324 and 323 I.P.C. who denied the charges and claimed trial. 5. During trial, as many as 11 witnesses were produced by the prosecution. Thereafter the statement of accused was recorded under Section 313 Cr.RC. 6. The learned Magistrate on 26.3.83, framed charges against the accused respondent Bhera for offences under Sections 324 and 323 I.P.C. who denied the charges and claimed trial. 5. During trial, as many as 11 witnesses were produced by the prosecution. Thereafter the statement of accused was recorded under Section 313 Cr.RC. 6. The learned trial Magistrate after conclusion of the trial vide his judgment and order dated 24.4.1990 acquitted accused respondent Bhera for offences under Sections 324 and 323 I.P.C. Inter alia holdings : (i) that so far as lodging of FIR by the accused Bhera himself Ex.P/7 is concerned, the same is not admissible in evidence because of Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act. (ii) that since on the report of P.W.6 Jhamku, the police did not start investigation, therefore, there is no FIR in the present case and, since there is no FIR, no case is made out against the accused respondent Bhera. (iii) that so called FIR was also sent by delay in the Court and it is also fatal to the prosecution case. (iv) that that part of the evidence with which cutting piece of nose was also sealed was also not found proper as witness to that Fard were declared hostile. (v) that there are material contradictions in the statement of RW.6 Jhamku and thereafter the learned Magistrate came to the conclusion that the prosecution has not been able to prove its case against the accused respondent Bhera and thus, he acquitted the accused respondent of the offence under Sections 324 and 323 I.P.C. 7. That aggrieved from the said judgment and order, this appeal has been preferred by the State. The following submissions have been made by the learned counsel for the State : (i) That learned Court has grossly erred in appreciating the evidence of RW.6 Jhamku and the medical evidence in the form of statement of P.W.5 Dr. Navratan. (ii) That if there was negligence in the investigation, the prosecution story can be thrown out. (iii) In this case, the accused respondent Bhera himself lodged a report Ex.P/7 and thus if investigation has been started on that report and previous report Ex.P/6 was there, then it cannot be said that there is no FIR in the present case. Navratan. (ii) That if there was negligence in the investigation, the prosecution story can be thrown out. (iii) In this case, the accused respondent Bhera himself lodged a report Ex.P/7 and thus if investigation has been started on that report and previous report Ex.P/6 was there, then it cannot be said that there is no FIR in the present case. Hence, it has been argued by the learned counsel for the appellant that the impugned judgment dated 24.4.90 be set aside and the accused respondent Bhera be convicted. 8. That on the other hand, the learned counsel for the accused respondent has opposed the contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellant and submits that the judgment and order passed by the learned trial Magistrate be confirmed. 9. Before proceeding further, medical evidence should be discussed which is found in the statement of P.W.5 Dr. Navratan. PW.5 Dr. Navaratan has stated that on 18.5.82 he examined RW.6 Jhamku and found the injuries mentioned in the report Ex.P/3 and the same has been admitted by the learned counsel for the accused respondents in the trial. From perusing Ex./P/3 it appears that RW.6 Jhamku was having 9 injuries and out of nine injuries, injuries No.5 and 6 were incised would on the finger and thumb and injuries No.1 to 3 which are lacerated wound were found on the nose. In column where nature of injury is mentioned, injuries No.1 to 3 have been mentioned by Dr. Navrtan RW.5 as lacerated wound and these injuries have been assigned by RW.5 Dr. Navratan as sharp. It means that injuries No.1 to 3 which are found on the nose of RW.6 Jhamku, were caused by sharp edged weapon. Thus, the prosecution has been able to prove from the statement of P.W.5 Dr. Navratan that PW. 6 Jhamku received injuries on 18.5.82 as mentioned in Ex.P/3 and out of nine injuries, injuries No.1 to 6, though injuries No.1 to 4 have been assigned as lacerated wound,' but they have been ,mentioned to have been caused by sharp edged weapon. Therefore, it is held that injuries No.1 to 6 were caused by sharp edged weapon. 10. That in this case PW. 10 Durg Singh who was SHO of the Police Station Sayra on 18.5.82 and who proved Rojnamcha Rapat which was lodged by PW. Therefore, it is held that injuries No.1 to 6 were caused by sharp edged weapon. 10. That in this case PW. 10 Durg Singh who was SHO of the Police Station Sayra on 18.5.82 and who proved Rojnamcha Rapat which was lodged by PW. 6 Jhamku has been examined and he has stated that after that report he got medically examined RW.6 Jhamku and thereafter the injury report was sent to Police Station Ogna. P.W.11 Laxman Singh who was SHO of the Police Station Ogna on 19.5.98 has been examined and he has stated that the accused respondent lodged a report Ex.P/7 and on this report a FIR No.9/82 Ex.P/8 was chalked out and investigation started. Thus since investigation has been started by Police Station Ogna, the injury report Ex.P/3 which was received by PW.10 Durg Singh, SHO, Police Station Sayra was sent to the Police Station Ogna. Thus, the investigation which has been started in this case was got done by RW.11 Laxman Singh who was SHO of the Police Station Ogna and thereafter challan was filed against the accused respondents. Thus before the report of accused-respondent himself i.e. Ex.P/7 in the Police Station Ogna was registered, a report about the same incident was lodged by PW.6 Jhamku at the Police Station Sayra which is Ex.P/6 where RW.6 Jhamku was got medically examined.FIR BY ACCUSED HIMSELF:The position of law where first information report by the accused is lodged may be summarised in the following manner: (i) If accused makes FIR, the act of his giving information is relevant against him as evidence of his conduct under Section 8 of the Evidence Act. (ii) If the information is non-confessional, it is relevant against the accused as admission under Section 21 of Evidence Act. (iii) But confessional FIR by the accused to a Police Officer cannot be used against him in view of Section 25 of the Evidence Act. 11. In the present case FIR Ex.P/7 which was lodged by accused himself is confessional statement or confessional FIR which is hit by Section 25 of the Evidence Act and on this point, the learned Magistrate has rightly held so. 12. The finding of the learned Magistrate that in the present case there was no FIR is not correct one. 11. In the present case FIR Ex.P/7 which was lodged by accused himself is confessional statement or confessional FIR which is hit by Section 25 of the Evidence Act and on this point, the learned Magistrate has rightly held so. 12. The finding of the learned Magistrate that in the present case there was no FIR is not correct one. RW.6 Jhamku has also lodged report Ex.P/6 at the Police Station Sayra which was sent later on to the Police Station Ogna and in other words, it was clubbed with FIR lodged by the accused- respondent himself. To say that there is no FiR other than Ex.P/7 which was lodged by accused - respondent is wrong and there is FIR of the injured P.W.6 Jhamku. Hence, if the investigation is made, it cannot be said that it is vitiated because of Ex.P/7 lodged by accused respondent Bhera himself. 13. If for the sake, FIR lodged by the accused respondent Ex.P/7 is excluded, the case of prosecution stands established by the medical evidence as well as by the statement of RW.6 Jhamku. So far as evidentiary value of Ex.P/7 which was lodged by accused-respondent himself is concerned, it may be stated here that since it is confessional FIR it is hit by Section 25 of the Evidence Act and at the most, it may be relevant as conduct of the accused-respondent. 14. In this case, Statement of RW.6 Jhamku is very relevant being injured and wife of the accused-respondent. She has clearly stated that the accused cut some portion of his nose by knife and thereafter he also gave another injuries by knife to her. This part of her statement is corroborated by the medical evidence which is found in the statement of RW.5 Dr. Navratan and the injury report is Ex.P/3. Thus, since statement of RW.6 Jhamku gets corroboration from the medical evidence, the case of the prosecution that the accused caused injury by knife and other blunt injury to her is well established and In my opinion, the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt for the offence under Section 323 and 324 I.P.C. 15. Thus, since statement of RW.6 Jhamku gets corroboration from the medical evidence, the case of the prosecution that the accused caused injury by knife and other blunt injury to her is well established and In my opinion, the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt for the offence under Section 323 and 324 I.P.C. 15. The delay in dispatching the FIR in the Court is not the circumstances upon which case of the prosecution can be thrown in its entirety as held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Shrawan Singh v. State of Punjab reported in AIR 1976 (SC) 2304 . In this case apart from the report lodged by the accused which is Ex.P/7, there is Rojnamcha Rapat lodged by RW.6 Jhamku which is Ex.P/6 and if the report Ex.P/7 has been sent by the Police to the Court with delay, it will not effect the case of the prosecution as discussed above. The view of the learned trial Judge in this respect is not correct. 16. For the reasons stated above, the learned Magistrate has committed error in acquitting the accused respondent Bhera for the offence under Section 324 and 323 I.P.C. The findings recorded by the learned Magistrate acquitting accused respondent Bhera are not based on correct appreciation of evidence and thus, the same are liable to be set aside and the accused is liable to be convicted for offences under Sections 323 and 324 I.P.C. 17. The next question is what sentence would be awarded to the accused-respondent Bhera for offences under Sections 323 and 324 I.P.C. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the present case and looking to the fact that that the incident took place on 18.5.82 and the accused respondent was acquitted by the trial Court on 24.4.90 and he has faced trial for so many years and now 19 years have passed, this period is enough to exhaust anybody mentally, physically or economically. It would be in interest of justice that the accused respondent Bhera should be released on probation under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 while making conviction for offence under Sections 323 and 324 I.P.C.The result of above discussion is that the appeal filed by the State of Rajasthan is allowed in the manner that the accused respondent Bhera is convicted for offence under Section 324 and 323 I.P.C. and the judgment and order dated 24.4.90 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Jhadol acquitting the accused respondent Bhera for the aforesaid offences are set aside.However, instead of sentencing the accused respondent Bhera for offence under Sections 324 and 323 I.P.C. I direct that he be released on probation under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 provided he executed a personal bond in the sum of Rs.1000/- only with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Jhadol within a period of three months from today and to keep peace and be of good behaviour for that period. I further direct that the accused respondent Bhera shall pay Rs. 2000/- to his wife i.e. RW.6 Jhamku and for depositing the said amount in this Court, the accused respondent Bhera is granted three months time and on depositing the amount, the same shall be given to RW.6 Jhamku.With the above observations, the present state appeal is disposed of.Appeal allowed. *******