Judgment Harjit Singh Bedi, J. 1. This appeal against acquittal arises out of the following facts. 2. At about 2.00 P.M. on November 12, 1991, Amar Singh (PW-1) alongwith his brother Manjit Singh, cousin Inderjit Singh and one Harbans Singh was going in a jeep from Kohara to village Chhandran and as they reached within the revenue limits of village Chhandran, they saw accused Gurmail Singh, Nachhattar Singh, Waryam Singh alias Binder Singh, Balwinder Singh alias Babla and Nahar Singh, all armed with Gandasas whereas Kehar Singh accused armed with a Dang standing there. They stopped the jeep whereafter the accused dealt various blows on the occupants of the jeep. Harbans Singh, however, managed to drive the jeep away and reached Civil Hospital, Sahnewal wherefrom Amar Singh and Jasbir Singh were referred to the Christian Medical College and Hospital, Ludhiana. Jasbir Singhs statement was thereafter recorded by the police in the hospital and on its basis, the F.I.R. was registered at 2.10 P.M. on November 15, 1991 at Police Station, Sahnewal for offences punishable under Sections 324/323/148/149 of the Indian Penal Code. On the completion of the investigation, the accused were charged for offences punishable under Sections 148, 307, 326 (three counts), 325 (two counts), 324 (three counts) and 323 (three counts) read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined inter alia, PW-1 Amar Singh, the first informant; PW-2 Dr. Anupam Wats; PW-3 Dr. Manjit Singh; PW-4 Dr. Amrit Lal; PW-5 Dr. Koshy George; PW-6 Jasbir Singh an injured witness; PW-7 Dr. H. Tongbran; PW-8 Manjit Singh, also an injured witness; PW-9 Inderjit Singh; and PW-10 ASI Nirmal Singh, the Investigating Officer. Harbans Singh and Gurdev Singh, PWs., were, however, given up as unnecessary. 4. The prosecution case was then put to the accused and their statements recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in which they denied the allegations levelled against them and pleaded as under :- "We are innocent. We are in possession of the land, which is alleged to have been purchased by Amar Singh, for the last 50 years. Civil litigation qua this land was also going on. Amar Singh has already lost some of the cases. The entries in the Khasra girdawaris in respect of the land are in our names. We are in possession of the land, which is alleged to have been purchased by Amar Singh, for the last 50 years. Civil litigation qua this land was also going on. Amar Singh has already lost some of the cases. The entries in the Khasra girdawaris in respect of the land are in our names. Smt. Inderjit Kaur Kang, Assistant Collector II Grade, Ludhiana, had visited the spot and had carried out the demarcation. Because of the civil litigation and in order to pressurise us to relinquish possession of the land, alleged to have been purchased by Amar Singh and his sons, we have been falsely implicated in this case." 5. They also examined some witnesses in defence to prove the animosity between the parties. 6. The trial Court held that the F.I.R. had been lodged after an inordinate delay as the incident had taken place on November 12, 1991 but the F.I.R. had been registered on November 15, 1991 though Inderjit Singh, who was one of the injured witnesses had met the police in the hospital much earlier. The trial court concluded that in the light of the admitted animosity between the parties, the delay had apparently been utilised for concocting a false story, the moreso, as the ocular evidence was seriously at variance with the medical testimony. The trial court accordingly acquitted the accused of the offences charged. 7. The present appeal has been filed by the State of Punjab impugning the judgment of acquittal. 8. At the very outset, it has been pointed out that Balwinder Singh accused had died on January 7, 2001 and as such the appeal qua him abates. 9. Mr. S.S. Randhawa, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab, has urged that in the light of the fact that there were four injured eye-witnesses, who have supported the prosecution story, the fact that there was some delay in the lodging of the F.I.R. paled into insignificance and as the relations between the parties were admittedly strained on account of prolonged litigation, the motive for the offence also stood proved. 10. Mr. 10. Mr. R.S. Cheema, the learned senior counsel representing the respondents, has supported the judgment of the trial Court on all particulars and has stated that as the motive was a double edged weapon, the fact that some of the accused had been roped in was the primary factor, which had been gone into the judgment of the trial court and as the findings of the trial Court were well merited, no interference was called for in an appeal against acquittal. 11. We have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record with their assistance. 12. We are of the opinion that in the light of the fact that there were four injured witnesses, some of them with serious injuries on their person, the delay in the lodging of the F.I.R. pales into insignificance. It is the admitted case that the relations between the parties were strained, which clearly spells out the motive. It is also the conceded position that the injuries found on the person of the injured witnesses could not have been self-suffered. We are accordingly of the opinion that the finding of acquittal in toto was not well merited. We are, however, of the opinion that though charges under Sections 307 and 326 of the Indian Penal Code had been framed against the accused but the nature of the injuries clearly spells out that this was not the case as all the grievous injuries found on the persons of the injured witnesses were caused by a blunt weapon. In this view of the matter, the case against the accused fell under Section 325 of the Indian Penal Code. 13. We are also informed that Kehar Singh was 75 years of age at the time of the incident. His participation in the incident was, therefore, clearly suspect. We accordingly find no merit in the appeal qua him. We, however, allow the appeal qua Gurmail Singh, Waryam Singh and Nachhattar Singh and convict them for an offence punishable under Section 325/34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentence them to a term of imprisonment already undergone by them as the incident had happened in the year 1991 and the appeal has been pending in this Court since 1994.