P. S. NARAYANA, J. ( 1 ) ACCUSED No. 1 in Sessions Case No. 6 of 1998 on the file of the Metropolitan Sessions judge, Visakhapatnam is the appellant. Originally A-1 and A-2 were tried by the learned Metropolitan Sessions Judge for the offences punishable under Sections 304 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal code (IPC) and A-2 was acquitted of the said charge, but A-1 was found guilty under section 325 IPC and he was sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years and also to pay a fine of rs. 1,000/- in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of one month. ( 2 ) THE version of the prosecution is that on 21-10-1996 at about 9. 30 p. m. at chandaka Veedhi Junction near dandubazar, Visakhapatnam, the accused picked up a quarrel and caused body injury to one Shaik Hussain (hereinafter referred to in short as "the deceased"), as a result of which he died on 2-11 -1996. P. Ws. 1, 2 and 3 and the deceased were working as process servers in District Court, visakhapatnam and during the year 1996, the Court staff as usual had performed durga Pooja in Court premises for three days and after three days on 21 -10-1996, at about 6. 00 p. m. while they were taking out a procession to immerse the Durga Devi idol in the sea, on the way at Chandaka Veedhi at about 9. 30 p. m. 7 or 8 persons asked them to stop the procession, but as it was getting late to immerse the idol in the sea, they did not stop and the deceased requested A-1 not to cause obstruction, on which A-1 fisted the deceased with hand on his mouth and beat him on his head with a nickel Chester. A-2 also beat the deceased on his head. The deceased fell down on the road and became unconscious. Subsequent thereto, p. W. 1 and P. W. 2 shifted the deceased to k. G. Hospital, Visakhapatnam and he was examined by P. W. 15-C. M. O. , K. G. H. , visakhapatnam and on receipt of medical intimation Ex. P-8, a Head Constable 206 went to hospital to record the statement of the deceased, but he could not do so as the deceased was unconscious. Subsequent thereto on 26-10-1996, on receipt of ex. P-8, a Head Constable 206 went to hospital to record the statement of the deceased, but he could not do so as the deceased was unconscious. Subsequent thereto on 26-10-1996, on receipt of ex. P-8 from the Head Constable P. W. 14- inspector of police directed P. W. 12- assistant Sub-Inspector of Police to record the statements of witnesses and accordingly, P. W. 12 recorded the statement of P. W. 1 on 26-10-1996 which is marked as ex. P-1. On the strength of Ex. P-1, P. W. 14 registered the same as a case in Crime No. 291 of 1996 under Section 307 read with section 34 IPC and issued Ex. P-9 FIR and then, on instruction of P. W. 14, P. W. 13-Sub- inspector of Police went to the hospital and recorded the statements of P. Ws. 1 to 4 and further he examined the scene of offence in the presence of P. Ws. 5 and 6 and Ex. P-2 is the observation report. On 27-10-1996, p. W. 13 arrested the accused No. 1 and recovered M. O. 1-nickle Chester under ex. P-3 panchanama. On 2-11-1996 on receipt of death intimation of the deceased, p. W. 14 altered section of law from 307 IPC to Section 302 IPC and issued altered FIR- ex. P-10 and then he had conducted inquest over the dead body in the presence of p. W. 8 and Ex. P-5 is the inquest report. P. W. 11 Professor of Forensic medicine conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased and opined the cause of death was due to head injury. Ex. P-17 is the post mortem certificate. After receiving the relevant documents and on completion of evidence, P. W. 14 filed charge sheet. ( 3 ) THE plea of the accused is one of total denial. In support of the case of the prosecution, the prosecution had examined p. Ws. 1 to 15 and got marked Exs. P-1 to P-10. P. Ws. 7 and 9 did not support the case of the prosecution and they were declared hostile. Exs. D-1 and D-2 were marked on behalf of the defence. On appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence, the learned Metropolitan Sessions Judge, visakhapatnam, as already aforesaid, convicted A-1 under Section 325 IPC. P-1 to P-10. P. Ws. 7 and 9 did not support the case of the prosecution and they were declared hostile. Exs. D-1 and D-2 were marked on behalf of the defence. On appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence, the learned Metropolitan Sessions Judge, visakhapatnam, as already aforesaid, convicted A-1 under Section 325 IPC. But recorded acquittal as far as A-2 is concerned and the said acquittal recorded against A-2 had attained finality since the State had not preferred any appeal. ( 4 ) SRI C. Praveen Kumar, learned counsel representing the appellant-A-1 made the following submissions. The learned Counsel with all vehemence would submit that the date of incident as per the version of the prosecution is 21 -10-1996 and ex. P-1 was made only on 26-10-1996 and there is no explanation for this inordinate delay, the learned Counsel would submit that in view of the importance of the F. I. R. , and as no satisfactory explanation was given for the delay in lodging FIR, the appellant- accused is entitled for acquittal. Strong reliance was placed on Rajeevan v. State of kerala. The learned Counsel would further contend that in the evidence of P. W. 15, it is clear that P. W. 1 had not stated who beat the deceased and except referring to the name in Ex. P-1, nothing more is there. The learned Counsel also would maintain that the evidence of P. W. 4 is doubtful, and especially in the light of the contradictions and omissions, the evidence of P. Ws. 1 and 2 also cannot be believed since it is not the case of the prosecution that these witnesses had prior acquaintance with the appellant- accused, he further contended that there was no identification parade and even in ex. P-1 at least the features of the persons had not been described and after a long gap of two years, these witnesses were examined in Court and it is highly improbable that these witnesses could have identified the accused at all and hence, the very identification is doubtful. The learned counsel placed strong reliance on bollavaram Pedda Narsi Reddy v. State of a. P. The learned Counsel also stressed the aspect that the medical evidence shows only one injury and there is some infirmity between the version of the prosecution and the medical evidence. The learned counsel placed strong reliance on bollavaram Pedda Narsi Reddy v. State of a. P. The learned Counsel also stressed the aspect that the medical evidence shows only one injury and there is some infirmity between the version of the prosecution and the medical evidence. The learned Counsel also would contend that P. W. 7 was declared hostile and the seizure of M. Os also had not been proved and that the Head- constable was not examined and hence, there is infirmity even in investigation. At any rate in the light of the version of the defence that the incident could have happened by fall on the ground in an intoxicated mode, definitely, the appellant-accused No. 1 is entitled to benefit of doubt. The learned counsel had also meticulously taken this court to the evidence of P. Ws. 1 to 3 and also the evidence of P. Ws. 10,15 and 12 as well. ( 5 ) ON the contrary, the learned Additional public Prosecutor would contend that mere fact that identification parade was not conducted and there was a gap of about two years in between the date of incident and date of examination of these witnesses in court, may not be very material since the evidence of P. Ws. 1 and 2 is clear and categorical on this aspect. The learned additional Public Prosecutor would also contend that the mere fact that identification parade was not conducted, would not alter the situation in any way. The learned additional Public Prosecutor also would point out that it is not as though the name of a-1 had not been mentioned in Ex. P-1, in fact it was referred to in Ex. P-1. P. W. 4 who is having prior acquaintance with A-1 had deposed about the same and in the light of the clear evidence of eye witnesses, the identity of the accused cannot be doubted at all. The learned Additional public Prosecutor also placed strong reliance on Daya Singh v. State ofharyana in this regard. The learned additional Public Prosecutor also pointed out that the Investigating Officer had spoken to all details of the investigation and mere non- examination of Head constable may not be a serious lapse. The learned Additional Public prosecutor had taken this Court through ex. P-1 and also the evidence of P. Ws. The learned additional Public Prosecutor also pointed out that the Investigating Officer had spoken to all details of the investigation and mere non- examination of Head constable may not be a serious lapse. The learned Additional Public prosecutor had taken this Court through ex. P-1 and also the evidence of P. Ws. 10 and 15 and would submit that since the medical evidence also amply supports the version of the prosecution, the prosecution definitely was able to prove the guilt of the appellant-accused under Section 325 IPC. ( 6 ) HEARD both the counsel and perused the oral and documentary evidence available on record. ( 7 ) EX. P-1, dated 26-10-1996 reads as hereunder:"i am residing in Vantala Veedhi. I am working as attender in District Court since about 34 years. In District court, Shaik Hussain, Lodagala narasimhamurty, and R. V. Satyanarayana, are also working along with me. Every year all the staff belonging to our Court will celebrate the Dasara festival in the Court premises. We are celebrating this festival under the leadership of B. Samuel (President) and Pathrapilli Apparao (Secretary ). Our association resolved to perform dasara festival for this year also. On 19-10-1996 at about 9. 30 a. m. we installed the idol of Godess durgamatha. After performing the poojas for three days to sri Durgamatha, on 21-10-1996 evening at about 6 p. m. , for the purpose of immersion of Devi, all the staff members working in our Court viz. , myself, Shaik Hussain, Lodagala narasimhamurthy, R. V. Satyanarayana and some others started in a procession and going to Ramakrishna beach by about 9. 30 p. m. we reached chandaka Veedhi. Some persons in the age group of about 25 years came opposite to our procession and raised cries on us to stop the procession. Then we requested them not to stop the procession as we are going for the immersion of Devi But they did not heed the same. Then one boy among the said three persons by addressing to chandaka Govindarao instigated to beat us for not obeying their words. Thereupon, the said Chandaka govindarao in support thereof said that a strong lesson has to be taught to us and came upon us by making a challenge. Though we requested they did not heed us. Even then our Hussain is requesting them strongly. Thereupon, the said Chandaka govindarao in support thereof said that a strong lesson has to be taught to us and came upon us by making a challenge. Though we requested they did not heed us. Even then our Hussain is requesting them strongly. Then chandaka Govinda Rao fisted on the head of Hussain with a nickel chest. The remaining two persons beat the said Hussain with sticks. We warded off. When they are beating Hussain fell down. Myself, L. Narasimhamurthy and r. V. Satyanarayana lifted the said hussain and admitted him in K. G. H. Hussain is unconscious, read over to me and found correct. " ( 8 ) IT is not in controversy that the name of this A-1 had been specifically referred to in ex. P-1. It is pertinent to note that the name of A-2 was not specified and on that ground, acquittal had been recorded even by the learned Sessions Judge. It is no doubt true that the date of incident is 21-10-1996 and ex. P-1 is dated 26-10-1996. In Rajeevan v. State of Kerala (1 supra), the Apex Court no doubt observed in page No. 360 at paragraphs 12 and 13 as follows:"another doubtful factor is the delayed lodging of FIR. The learned counsel for the appellants highlights this factor. Here it is worthwhile to refer Thulia Kali v. State of T. N. (1972) 3 SCC 393 ) wherein the delayed filing of FIR and its consequences are discussed. At para 12 this Court says:"first information report in a criminal case is an extremely vital and valuable piece of evidence for the purpose of corroborating the oral evidence adduced at the trial. The importance of the above report can hardly be overestimated from the stand point of the accused. The object of insisting upon prompt lodging of the report to the police in respect of commission of an offence is to obtain early information regarding the circumstances in which the crime was committed, the names of the actual culprits and the part played by them as well as the names of eye witnesses present at the scene of occurrence. Delay in lodging the first information report quite often results in embellishment which is a creature of afterthought. Delay in lodging the first information report quite often results in embellishment which is a creature of afterthought. On account of delay, the report not only gets bereft of the advantage of spontaneity, danger creeps in of the introduction of coloured version, exaggerated account or concocted story as a result of deliberation and consultation. It is. therefore, essential that the delay in lodging of the first information report should be satisfactorily explained. " this is the position consistently followed by this Court in Maharaj Singh v. State of U. P. , 1994 5 SCC 188 and recently in Thanedar Singh v. State of m. P. , 2002 1 SCC 487 . "it is no doubt true that the delay in lodging fir also may be a ground to be taken into consideration. ( 9 ) P. W 13 Additional Sub-Inspector of police deposed that on 26-10-1996, the inspector of police gave him the FIR in crime no. 291 of 1996 registered for the offence under Section 307 read with Section 34 IPC and instructed him to investigate in this case and he took the FIR and came to the Court premises. He further deposed that he examined P. Ws. 1 and 2 and recorded their statements and went to the N. S. ward, k. G. H. Visakhapatnam and found the injured person in an unconscious condition and as such, he could not examine the deceased and he examined the wife of the deceased, and that from the hospital he proceeded to the scene of offence. He further deposed that he examined the scene of offence in the presence of P. Ws. 5 and 6 and prepared ex. P-2 observation report and examined v. Ammaji, Karanam Venkata Rao, P. W. 4 and Alia Srinivasa Rao and recorded their statements. He also deposed that he made enquiries about the accused, but he could not trace them, and on 27-10-1996 on reliable information, he proceeded to chandaka Veedhi junction along with his staff and secured the mediators P. Ws. 7 and 9, and while they were proceeding along with street, they found a person coming in the opposite direction tried to escape and p. W. 13 caught hold of him and A-1 is the person whom they arrested. 7 and 9, and while they were proceeding along with street, they found a person coming in the opposite direction tried to escape and p. W. 13 caught hold of him and A-1 is the person whom they arrested. He further deposed that on his statement, A-1 lead them to his house and produced M. O. 1 before him and he seized M. O. 1 under the cover of mediators report and Ex. P-3 is the admissible portion therein. He further deposed that A-1 had taken them to ramanamma Tea bunk at Jagadamba junction and shown A-2 to them and they arrested A-2 also under the cover of ex. P-4 mediators report, and they brought a-1 and A-2 to the police station and sent them for remand. He further deposed that on 28-10-1996, he came to the Court premises and examined P. W. 3 and recorded his statement and subsequently, the Inspector of Police took up further investigation. This witness was cross-examined at length. ( 10 ) P. W. 14 is the Sub-Inspector of police. He deposed that on 26-10-1996 he received Ex. P-8 medical intimation from h. C. No. 206 who obtained the same on 22-10-1996, and then he directed P. W. 12 assistant Sub-Inspector of Police to record the statement of the witnesses available with the victim and accordingly, P. W. 12 went to k. G. H. and recorded the statement of p. W. 1. Ex. P-1 is the statement recorded by p. W. 12. This witness in detail had deposed about the investigation and also deposed that he directed P. W. 13 to take up investigation. P. W. 14 further deposed that on 2-11-1996 on receipt of death intimation from the C. M. O. , K. G. H. , Visakhapatnam, he altered the section of law from Section 307 ipc to Section 302 IPC. Ex. P-10 is the memo wherein the section of law altered. He further deposed that on the same day, he held inquest over the dead body of the deceased and also secured panchayatdars and examined P. W. 1, L. W. 2, P. W. 3, Shaik begum at the inquest and he had sent the dead body for post mortem examination and after receiving post mortem certificate, he filed charge sheet. He further deposed that on the same day, he held inquest over the dead body of the deceased and also secured panchayatdars and examined P. W. 1, L. W. 2, P. W. 3, Shaik begum at the inquest and he had sent the dead body for post mortem examination and after receiving post mortem certificate, he filed charge sheet. It is pertinent to note that in the cross-examination, this witness specifically deposed that M. L. C. intimation was received from K. G. H. on 22-10-1996 and the same was registered in general diary and the Head constable 206 entered the M. L. C. intimation in the general diary. Ex. P-8 M. L. C. intimation does not contain as to on which part of the body, the deceased received injuries and no doubt several other questions were put to this witness relating to the details of the investigation. From this, it is clear that no doubt, there was some lapse on the part of investigation in immediately taking up the same though intimation was given. When the evidence of these investigating officers is clear, non-examination of the Head constable may not be a serious lapse. Hence, in view of the directions issued, the further investigation had been proceeded with and Ex. P-1 was recorded, the question of delay may not assume serious importance. Apart from this aspect of the matter, it is pertinent to note that it is not even the case of the defence that P. Ws. 1 and 2 are having any specific enemity with appellant-accused so as to implicate him or so as to foist a case against him. It is no doubt made it clear that the delay also may be a ground in one of the grounds which may have to be seriously viewed in relation to the lodging of FIR, while setting the criminal law in motion. But in the light of the facts well explained by the investigating officers in this matter, this Court is of the considered opinion that it was just a lapse on the part of the investigating agency, which cannot go in favour of appellant-accused no. 1. ( 11 ) THE next aspect, which had been elaborately argued, is relating to identity. P. W. 15-C. M. O. K. G. H. Visakhapatnam deposed that a person by name sk. 1. ( 11 ) THE next aspect, which had been elaborately argued, is relating to identity. P. W. 15-C. M. O. K. G. H. Visakhapatnam deposed that a person by name sk. Hussain-deceased was brought to him by B. Suryanarayana (P. W. 1) and examined the patient, treated him, and intimated the same to I Town, Law and Order Police, visakhapatnam. He further deposed that the head Constable came to the K. G. Hospital, to examine the patient but the patient was unconscious. He further deposed that he certified that the patient was unconscious,. Ex. P-8 is the medical intimation and it contains his endorsement. Strong reliance was also placed by the learned Counsel representing the appellant on the evidence of P. W. 15 wherein no doubt, this witness deposed that P. W. 1 did not tell him as to who beat the accused and he did not state anything about the weapon, but he stated that the deceased was beaten by unknown person. This evidence cannot be found fault with in any way for the reason that even it is not the case of the prosecution that P. Ws. 1 and 2 were known of these accused, but p. Ws. 1 and 2 identified the accused in the court. No doubt, acquittal was recorded so far as A-2 is concerned on the ground that his name did not figure in Ex. P-1. P. W. 1 clearly deposed what happened on the fateful day of 21 -10-1996 while taking out the procession to immerse Durga Devi idol in the sea. He further deposed that 7 or 8 persons asked them to stop procession and they requested them not to stop the procession as it was late to immerse the idol in the sea and some person stated to Govinda that they should not allow the procession to proceed further and on that, the deceased requested the accused No. 1 and others not to cause obstruction and on that A-1 fisted the deceased with hand on his mouth and thereafter A-1 picked up a nickel Chester from his pocket and beat the deceased on his head and thereafter, A-2 beat the deceased with a stick on his dead and the deceased fell down. He further deposed that some persons of Chandaka Veedhi requested the accused not to quarrel with them and the accused No. 1 beat them also and thereupon, they went away. He had also deposed about the police recording his statement-Ex. P-1 and other details. This witness was cross-examined at length and the suggestions appear to be that the deceased was a drunkard and due to fall, this incident might have happened. These aspects were specifically denied. This witness also deposed that he did not give the descriptive features of the persons who beat the deceased, to the police and he stated hat he can identify the persons who beat the deceased, and immediately after the incident, he did not lodge any report with the police as he went along with the deceased to king George Hospital, Visakhapatnam and he did not state before the police from which pocket, A-1 picked up the nickel Chester and with which hand he beat the deceased. He had denied all other suggestions and this witness also was cross-examined relating to m. O. 1. He deposed that the police did not get M. O. 1 nickel Chester, identified by him by conducting identification proceedings. But this witness definitely deposed that he can identify the accused No. 1 appellant herein. ( 12 ) THE evidence of P. W. 2 well corroborates the evidence of P. W. 1 in all material particulars. P. W. 3 just speaks of some quarrel and the deceased falling down on the ground, and he had not observed who beat him. ( 13 ) P. W. 4 is yet another witness who deposed that P. W. 4 and L. W. 6 were proceeding towards Chandaka Veedhi and they saw A-1 beating a person at the chandaka Veedhi junction, and the witness identified A-1 in the Court as the person who beat another person (the deceased) on that day. This witness specifically deposed that he had acquaintance with A-1 prior to the incident as he is living in the same street. He deposed that when he questioned A-1 as to why he was beating another person, A-1 also beat him and thereafter he went away to his house. This witness specifically deposed that he had acquaintance with A-1 prior to the incident as he is living in the same street. He deposed that when he questioned A-1 as to why he was beating another person, A-1 also beat him and thereafter he went away to his house. In cross-examination, he deposed that he stated to police what he stated before the Court and it is not true to suggest that he did not state before the police that A-1 beat the deceased with the hand. This witness further deposed that by the time he went to a-1, the person who received injuries fell down and ten or fifteen persons were in the procession. He further deposed that he did not give any report to the police. He further deposed that he did not give the descriptive particulars of the person who fell down after receiving injuries. He further deposed that he does not know as to which part of the body of the deceased received injuries. He had denied certain suggestions. No doubt the questions posed to P. W. 4 in cross- examination which were also put to the investigating officer had been argued at length and submissions were made that the evidence of P. W. 4 is definitely is not trustworthy. ( 14 ) P. W. 5 signed Ex. P-2 the observation report. P. W. 6 also deposed that police prepared Ex. P-2 observation report and he signed it. P. W. 7 no doubt was declared hostile. But he deposed that he signed in Ex. P-3 mediators report and A-1 took him and the police and the other mediator to his house, went inside his house and brought round shaped object called as nickel Chester . He specifically deposed that m. O. 1 is not the nickel Chester produced by a-1 and in view of the same, this witness was declared hostile. It is pertinent to note that when a witness is declared hostile, the whole evidence need not be discarded and a careful scrutiny of the evidence of P. W. 7 shows that he had supported the version of the prosecution up to some extent and subsequently gives a go-bye to the same, but the investigating officer specifically had deposed about this aspect. ( 15 ) P. W. 8 deposed about Ex. P-5 inquest report and he had signed in the inquest report. ( 15 ) P. W. 8 deposed about Ex. P-5 inquest report and he had signed in the inquest report. P. W. 9 deposed that Ex. P-4 is his signature in the mediators report. But however, this witness also was declared hostile and no doubt, when it was suggested that M. O. 1 was recovered from A-1 in his presence and that he can identify, he denied the same. ( 16 ) NO doubt in view of P. Ws. 7 and 9 being declared hostile, submissions were at length made by the Counsel representing the appellant that inasmuch as the very seizure of M. O. 1 had not been proved, the appellant-accused No. 1 is entitled to benefit of doubt. ( 17 ) P. W. 10 is a Neuro Surgeon deposed about the condition of the deceased and since there was deterioration in the condition of the patient, A. C. T. scan was ordered and on scanning, hemorrhage contusion, right frontol and temporal regions and left temporal lobe and thin subdural haemotoma and a fracture of the right parietal bone were noticed. He further deposed that he was taken to the operation theatre on 23-10-1996 by one of his assistants Dr. Laxmana Rao, the hamatoma and the contused brain were evacuated to release the pressure on the brain. he further deposed that there was some improvement in the condition of the patient, however, not to the extent of communicating and answering questions and continued to be in the same state, developed signs of brain swelling for which mannitol and solumedrol which are specific for the purpose were administered and subsequently, died on 2-11-1996 at 2. 20 a. m. Ex. P-6 is the case sheet maintained in Neuro surgery ward of K. G. H. Visakhapatnam. ( 18 ) P. W. 11 is the professor of forensic medicine, who had conducted post mortem examination and found the following antimortem injuries: (1) A semi-circular surgically sutured wound 12 cm. , in length present on right fronto-parietal region of scalp. (2) Multiple small healing abrasions are present at back lower part of right upper arm, back of elbow back of right fore-arm, flexor aspect of lower part of right fore-arms, back of left elbow; (3) Contusion of 25 x 18 cm. , present on frontal biparietal bitemporal and occipital region of scalp. (4) Fissured fracture of 20 cms in length. (2) Multiple small healing abrasions are present at back lower part of right upper arm, back of elbow back of right fore-arm, flexor aspect of lower part of right fore-arms, back of left elbow; (3) Contusion of 25 x 18 cm. , present on frontal biparietal bitemporal and occipital region of scalp. (4) Fissured fracture of 20 cms in length. Present at posterior part of right parietal bone and occipital bones of skull; (5) A 4 x 3 cm. , piece of skull bone surgically removed from right frontal region of skull with nibbled margins surgical sutures precent on underlying duramater. (6) Diffuse subdural haemmorrhage present on right side of brain contusion of 3 x 2 cm. , present on left tempro-parietal lobes of brain contusion of 14 x 11 cm. , present on right frontal right temporal, right parietal lobes of brain. Laceration of 12 x 6 x cms. , with necrosis of brain matter present or right frontal and temporal lobes of brain. This witness also deposed that on internal examination of other organs, he found edema of the lungs and stomach contains 300 ml. Bile stained liquid and no suspicious smell was noticed. He further deposed that he found congestion of internal organs. He further deposed that the person would appear to have died of head injury, fracture of skull, intracranial haemorrhage with injury to brain and Ex. P-7 is the post-mortem certificate issued by him. He further deposed that injuries 1,3,4 and 5 are due to the surgery and the injury No. 3 is also possible by weapon or by fall, and contusion is possible by M. 0. 1. No doubt on the strength of this evidence, certain submissions were made that the medical evidence is contrary to the direct evidence as deposed by p. Ws. 1 and 2. But this Court is of the opinion that on the careful scrutiny of the evidence of P. Ws. 1 and 2 and the medical evidence, the discrepancy is very minor and the trustworthiness cannot be doubted on that ground. ( 19 ) P. W. 12 is the Assistant Sub- inspector of Police, who deposed about the receiving of medical intimation, further deposed that the head constable went to the k. G. H. , but could not record the statement of the deceased as he was unconscious. ( 19 ) P. W. 12 is the Assistant Sub- inspector of Police, who deposed about the receiving of medical intimation, further deposed that the head constable went to the k. G. H. , but could not record the statement of the deceased as he was unconscious. ( 20 ) P. W. 13 is the Additional Sub- inspector of Police and P. W. 14 is the inspector of Police. The evidence of these investigating officers already had been discussed supra. ( 21 ) P. W. 15 is the C. M. O. and deposed that during his duty hours,lhe deceased was brought by P. W. 1 and he treated him and intimated the same to one Town law and order P. S. , Visakhapatnam and Head constable came to examine the patient, but the patient was unconscious, and that he issued Ex. P-8 medical intimation and it contains his endorsement. No doubt this witness deposed that P. W. 1 did not tell him as to who beat the deceased and he did not state anything about the weapon, but P. W. 1 stated that the deceased was beaten by unknown person. This is the evidence available on record. ( 22 ) IN Bollavaram Pedda Narsi Reddy v. State of A. P. (2 supra) at page 1471 paragraph 8, the Apex Court observed that,"the evidence given by the witnesses before the Court is the substantive evidence. In a case where the witness is a stranger to the accused and he identifies the accused person before the Court for the first time, the Court will not ordinarily accept that identification as conclusive. It is to lend assurance to the testimony of the witnesses that evidence in the form of an earlier identification is tendered. If the accused persons are got identified by the witness soon after their arrest and such identification does not suffer from any infirmity that circumstance lends corroboration to the evidence given by the witness before the Court. But in a case where the evidence before the court is itself shaky, the identification before the magistrate would be of no assistance to the prosecution. "however, reliance was also placed on the decision in Daya Singh v. State of Haryana (supra), where the Apex Court held"it is true that P. Ws. But in a case where the evidence before the court is itself shaky, the identification before the magistrate would be of no assistance to the prosecution. "however, reliance was also placed on the decision in Daya Singh v. State of Haryana (supra), where the Apex Court held"it is true that P. Ws. 37 and 38 have lost their son, daughter-in-law and son of brother-in-law and that it was extraordinary experience for them to the assaulted by terrorists. But, it would be difficult to hold that at that time, they had lost their power of perception. Theoretically in some cases what has been noted by the learned author may be true. For that purpose, the evidence of the witness is required to be appreciated with extra care and caution. But, where evidence is cogent, consistent and without any motive, it is no use to imagine and magnify theoretical possibilities with regard to the state of mind of the witnesses and with regard to their power of memorizing of the identity of the assailants. Power of perception and memorizing defers from man to man and also depends upon situation. It also depends upon capacity to recapitulate what has been seen earlier. But that would depend upon the strength or trustworthiness of the witnesses who have identified the accused in the court earlier. Further in the present case, identification in the court was out of 14 persons. That itself would lend credence to identification by the witnesses. For this purpose, learned Judge has rightly observed to the effect that physical features of accused must have been embedded in the memory of Jaswanth Kaur. From the evidence and the cross- examination of these two witnesses, it is apparent that they gained enduring impression of the identity of the accused during the incident. Therefore, delay in trial by the Designated Judge for one reason or the other and thereafter identification of the accused in the Court after seven or eight years would not affect the evidence of these two witnesses. " ( 23 ) IT is no doubt true that P. Ws. 1 and 2 are strangers to A-1 on the date of incident. But it is pertinent to note that in Ex. P-1 itself, his name was mentioned though the descriptive particulars or the features had not been specified. The evidence of P. Ws. " ( 23 ) IT is no doubt true that P. Ws. 1 and 2 are strangers to A-1 on the date of incident. But it is pertinent to note that in Ex. P-1 itself, his name was mentioned though the descriptive particulars or the features had not been specified. The evidence of P. Ws. 1 and 2 is available and apart from it, for the purpose of identification, the evidence of p. W. 4 is also available on record. In the light of the clear direct evidence on the ground that the identification parade of the accused was not held and the examination of these witnesses in Court was after a period of two years and on that ground itself, the credibility and the trustworthiness of these witnesses cannot be doubted in any way. The object of conducting identification parade is well settled and the principles relating to the same need not be repeated. This Court also had given its anxious consideration to the findings recorded by the learned Judge who had recorded findings in detail and also appreciated Ex. D-1 the portion in Ex. P-1 statement an Ex. D-2 the portion in 161 cr. P. C. statement of P. W. 2 and arrived at a conclusion that the guilt of the accused no. 1 is proved beyond all reasonable doubt for voluntarily causing grievous hurt under section 325 IPC. Hence, this Court does not see any reason to interfere with the said findings and the same are hereby confirmed. ( 24 ) IT is brought to the notice of this Court that the appellant-accused is eking out his livelihood by running meat shop and his old mother is also dependant on him, and considering the antecedents of appellant- accused and the circumstances under which the incident happened on the fateful day, the conviction under Section 325 IPC is hereby confirmed. ( 25 ) THE conviction imposed by the learned Metropolitan Sessions Judge, visakhapatnam in Sessions Case No. 6 of 1998 against the appellant-accused No. 1 on 26-10-1998 is confirmed, but the sentence of imprisonment awarded against him for the offence under Section 325 IPC is modified and reduced to one year from three years, and as far as the imposition of fine amount of rs. 1,000/- in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for one month is concerned, the same is hereby confirmed. 1,000/- in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for one month is concerned, the same is hereby confirmed. ( 26 ) THE bail bonds of the appellant- accused shall stand cancelled. The accused shall surrender to serve the rest of the sentence, the accused is entitled to set off the period of imprisonment, if any undergone by him, in accordance with law. ( 27 ) ACCORDINGLY, the Criminal Appeal is dismissed subject to the above modification.