MUKTESHWAR PRASAD, J. Accused Girjapati has filed this appeal against the judgment and order dated 12-5-81 passed by Sri G. S. N. Tripathi the then Additional Sessions Judge, Basti whereby he convicted the accused under Sections 201, 324 and 452 of the Penal Code and sentenced him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months, two years and one year respectively thereunder. All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. 2. In brief, the facts of the prosecution case as revealed from the record are as under. 3. P. W. 2 Shambhoo Lal was posted as Amin in the canal department at Naugarh (Basti) in the year 1974. On 17-8-74, he was going for inspection of Ban Ganga Canal. He found the accused driving his bullock cart on the canal road in an unauthorized manner. He, therefore, challaned the accused under Section 70 of the Canal Act. Consequently, the accused was annoyed with him. 4. On 24-8-74, Shambhoo Lal (the informant) was doing official work in the outer Verandah of his official residence built in the campus of inspection house. At about 10-00 a. m. , accused Girjapati arrived there in the Verandah, used filthy language to Shambhoo Lal and threatened to kill him. He took out a knife from his pocket. The informant was terrified and raised alarm. Accused dragged him from his cot and brought him down and stabbed him twice in his chest. On hearing alarm, Ramdeo, Ganga Prasad, Nageshwar, all Patrauls and Chulhyee, Beldar who were waiting for Ziledar at the inspection house reached there and intervened. The informant was wearing a Baniyan, which was stained with blood. Accused tore out the Baniyan and took out from informants body. He sprinkled kerosene oil upon it from the lamp kept there and burnt it. Since he was having a knife in his hand, none dared to catch him. Before leaving the scene of the incident, the accused threatened the informant/the injured not to report the incident to the police. 5. The informant reached Tetari Bazar and prepared a report of the incident in his own handwriting. He handed over his report to the police and a case was registered under Sections 307/323/201/452/426 I. P. C. and all papers were sent to P. S. Chilhiya. 6. P. W. 1 Dr. 5. The informant reached Tetari Bazar and prepared a report of the incident in his own handwriting. He handed over his report to the police and a case was registered under Sections 307/323/201/452/426 I. P. C. and all papers were sent to P. S. Chilhiya. 6. P. W. 1 Dr. O. B. Agarwal, Medical Officer, PHC Naugarh, examined the injuries of Shambhoo Lal at 7-30 p. m. on 24-8-74 and found two incised wounds skin deep on the right and left side of the chest. 7. In the opinion of the doctor, both the injuries were simple and caused by some sharp edged cutting weapon. The injuries were about half day old at the time of examination and could be caused at about 10-00 a. m. on 24-8-74. 8. The papers were received at P. S. Chilhiya on 25-8-74 at 2-30 p. m. and an entry was made. On the same day, S. I. Ram Raj Singh, the then S. O. started investigation and interrogated witnesses and after inspection of scene of incident prepared a site plan. After completing investigation, he submitted charge-sheet against the accused. 9. Accused Girjapati was charged under Sections 307/452/201 I. P. C. on 5-8-80. He pleaded not guilty to the charges and claimed to be tried. 10. In order to substantiate its allegations, the prosecution examined P. W. 1 Dr. O. B. Agarwal, who examined the injuries of Shambhoo Lal on 24-8-74 at 7-30 p. m. at P. H. C. Naugarh (Basti), P. W. 2 Shambhoo Lal, the informant and the injured, P. W. 3 Ganga Prasad, an eye-witness, P. W. 4 Nageshwar, who is also said to be eye-witness and P. W. 5 S. I. Ram Raj Singh, I. O. of the case. 11. Accused in his statement under Section 313 Cr. P. C. totally denied all accusation levelled against him by the prosecution and pleaded that he was falsely implicated in the case on account of enmity. The defence version was that accused was attending the Court of S. D. M. , Naugarh at Basti and was present there at 10-00 a. m. on the impugned date. Accused examined Anwar Ali Khan, the then Reader of the Court of S. D. M. , Naugarh in defence. 12. The defence version was that accused was attending the Court of S. D. M. , Naugarh at Basti and was present there at 10-00 a. m. on the impugned date. Accused examined Anwar Ali Khan, the then Reader of the Court of S. D. M. , Naugarh in defence. 12. After close scrutiny of the entire evidence on record led by the parties learned Judge found the accused guilty for the offences punishable under Sections 452, 324 and 201 I. P. C. and convicted and sentenced him as mentioned above. Hence this appeal. 13. I have heard appellants learned counsel at length and learned A. G. A. also. I have gone through the record of the lower Court carefully. 14. Learned counsel for the accused-appellant has urged vehemently that inordinate delay took place in lodging the F. I. R. and F. I. R. was not lodged at P. S. Chilhiya. There is no explanation on record as to why F. I. R. was lodged at Tetari Bazar. The prosecution produced P. W. 3 Ganga Prasad and P. W. 4 Nageshwar who were colleagues of the injured and no independent public witness was examined by the prosecution. P. W. 4 Nageshwar turned hostile. It was also urged that both Nageshwar and Ganga Prasad were chance witnesses and the learned Judge erred in placing reliance on their testimony. It was also submitted that the accused pleaded alibi and the Court below committed error in not accepting the plea of alibi. It was not proved by reliable evidence that offence took place inside the Verandah, as alleged by the prosecution, and the I. O. found no ash/evidence of burning Bandi of the injured in the Verandah and as such, the appellant could not be convicted under Sections 452 and 201 of the Penal Code. 15. On the other hand, learned A. G. A. supported the judgment passed by the Court below and has urged that the appeal is liable to be dismissed. 16. I have considered the arguments advanced on behalf of the parties and have gone through the record also. Fist of all, I find that there was a motive for the appellant to commit the offence in question. P. W. 2 Shambhoo Lal, the injured, testified in clear words that he found the appellant driving his bullock cart on the canal road on 17-8-74 and had filed a complaint against him. Fist of all, I find that there was a motive for the appellant to commit the offence in question. P. W. 2 Shambhoo Lal, the injured, testified in clear words that he found the appellant driving his bullock cart on the canal road on 17-8-74 and had filed a complaint against him. This statement of the injured was not challenged in cross-examination. It is, therefore, obvious that the appellant had a motive to cause injuries to Shambhoo Lal. 17. I further find that no delay took place in lodging the F. I. R. and reporting the incident to the police. The impugned incident took place on 24-8-74 at about 10-00 a. m. in the compound of the inspection house. The injured himself prepared a report and handed over his report to the police at P. S. Tetari Bazar. He did not go to P. S. Chilhiya on account of fear of the accused. He reiterated his statement on this point in cross-examination also and added that the village of the appellant intervened in between the place of incident and P. S. Chilhiya. The F. I. R. was lodged at 4-00 p. m. on the same day. In this view of the matter, I find that incident was reported to the police promptly. Similarly, no delay took place in medical examination of the injuries also and the injuries were examined by a Government doctor at 7-30 p. m. on the same day. 18. So far the witnesses examined on behalf of the prosecution are concerned, P. W. 2 Shambhoo Lal fully supported the prosecution story and stated categorically that on the impugned date at about 10-00 a. m. he was doing official work in the Verandah of his residence and the appellant arrived there with a Rampuri knife in his hand and threatened to kill. He tried to catch the knife but appellant gave him knife blows and caused injuries in his chest. He was cross-examined at length on behalf of the accused but in my opinion nothing material could be elicited in his cross-examination. In cross-examination also, the witness gave out that incident took place in the Verandah. 19. He tried to catch the knife but appellant gave him knife blows and caused injuries in his chest. He was cross-examined at length on behalf of the accused but in my opinion nothing material could be elicited in his cross-examination. In cross-examination also, the witness gave out that incident took place in the Verandah. 19. P. W. 3 Ganga Prasad, a Patraul, who is named in the written report as an eye witness corroborated the testimony of the injured and gave out that he was waiting for Ziledar at the inspection house and from there he reached the scene of occurrence on hearing the alarm raised by the injured. He saw the appellant assaulting Shambhoo Lal with a knife. He added that Nageshwar and Ramdeo had also reached there. He too disclosed that Shambhoo Lal was assaulted in the Verandah. 20. P. W. 4 Nageshwar, another eye witness named in the F. I. R. , turned hostile. He, however, supported the prosecution version partly and testified that he saw Shambhoo Lal in the injured condition and some drops of blood had fallen on the floor. He further admitted that he reached there on hearing the alarm raised by Shambhoo Lal. He admitted presence of Ganga Prasad (P. W. 3) at the scene of incident. 21. It was contended on behalf of the appellant that P. W. 3 Ganga Prasad is a chance witness. I find no force in this contention. He disclosed on oath that he was waiting for Ziledar at the inspection house. 22. So far as the defence version is concerned, the appellant did not disclose in his statement recorded under Section 313 Cr. P. C. that he attended the Court of S. D. M. Naugarh at 10-00 a. m. on the impugned date. No doubt learned counsel for the accused suggested to Shambhoo Lal as well as Ganga Prasad that accused was present in the Court of S. D. M. , Naugarh at Basti on the impugned date. It is noteworthy that appellant examined D. W. 1 Anwar Ali Khan but in my opinion he could not help the appellant. He admitted that on 24-8-74 the S. D. M. , Naugarh had gone to inspect flood affected areas in the district. He further disclosed that one Girjapati had signed the order-sheet but he could not say that the appellant had signed the order-sheet. He admitted that on 24-8-74 the S. D. M. , Naugarh had gone to inspect flood affected areas in the district. He further disclosed that one Girjapati had signed the order-sheet but he could not say that the appellant had signed the order-sheet. He testified in clear words that he did not identify the appellant. In this view of the matter, the testimony of defence witness does not help the appellant. P. W. 2 Shambhoo Lal and P. W. 3 Ganga Prasad stated that appellant had torn Bandi of the injured, sprinkled kerosene oil thereon and burnt. The I. O. who inspected the scene of incident on 25-8-74 itself found no ash or evidence of burning Bandi of the injured on the spot. In my opinion, this part of the prosecution story does not inspire confidence and cannot be accepted. 23. In view of the foregoing discussion, I hold that learned Judge rightly found the appellant guilty for the offences punishable under Sections 452 and 324 of the Penal Code. I, however, hold that charge framed against the accused under Section 201 I. P. C. was not proved by reliable and convincing evidence. Consequently, the appellant is entitled to be acquitted of the charge framed under Section 201 I. P. C. 24. It has also been urged that the incident in question took place in the month of August,1974 and since then about thirty years have elapsed. Moreover, the appellant was found guilty by the Court below on 12-5-81. Therefore, in view of the long gap between the date of incident, date of conviction and the date of hearing it would not be just and proper to send him to prison again. I find force in this contention. Since the injured was a public servant and was assaulted at the hands of the appellant at his official residence, I am not inclined to extend him the benefit of Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act. 25. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed. The conviction of the appellant under Sections 452 and 324 I. P. C. is affirmed and he is sentenced to the period already undergone by him and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000 under Section 452 I. P. C. The appellant is further sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 25. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed. The conviction of the appellant under Sections 452 and 324 I. P. C. is affirmed and he is sentenced to the period already undergone by him and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000 under Section 452 I. P. C. The appellant is further sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 1,500/- under Section 324 I. P. C. He is acquitted of the charge framed under Section 201 of the Penal Code and his conviction and sentence under this Section are hereby set aside. The appellant is allowed to deposit the total fine amounting to Rs. 2,500 within a period of three months from today. In default, he is directed to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of two months and two months under each count. The appellant is in jail. He shall be released forthwith if he is not wanted in any other crime. Appeal partly allowed. .