Judgment I.P.Singh, J. 1. All the three appellants have been convicted u/s. 426/34 of the Indian Penal Code and have been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months. Appellant, Amrit Yadav has been further convicted u/s. 323 of the Indian Penal Code and has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months. Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. 2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 25.6.1986, the informant, Sidheshwar Yadav, was returning at home about 10/11 A.M. after washing his she buffalo at the well. The informant saw that three accused persons, named above, were demolishing the wall raised by him to rescue his house from seepage. The informant protested to this act of the accused persons, whereupon the three accused abused him and assaulted him with lathi. The informant sustained injury on his hand and other parts of his body. When the accused persons were clamouring, Bachu Yadav also came there and abused the informant. When the informant raised alarm, his Bhaujai Basmatiya Devi also came there and she was also assaulted by the accused persons. He also received injury. There was threatening for not going to the Police Station. Thereafter he gave statement before the Tekari Police Station. After completion of investigation the police submitted charge sheet against the accused persons. Thereafter the cognizance was taken and the trial concluded with the result as indicated above. 3. The prosecution in order to prove its case has examined altogether eight witnesses. P.W.1 Ravi Ranjan, is a formal witness. He has proved the F.I.R. P.W. 2 is Ram Chandra Yadav. P.W. 3 is Ram Briksh Yadav. P.W. 4 is Jadunandan Yadav. P.W.5 is Basmatia Devi. P.W. 6, Sidheshwar Yadav is the informant. P.W. 7 is a formal witness. P.W. 8 is Dr. Ram Naresh Singh who has examined the informant and injured, Basmatia Devi. 4. P.W. 6 the informant has fully supported the case of the prosecution. According to him when he was returning home at 10/11 A.M. after washing his she buffalo, he saw the appellant cutting his Bandh. He objected it but they did not stop it. He has further stated that the appellant, Amrit Yadav assaulted him with lathi on his back. P.W. 6 the informant has fully supported the case of the prosecution. According to him when he was returning home at 10/11 A.M. after washing his she buffalo, he saw the appellant cutting his Bandh. He objected it but they did not stop it. He has further stated that the appellant, Amrit Yadav assaulted him with lathi on his back. He has further stated that the appellant Rohan Yadav gave Garasa blow on his head and when he tried to ward off his blow he sustained injuries on his right hand. He has further stated that when his Bhabhi came to his rescue she was also assaulted by Sheo Nandan Yadav with Bhala. The other witnesses have also supported the version of the informant. 5. P.W. 8 is Dr. Ram Naresh Singh who has examined the injured informant and found the following injuries on his person:- Incised wound in web between right thumb and index finger 2 1/2" x 1/2" x 1/2" cutting the upper portion of right first of index finger and lower portion of right metacarpol bone of index finger with opening the privacy of the right metacarpol phalangeal Joint. Bruise with swelling right forearm near elbow of joint 2"x 1". 6. Injury no.1 is grievous in nature and injury no.2 is simple. Injury no.1 was caused by sharp cutting substance, may be Garasa and injury no.2 was caused by hard blunt weapon, may be lathi. 7. On the same day the Doctor (P.W.8) has examined Basamatia Devi and found incised wound 1/2"x 1/4"x 1/4" on the left side of forehead eye brow. The injury was simple in nature and it was caused by sharp cutting weapon. 8. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants has submitted that this case suffers from fatal infirmities as F.I.R. was lodged after 23 days of the occurrence for which no explanation has been given by the prosecution. It has been further submitted that the story of the prosecution also became doubtful as the informant has not stated about the assault by sharp cutting weapons like Garasa in his written statement (Ex. 2) and later this part was added. 9. So far as the delay is concerned, the same is abnormal delay for which no explanation was put forth and further development of assault by sharp cutting weapons like Bhala and Garasa, makes the case doubtful. 2) and later this part was added. 9. So far as the delay is concerned, the same is abnormal delay for which no explanation was put forth and further development of assault by sharp cutting weapons like Bhala and Garasa, makes the case doubtful. Thus, the appellants accordingly deserve benefit of doubt. The judgment of conviction of the learned Court below is set aside and the appellants are acquitted of the charges framed against them. They are directed to be set at liberty. 10. In the result, this appeal is allowed.