Judgment HARBANS LAL, J. 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment/order of sentence dated 8.2.1997 passed by the court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, ferozepur whereby he convicted and sentenced the accused Mukhtiar Singh to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs.2000/-under Sec.326 I. P. C. or in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and further sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs.2000/- under section 326 read with Sec.34 IPC or in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and also sentenced Sukha singh to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay fine of rs.2000/- under Sec.326 I. P. C. or in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and further sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs.2000/-under Sec.326 read with Sec.34 IPC and in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment Criminal Appeal No.143 SB of 1997 2 for six months and also sentenced Bohar Singh to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay fine of Rs.2000/- under Sec.326 read with Sec.34 i. P. C. or in default of payment of fine to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for six months with a further direction that the substantive sentences shall run concurrently. 2. Succinctly put, the facts of the prosecution case are that on 26.12.1995 around 7.30 A. M. Sukhdev Singh alongtwith his wife Simarjit Kaur was going to irrigate land measuring 3 1/2 acres, which they had taken on lease from Virsa Singh son of Arjan Singh resident of village Awan. Sukhev Singh was ambling ahead of her. When Sukhdev Singh neared mustard and barseen (cattle fodder) field of Subha Singh son of Behel Singh, resident of same village, meanwhile, Mukhtiar Singh duly armed with a kirpan, his brother Sukhdev Singh armed with a kulhari and his other brother Bohar Singh carrying sota emerged out of the mustard field suddenly. Mukhtiar Singh challenged Sukhdev Singh to run away in any direction he wished, as he has purchased a fight by quarrelling with them and he will not be left alive. On hearing so, Simarjit Kaur started running towards her husband. Mukhtiar Singh challenged Sukhdev Singh to run away in any direction he wished, as he has purchased a fight by quarrelling with them and he will not be left alive. On hearing so, Simarjit Kaur started running towards her husband. The accused Mukhtiar Singh gave a kirpan blow, which landed on the head of Sukhdev Singh. Bohar Singh dealt soti blow which rested on the left arm of Sukhdev Singh, who while yelling "bachao Bachao" fell down on the ground. In a bid to save her husband, Simarjit Kaur fell upon him, but the accused by throwing her away caused injuries to Sukhdev Singh with their respective weapons. This occurrence was witnessed by Tehal Singh son of budha Singh who had arrived at the spot. All the three accused decamped from the spot with their respective weapons. The motive behind the occurrence was that a quarrel had ensued Criminal Appeal No.143 SB of 1997 3 between Sukhdev singh and the accused 4/5 days prior to this occurrence and the same was got settled with the intervention of the panchayat. The accused Mukhtiar Singh and others nursed a grudge and caused injuries to Sukhdev Singh, who being unfit to make the statement, the case was registered on the basis of the statement made by Simarjit Kaur. In due course, the accused were put under arrest. After completion of investigation, the charge-sheet was laid in the court of learned judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Ferozepur who committed the case to the court of sessions for trial of the accused. 3. The accused Mukhtiar Singh, Bohar Singh and Sukha Singh were charged under Sections 307/326 read with Sec.34 IPC to which they did not plead guilty and claimed trial. In order to bring home guilt to the accused, the prosecution examined PW-1 Dr. Harbans Lal Garg, PW-2 Simarjit Kaur eye witness, PW-3 Sukhdev Singh injured, PW-4 Dr. Vikas Priya, PW-5 Dr. Som Dutt, pw-6 HC Gurdeep Singh, PW-7 ASI Harbhaj and closed its evidence by tendering the Chemical Examiners report. When examined under Sec.313 Cr. P. C. all the accused denied the incriminating circumstances appearing in the prosecution evidence against them and pleaded innocence as well as false implication. Accused Mukhtiar Singh has come up with the following plea:- "sukhdev Singh had relation with terrorists. He had already shifted from many places only because of disturbance by the terrorist and the police. P. C. all the accused denied the incriminating circumstances appearing in the prosecution evidence against them and pleaded innocence as well as false implication. Accused Mukhtiar Singh has come up with the following plea:- "sukhdev Singh had relation with terrorists. He had already shifted from many places only because of disturbance by the terrorist and the police. The police of Police Station guruharsahai used to raid the house of Sukhdev Singh and had arrested number of times and Sukhdev Singh suspected us to be informer of the police. He used to threaten us to falsely Criminal Appeal No.143 SB of 1997 4 implicate us. In fact, some unknown persons had caused him the injuries. Simarjit Kaur and Tehal singh Pws were never present at the time of occurrence. Simarjit Kaur is a made up witness and I have been falsely implicated in this case just to settle their scores. Even Sukhdev Singh never knew the terrorist persons who had caused injuries to him. " His co-accused namely Bohar Singh and Sukha Singh have adopted similar plea. They did not adduce any evidence in their defence. After hearing the learned assistant Public Prosecutor for the State, the learned defence counsel and examining the evidence on record, the learned trial Court convicted and sentenced all the three accused as noticed at the outset. Feeling aggrieved therewith they have preferred this appeal. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties, besides perusing the record with due care and circumspection. Learned counsel for the appellant has argued that the occurrence took place at 7.30 A. M. on 26.12.1995. Allegedly, the F. I. R. was registered at 5.30 P. M. on the same day. But shockingly enough, the F. I. R. was received by the Ilaqa Magistrate on 28.12.1995 at 1.30 P. M. which clearly goes to show that it has been ante-dated. This contention merits rejection. The Bed Head Ticket Ex. PB tends to show that the injured was admitted in Civil Hospital, Ferozepur on 26.12.1995 at 9.00 a. M. This fact is also fortified by Dr. Harbans Lal PW-1 who had medico legally examined the injured and recorded injuries in the Bed-Head Ticket. The distance between village Awan in which the occurrence took place as well as the Civil hospital, Ferozepur where the injured was admitted is 30-35 kms. Harbans Lal PW-1 who had medico legally examined the injured and recorded injuries in the Bed-Head Ticket. The distance between village Awan in which the occurrence took place as well as the Civil hospital, Ferozepur where the injured was admitted is 30-35 kms. Criminal Appeal no.143 SB of 1997 5 Some time, might have been lost in covering this distance. As would be apparent on the face of the record, the statement of Simarjit Kaur which became the basis of the F. I. R. was completed at 4.30 P. M. on 26.12.1995. The number of F. I. R. has been recorded in number of documents on the record, which ipso-facto goes to show that it has come into being by 5.30 P. M. Merely because the F. I. R. reached the learned Ilaqa Magistrate on 28.12.1995 at 1.30 p. M. , its genuineness cannot be doubted. In this view of the matter, my view stands reinforced by referring to observations rendered in re: Shaikh Ayub Vs. State of Maharashtra 1998 Supreme Court Cases (Criminal) 1055. Further in re:bijoy Singh Vs. State of Bihar 2002 (2) Recent Criminal Reports (Criminal)554 it has been ruled by the Supreme Court that the delay in sending copy of the F. I. R. may by itself not render the whole of the case of the prosecution as doubtful, but shall put the Court on guard to find out as to whether the version stated in the court was the same version as earlier reported in the f. I. R. or was the result of deliberations involving some other persons who were actually not involved in the commission of the crime. It is always for the prosecution to explain such delay and if reasonable plausible and sufficient explanation is tendered, no adverse inference can be drawn against it. Adverting to the present one, Simarjit Kaur PW wife of the injured has tendered ocular account. A glance through her testimony would reveal that she has given a graphic description of the occurrence. She being the wife of the injured, her presence at the spot can be hardly doubted. The alleged delay in sending the copy of the Special Report to the learned Ilaqa Magistrate as required under section 157 of Cr. A glance through her testimony would reveal that she has given a graphic description of the occurrence. She being the wife of the injured, her presence at the spot can be hardly doubted. The alleged delay in sending the copy of the Special Report to the learned Ilaqa Magistrate as required under section 157 of Cr. P. C. cannot dilute the effect of the evidence tendered by simarjit Kaur as well as her injured husband Criminal Appeal No.143 SB of 1997 6 Sukhdev Singh. 5. The learned counsel for the appellants has further canvassed at the bar that injury No.5 has been declared grievous without radiological examination. This argument is also unsustainable. Injury No.5 read as under:- "5. The diffused swelling 16.6 cm x 14.0 cm involving the upper middle and lower third of the left arm. Area was tender on touch. The underlying bone was fractured. " 6. There being clear cut fracture, the opinion could be given even on visual observation without the aid of X-Ray. As such, no serious note can be taken of it. 7. The next argument having been raised by the learned counsel for the appellants is that for non-examination of Virsa Singh and Tehal Singh Pws, an adverse inference ought to be drawn that their evidence would have gone against the prosecution. This contention is unacceptable. The possibility cannot be ruled out that the witness of the prosecution can later on join hands with the accused and in that eventuality, the prosecution cannot be expected to produce the person as its witness, who is not going to support its case. The honble Supreme Court in re: Masalti Vs. State of U. P. AIR 1965 SC 202 has held as under:- " It is undoubtedly the duty of the prosecution to lay before the court all material evidence available to it, which is necessary for unfolding its case. It would be unsound to lay down it as general rule that every witness must be examined, even though his evidence may not be very material or even if it is known that he has been won over or terrorized. " 8. Criminal Appeal No.143 SB of 1997 7 The same view was reiterated in re: Bawa haji Vs. State of Kerala AIR 1974 Supreme Court 902. It was observed in Sarwan singh and others Vs. " 8. Criminal Appeal No.143 SB of 1997 7 The same view was reiterated in re: Bawa haji Vs. State of Kerala AIR 1974 Supreme Court 902. It was observed in Sarwan singh and others Vs. State of Punjab (1976) 4 Supreme Court Cases 369 that "the onus of proving the prosecution case rests entirely on the prosecution and it follows as a logical corollary that the prosecution has complete liberty to choose its witnesses if it is to prove its case. The court cannot compel the prosecution to examine one witness or the other as its witness. At the most, if a material witness is withheld, the court may draw an adverse inference against the prosecution. But it is not the law that the omission to examine any and every witness even on minor points would undoubtedly lead to rejection of the prosecution case or drawing of an adverse inference against the prosecution. The law is well-settled that the prosecution is bound to produce only such witnesses as are essential for unfolding of the prosecution narrative. In other words, before an adverse inference against the prosecution can be drawn it must be proved to the satisfaction of the court that the witnesses who had been withheld were eye-witnesses, who had actually seen the occurrence and were therefore, material to prove the case. It is not necessary for the prosecution to multiply witnesses after witnesses on the same point: it is the quality rather than the quantity of the evidence that matters. " In the instant case, the examination of the said witness would have resulted in mere duplication on the record. Mere non- production of a witness on the ground that he was won over cannot be a ground for attacking the correctness of the prosecution case. Thus this argument cannot be accepted. No other material point has been urged or agitated by either counsel. 9. Criminal Appeal No.143 SB of 1997 8 On scrutinizing and examining the entire prosecution evidence with due care and caution, it transpires that the conviction recorded by the learned trial Court calls for no interference and sequelly, the same is upheld. The learned counsel for the appellants submit that the sentence may be reduced to the already undergone. 10. The occurrence took place way back in the month of December, 1995. The appellants have been facing the agony of trial since then. The learned counsel for the appellants submit that the sentence may be reduced to the already undergone. 10. The occurrence took place way back in the month of December, 1995. The appellants have been facing the agony of trial since then. This incident is 14 years old. As per the custody certificates taken on record, the appellants Mukhtiar Singh, Bohar Singh and Sukha Singh have undergone 5 months and 13 days, 5 months and 23 days and 5 months and 14 days respectively of the actual sentence. To my mind, the ends of justice would be adequately met, if their sentence is slashed to the period already undergone. Taking into consideration cumulative facts and circumstances of the case, the sentence of all the three appellants is reduced to the stated extent. However, the fine imposed by learned the trial Court as also the default clause qua all the appellants is maintained. With this modification in the order of sentence, this appeal fails and is dismissed. The Registry is directed to send a copy of this judgment to the trial Court.