Judgment N.K. Gupta, J.;- 1. The appellant/State has preferred this appeal against the judgment dated 14.9.1998 passed by the learned Second Judicial Magistrate, Class IInd, Tikamgarg Shri A.A. Ansari in Criminal Case No. 520/1994 whereby the respondents were acquitted from the charges of offences punishable under Sections 325 and 323 read with Section 34 of I.P.C. The prosecution's case, in short, is that on 9.10.1994 at about 6.00 p.m. in the evening the victim Hari Lodhi (PW1) was sitting in his house situated at Village Barme, Police Station Kudila, District Tikamgarh. The victim was called by the respondents and thereafter, they assaulted the victim by sticks. He sustained so many injuries on his body. A Dehati Nalishi was recorded on 10.10.1994 and thereafter, a case was registered at Police Station, Kudila. The victim was sent for his medico legal examination and treatment. Dr. S.C. Gupta PW7) examined the victim Hira and found five blunt injuries on his body at various places like right index finger, left upper arm, right upper arm, left back and chest. He gave his report Ex. P/3 and referred the victim for his X-Ray examination. A fracture of metacarpal bone was found to the victim. After due investigation a charge sheet was filed before the trial Court. 2. The respondents abjured their guilt. They took a specific plea that they were falsely implicated in the matter due to enmity. Actually the victim Hira was suffering from the disease of leprosy and therefore, nobody was permitting him to sit with others. In a quarrel of bullocks the victim sustained injuries and thereafter due to enmity he falsely implicated the respondents. In defence Nathu (DW1), Jalam (DW2) and Pancham (DW3) were examined. 3. The learned Judicial Magistrate IInd Class, Tikamgarh after considering the evidence adduced by the parties acquitted the respondents from all the charges. 4. During the pendency of this appeal the respondents no. 1 and 2 have expired and therefore, their names were deleted from the title of this appeal. 5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. 6. The learned Panel Lawyer for the State has submitted that the victim sustained a fracture of metacarpal bone and it was established that he was assaulted by the respondents and therefore, the respondents are required to be convicted and sentenced in an appropriate manner. 5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. 6. The learned Panel Lawyer for the State has submitted that the victim sustained a fracture of metacarpal bone and it was established that he was assaulted by the respondents and therefore, the respondents are required to be convicted and sentenced in an appropriate manner. The testimony of the witness Hira Lodhi (PW1) and Rampal (PW2) was acceptable which was duly corroborated by the medical report. 7. On the other hand the learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that Hira could not know that who assaulted him and therefore, he lodged a delayed FIR at Police Station Kudila where a dispute took place between the complainant and the respondents four days prior to the incident. In FIR he mentioned that the incident took place about 6.00 p.m. in the evening whereas he admitted in his cross examination that it was dark at the time of incident and he could not see the culprits. Therefore, the learned Magistrate has rightly acquitted the respondents. 8. After considering the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, it is to be considered as to whether the appeal filed by the State can be accepted and the respondents can be convicted and sentenced for any offence. 9. Hira (PW1) and Rampal (PW2) have stated that the respondents assaulted the victim Hira. Hira has stated that Ramesh assaulted him by a lohangi and Ramcharan by a stick causing him injuries on his fingers and head. He has also stated that due to the assault caused by the respondent Bhagwandas, he sustained an injury in his right thumb. Hira and Rampal both have accepted that the victim Hira was suffering from leprosy and therefore, he was ousted by other villagers. They were of the opinion that if the complainant would not be shifted out of the Village then such disease could be caused to all other villagers. 10. Rampal (PW2) has accepted that the respondents were torturing him and his father, due to that disease. Rampal could not tell as to why a report was not lodged in the early morning of the next day. He has accepted that since there was darkness at the time of incident he could not see that which of the assault caused by a particular respondent caused the particular injury to his father. Rampal could not tell as to why a report was not lodged in the early morning of the next day. He has accepted that since there was darkness at the time of incident he could not see that which of the assault caused by a particular respondent caused the particular injury to his father. Similarly, the victim Hira could not see that whose assault caused a particular injury on his body. He has accepted in para 5 of his statement that there was darkness at the time of incident and therefore, he could not see that who started the assault or by a particular assault he sustained injury at a particular organ. 11. Dr. S.C. Gupta (PW7) has proved his MLC report Ex. P/3 by which he found 4-5 blunt injuries to the victim whereas Doctor Keshav Singh (PW8) after his radiological examination gave his report Ex. P/5. He found him a fracture of a second metacarpal bone. It is true that the victim sustained grievous injuries in the incident but, it is pertinent to note in this case that the prosecution did not prove the FIR lodged by the complainant. Dehati Nalishi which was lodged by the complainant Hira was not produced in original before the trial Court and therefore, neither it could be proved in the evidence of the complainant Hira nor in the evidence of the Officer who recorded the Dehati Nalishi. Similarly, the FIR lodged on the basis of the Dehati Nalishi was not at all proved. However, these documents are documents of the prosecution and therefore, they can be read in favour of the accused persons. According to the Dehati Nalishi incident took place on 9.10.1994 at about 6.00 p.m. whereas the Dehati Nalishi was recorded on 10.10.1994 at about 2.20 p.m. i.e. 20 hours after the incident. No reason has been shown about its delay either by the complainant Hira or the witness Rampal. It is strange that the time of incident is mentioned to be 6.00 p.m. in the Dehati Nalishi whereas Hira and Rampal have accepted that they could not see the actions of the respondents due to darkness. It appears that the complainant Hira was interested to lodge a named FIR therefore, a wrong time of incident was mentioned in the Dehati Nalishi. It appears that the complainant Hira was interested to lodge a named FIR therefore, a wrong time of incident was mentioned in the Dehati Nalishi. Otherwise at 6.00 p.m. in month of October sufficient light remains in the sky and the victim could not see the overt acts of the various respondents. Consequently, no reason has been shown about the delay in filing the FIR. Delay caused in FIR indicates that the complainant and his son could not see the actual culprits and therefore, after conversation with family members and relatives it was decided that the FIR may be lodged against the respondents because they quarreled with the victim four days prior to the incident. Under such circumstances, the FIR loses its value and testimony of the witnesses cannot be believed, hence it is not proved beyond doubt that the respondents assaulted the victims. 12. Also Hira has stated that accused Bhagwandas assaulted him on his thumb and Ramcharan assaulted him by a stick. He did not say anything about respondent Raghunath. He has stated in an omnibus manner that respondent Ramesh assaulted him by a lohangi but, he could not say that he sustained any injury by that assault. At present the respondents Bhagwandas and Ramcharan have expired and therefore, it was for the prosecution to prove the overt acts of the respondent Ramesh and Raghunath. Neither the victim Hira nor the witness Rampal could say anything about the assault of the respondent Raghunath and therefore, if it is presumed that the complainant could see the respondent then still it is not proved at all that the respondent Raghunath assaulted the victim Hira and therefore, he could not be convicted for offence punishable under Section 325 or 323 of I.P.C. 13. Similarly looking to the doubtful evidence of the complainant Hira and Rampal along with the delayed report, a doubt is created as to whether the respondent Ramesh assaulted the victim Hira or not and therefore, a benefit of doubt is to be given to the respondent Ramesh. He cannot be convicted for offence punishable under Sections 325 or 323 of I.P.C. Hence the learned Judicial Magistrate IInd Class has rightly acquitted the respondents no. 3 and 4 from the charges of offence punishable under Sections 325 and 323 read with Section 34 of I.P.C. 14. He cannot be convicted for offence punishable under Sections 325 or 323 of I.P.C. Hence the learned Judicial Magistrate IInd Class has rightly acquitted the respondents no. 3 and 4 from the charges of offence punishable under Sections 325 and 323 read with Section 34 of I.P.C. 14. On the basis of the aforesaid discussion, it is apparent that there is no reason by which any interference can be done in the conclusions drawn by the learned Magistrate. The appeal filed by the State cannot be accepted. Consequently, it is hereby dismissed. 15. The respondents no. 3 and 4 are on bail. Their presence is no more required. It is directed that their bail bonds shall stand discharged. Copy of the judgment be sent to the trial Court along with its record for information and compliance.