JUDGMENT S.C. Das, J.:- This criminal revision is directed against Judgment & Order of conviction and sentence dated 12.02.2009 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Belonia, South Tripura in Criminal Appeal No. 04 of 2009 whereby the learned Additional Sessions Judge upheld the Judgment & Order of conviction and sentence dated 27.12.2008 passed by learned SDJM, Belonia in Case No. G.R. 116 of 2001 with some modification of sentence. 2. The convict Dulal Dey along with four other accused persons were charged together for commission of offence punishable under Section 148/325/323 read with Section 149 of IPC in connection with Case No. G.R. 116 of 2001 in the Court of learned SDJM, Belonia and learned SDJM found accused Dulal Dey, Amrita Majumder, Anadi Basak and Anil Majumder guilty of committing offence punishable under Section 323 of IPC and sentenced all of them to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- each in default of payment to suffer S.I. for three months. Learned SDJM also found accused Dulal Dey guilty of committing offence punishable under Section325 of IPC and sentenced him to suffer R.I. for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 3,000/- in default of payment to suffer S.I. for three months. Aggrieved, the convict Dulal Dey preferred Criminal Appeal No. 04 of 2009 in the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Belonia and learned Additional Sessions Judge set aside the conviction of accused under Section 323 of IPC, but upheld the conviction and sentence under Section 325 of IPC and accordingly, dismissed the appeal. 3. Hence, the present revisional application is filed by the petitioner on behalf of the accused-convict, Dulal Dey challenging the judgment passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Belonia. 4. Briefly stated the fact of the case, necessary for disposal of the revisional application is that on 07.06.2001 at about 10/11 p.m., P.W. 7 Babul Majumder had been in the house of the informant Putul Rani Majumder (P.W. 1) at village Baraiya under P.S. P.R. Bari to take dinner on an invitation of Putul Rani. At that time, the accused Dulal Dey along with six other FIR named accused persons trespassed in the house of Putul Rani armed with iron rod, dao, lathi etc. forcefully broken open the door of the hut and beaten up Dulal Dey and Putul Rani inflicting severe injuries. At that time, the accused Dulal Dey along with six other FIR named accused persons trespassed in the house of Putul Rani armed with iron rod, dao, lathi etc. forcefully broken open the door of the hut and beaten up Dulal Dey and Putul Rani inflicting severe injuries. The villagers rushed to the house of Putul Rani hearing alarm and thereafter, the accused persons left the place. The victim Putul Rani and Babul Majumder both suffered severe injuries and they were taken to Nihar Nagar Primary Health Center for treatment. Injuries suffered by Babul since was serious he was referred to Belonia hospital and he was under treatment at Belonia hospital as an indoor patient. 5. On the basis of an FIR lodged by Putul Rani Majumder on 20.06.2001, O.C., P.R. Bari P.S. registered P.R. Bari P.S. Case No. 22 of 2001 under Sections 148/149/457/395/326/354 read with Section 34 of IPC and an investigation was taken up. After completion of investigation, charge sheet was submitted against the accused persons under Section 148/149/323 and 325 of IPC. Cognizance was taken by learned SDJM on the basis of police report and in due course, after compliance of formalities, charges were framed against the accused persons for the offence alleged to which, they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. To prove the charges, prosecution examined 10 witnesses. After closure of the prosecution evidence, the accused Dulal Dey and other accused persons were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and in their turn, they adduced no defence evidence. 6. Defence case so far suggested in the cross-examination of the prosecution witnesses is that of denial of the prosecution case and further stated that accused Dulal Dey and accused Amrita Majumder were beaten up by the victim Putul Rani Majumder and Babul Majumder and as a result, both Dulal and Amrita sustained injuries and were treated in the hospital. They also instituted a case against Putul Rani Majumder and Babul Majumder and to get rid of charges of that case, a false case was instituted against the accused and others. 7. Learned SDJM found the convict Dulal Dey guilty of committing offence punishable under Sections 323and 325 of IPC and sentenced him as stated hereinbefore. They also instituted a case against Putul Rani Majumder and Babul Majumder and to get rid of charges of that case, a false case was instituted against the accused and others. 7. Learned SDJM found the convict Dulal Dey guilty of committing offence punishable under Sections 323and 325 of IPC and sentenced him as stated hereinbefore. Learned Additional Sessions Judge while upholding the conviction has held that since the accused Dulal has been found guilty of committing offence punishable under both the penal Section i.e. 323 and 325 of IPC and he has been punished for committing offence punishable under Section 325 of IPC, separate punishment under Section 323 of IPC was not necessary and hence, to that extent interfered in the judgment of the trial Court. 8. Learned counsel, Mr. D.C. Roy, appearing on behalf of the petitioner has submitted that there was delay of 13 days in lodging the FIR and so on that ground alone, the trial Court and the appellate Court would disbelieve the prosecution case and give benefit of doubt to the accused persons. Learned Additional P.P., Mr. R.C. Debnath, on the other hand, has submitted that delay has been explained in the FIR. Further the incident is not disputed by the accused persons. Rather the accused persons has taken a plea that they were also beaten up for which, they have instituted a separate case against Putul Rani Majumder and Babul Majumder i.e. P.Ws. 1 and 7. Under such circumstances, delay in lodging the FIR in the given facts and circumstances of this case, is not at all fatal for the prosecution. 9. It is an admitted position that the FIR was lodged on 20.06.2001 whereas, the incident occurred on 07.06.2001. It is true that in the FIR, which is proved as Exbt. 1, the informant i.e. P.W. 1 stated that the village leaders assured of settlement in the village and therefore, there was delay on her part in lodging the FIR. It is also on record that the other injured victim Babul Majumder was hospitalized at that relevant point of time. The evidence on record also shows that P.W. 1 Putul Rani Majumder was also in the hospital till 10.06.2001. Anyway, some sorts of explanation has been given in the FIR. In her evidence, P.W. 1 stated nothing more about the delay in lodging FIR. The evidence on record also shows that P.W. 1 Putul Rani Majumder was also in the hospital till 10.06.2001. Anyway, some sorts of explanation has been given in the FIR. In her evidence, P.W. 1 stated nothing more about the delay in lodging FIR. There is also no cross-examination of P.W. 1 on that point. P.W. 7, the other victim was also not cross-examined on that point of delay in lodging the FIR. No question was also put to I.O. (P.W. 10) about the delay in lodging FIR. Through defence suggestions, put to the prosecution witnesses, the accused persons rather admitted that there were certain incident occurred on the alleged date and time for which, they also instituted case against Putul Rani Majumder and Babul Majumder for assault on accused Dulal and Amrita. 10. Delay defeats justice. Delay gives rise to embellishment, after thought and exaggeration, but there is no rule that in every case, where delay occasioned in lodging FIR, the prosecution case should be thrown over board and the entire case should be doubted. It is settled law that if delay is explained in some way or the other and the explanation is acceptable, no prosecution shall be defeated only for the delay. The law has not fixed any time for lodging an FIR. Hence, the delayed FIR is not illegal. Of course, a prompt and immediate lodging of the FIR is the ideal as that would give the prosecution a twin advantage. First is that it affords commencement of the investigation without any time lapse. Second is that it expels the opportunity of any possible concoction or a false version. In the present case, no doubt, the FIR was lodged after 13 days, but defence also did not seriously attack the prosecution case on the ground of delayed FIR rather defence brought a fact that accused Dulal and Amrita were assaulted by the victims of this case on the alleged date and time and thereby, they have rather admitted the incident occurred on that night. So, in the facts and circumstances of this case, delay in lodging FIR cannot be accepted as enough to reject the prosecution case in the absence of any other clear indication of fabrication and concoction of the prosecution case. 11. Learned counsel, Mr. So, in the facts and circumstances of this case, delay in lodging FIR cannot be accepted as enough to reject the prosecution case in the absence of any other clear indication of fabrication and concoction of the prosecution case. 11. Learned counsel, Mr. D.C. Roy has further argued that the informant P.W. 1, has clearly admitted in her cross-examination that the accused persons filed a case against her and P.W. 7, Babul Majumder. Other witnesses also stated that they found accused Dulal and Amrita with injuries and all of them were taken to hospital together. P.W. 10, the I.O. of the case in cross-examination stated that another counter case was registered as G.R. 136 of 2001 (P.R. Bari Case No. 25 of 2001) in respect of the same incident and both the incident occurred on 07.06.2001 at about 2200 hours. Dulal Dey and Amrita Majumder were the victims of P.R. Bari Case No. 25 of 2001 and that was also investigated by him. Referring to this, learned counsel, Mr. Roy submitted that no step was taken by the prosecution to try both the cases together for fair ends of justice. 12. Learned Additional P.P. has submitted that it is not clear from the evidence on record that P.R. Bari Case No. 25 of 2001 instituted for the alleged assault on Dulal and Amrita was charge sheeted or not. Had the case was charge sheeted, it was the duty of the accused persons to pray before the Court for trial of both the cases simultaneously. Defence did not take any step even to prove the charge sheet of that case or any other material of the counter case. Under such circumstances, punishment of the accused, in the present case, cannot be disturbed. 13. According to law, every criminal case should be decided on its own merit. It is a settled law that if there is a case and counter case arising out of same incident both the cases should be tried in the same Court simultaneously so that the Court can take notice of the facts of both the cases and arrive at a correct finding. In case and counter case, accused persons of both the cases may be acquitted or may be punished. In case and counter case, accused persons of both the cases may be acquitted or may be punished. In this case, the accused persons simply suggested about the counter case, but neither they have proved the records of counter case nor made any prayer before the Court for trial of the counter case if at all was charge sheeted. Evidence of the I.O. nowhere shows that the counter case was charge sheeted by police after investigation. Under such circumstances, simply because there was a counter case registered arising out of the incident occurred at the same time, there cannot be a conclusion that the trial of the present case has vitiated and the convict entitled to get the benefit on the same. This argument therefore, cannot be accepted. 14. The last argument advanced by learned counsel, Mr. Roy is that the accused Dulal Dey also suffered injury at the time of alleged incident. He has suffered mentally and physically during last 14 years. The trial Court and the appellate Court considering the nature and gravity of the offence would give the benefit of Section 360 of Cr.P.C. and/or the Probation of Offenders Act to the convict. He has also submitted that the accused has now aged about 58 years and considering his age, he may be given the benefit of Section360 of Cr.P.C. Learned Additional P.P., opposing the submission of learned counsel, Mr. Roy, contended that the accused Dulal Dey was a grown up man. Now he is 58 years as submitted by learned counsel, Mr. Roy. He along with other accused persons trespassed in the house of the victim Putul Rani and mercilessly beaten up Putul Rani Majumder and Babul Majumder causing grievous injuries. He has beaten up Babul Majumder with iron rod causing fracture of his hand and leg. There was no provocation on the part of the victims. Under such circumstances, it was absolutely proper that the accused should not be given the benefit of Section360 of Cr.P.C. or that of Probation of Offenders Act. Learned counsel, Mr. He has beaten up Babul Majumder with iron rod causing fracture of his hand and leg. There was no provocation on the part of the victims. Under such circumstances, it was absolutely proper that the accused should not be given the benefit of Section360 of Cr.P.C. or that of Probation of Offenders Act. Learned counsel, Mr. Roy in support of his contention referred the case of Manindra Das vs. State of Tripura reported in (1996) 2 GLR 51 wherein the Single Bench of the Gauhati High Court has observed that the provision of Section 360 if not applied by the Court, special reason should be recorded as prescribed in Section 361 of Cr.P.C. In that reported case, the Court was pleased to direct the release of accused on probation of good conduct on his entering into a bond. In that reported case, the incident occurred at a hit of moment following some altercation, but in the present case, there was no such occasion. The accused along with others armed with iron rod, dao, lathi etc. trespassed in the house of Putul Rani Majumder and assaulted Putul Rani Majumder and Babul Majumder in that house. It was an incident occurred unprovoked and so, in my considered opinion, no leniency should be shown in respect of punishment since it will give a wrong signal to the society. For the offence committed, the accused must suffer the punishment. It is already 14 years elapsed in the mean time and no doubt, the accused suffered mental pain and agony for the punishment was hanging on his head and under such circumstances, taking into account all the relevant factors, I think simple imprisonment for 3 months and a fine of Rs. 5,000/- (Rupees five thousand) in default of payment to suffer S.I. for two months for commission of offence punishable under Section 325 of IPC shall meet the ends of justice. 15. With this modification of sentence, the criminal revision petition is disposed of. 16. Send back the L.C. records along with a copy of this Judgment.