Rakesh Tiwari, J. We have heard Ms. Usha Kiran, learned A.G.A. for the appellant-State, Sri Santosh Kumar Mishra, appearing for accused-respondent no. 4, Sri Janaradan Yadav, representing accused-respondents no. 2, 5 and 6. Perused the record. Since accused-respondents Vidhyarthi and Vindhyachal are reported to have died, the State appeal filed against them stands abated. 2. This is an appeal preferred by the appellant-State of U.P. under Section 378 ( 3) Cr.P.C. against the judgment and order dated 7.8.1981 passed by Sessions Judge, Deoria in Sessions Trial No. 345 of 1978, whereby respondents-accused namely Vidyarthi, Vishwanath, Vindhyachal, Jagarnath, Shyam Baran and Chandrapati were acquitted of the charges under Section 147 ,307/149 and 323/149 I.P.C. 3. The impugned judgment and order has been assailed on the grounds, that it is against the weight of evidence on record; that prosecution case stands fully corroborated by the oral and medical evidence on record; that the report was lodged with all promptness and was not supposed to contain every details of the incident; that admittedly the complainant had suffered grievous injury and merely because other injuries were described by the doctor as simple, it does not take away the gravity of the offence; that the opinion of the doctor was not final and the view taken by the court below that offence under section 307 I.P.C. was not made out, is wholly erroneous. 4. The prosecution case as culled out from record is that on 24.1.1976 at about 8.00 P.M. all the accused persons and their companion Ram Adhar ( since deceased) lay in ambush near the Culver to the east of Gaura Chauraha, in a field on the eastern side. As soon as the informant who was returning to his village reached at the place of occurrence, riding on his bicycle with Mussarraf, ( the only other injured of this case, besides informant) all the accused persons and their companion came out from their hiding places in the field and attacked the informant and Mussarraf by means of lathi, along with spears and steel pipes. On hearing their hue and cry, the witnesses arrived there and are said to have intervened upon which the accused and their companions ran away who were recognized in the light of the torches of the witnesses. 5. On hearing their hue and cry, the witnesses arrived there and are said to have intervened upon which the accused and their companions ran away who were recognized in the light of the torches of the witnesses. 5. After the occurrence, a written report was prepared at the spot by one Iqbal Ahmad Qureshi on the dictation of the informant by one Iqbal Ahmad Qureshi. The informant along with only other injured, Musarraf alias Ashraf Ali was then taken to the hospital on a rickshaw to the Police station-Rampur Karkhana where report was lodged on 24.1.1976 itself at 10.50 P.M. On the basis of the said report, a check F.I.R. was prepared and a case was registered under Sections 147, 148, 307 and 323 IPC against all the respondents-accused persons and their companion Ram Adhar, who were all named in the written report. 6. Investigation was then taken-up by the Investigating Officer promptly and he sent both the injured persons to Public Health Centre at Rampur Karkhana, where they were examined. The Investigating Officer after visiting the place of occurrence, examining the witnesses, prepared the site-plan thereof. He also examined the torches of the witnesses which were in working order and gave the same in the supurdagi of the very persons to whom they belonged under supurdginama. Recovery of blood stained and plain earth from the place of occurrence were sealed in different tins and a recovery memo in that regard was prepared. After making search and completing the investigation, the I.O. submitted a charge sheet against all the respondents-accused persons and their companion, Ram Adhar on 9.2.1976. 7. The matter was committed to court of Sessions, Deoria where it was registered as S. T. No. 345 of 1978: State Vs. Vidyartthi & 6 others, where charges under the aforesaid sections were framed against all accused persons to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. The proceedings against their companion Ram Adhar were dropped as he had died. 8. The prosecution in support of its' case examined PW-1, Sri Kunj Behari Singh, who proved the X-ray plates prepared by him in respect of the injuries of P.W.2, Ayodhya Prasad under the direction and supervision of Dr. T.P. Sharma, the radiologist, P.W. 2- Ayodhya Prasad the informant, P.W. 3-Dr. 8. The prosecution in support of its' case examined PW-1, Sri Kunj Behari Singh, who proved the X-ray plates prepared by him in respect of the injuries of P.W.2, Ayodhya Prasad under the direction and supervision of Dr. T.P. Sharma, the radiologist, P.W. 2- Ayodhya Prasad the informant, P.W. 3-Dr. T.N. Shekhar, the then Medical Officer who had prepared the injury reports of injured informants, Ayodhya Prasad and Musarraf, P.W. 4, Sheo Nandan, P.W. 5, Hira Lal, and P.W. 7 Ram Pyare, who were alleged eye witnesses of occurrence, whereas P.W. 6, Mohammad Zaheer, I.O. of the case who had conducted the whole of the investigation and submitted a charge sheet at the conclusion thereof against all the present accused and Ram Adhar, were also examined. 9. The accused persons in their statements under section 313 denied the charges and pleaded not guilty alleging their false implication in the case. 10. It was stated by the accused, Vidyarthi that adjacent of his field house of Ayodhya Prasad ( informant) was situated which the informant wanted to grab. Litigation was going on in between the accused and Ayodhya Prasad for the past ten years with regard to aforesaid field. He also stated that Ayodhya Prasad was his cousin ( uncle's son) and who had blocked the 'Nabdan' ( drain) of the accused and that for this reason he had been falsely implicated by the injured persons in this case. 11. On perusal of record, the trial court had opined that the prosecution on its own showing has miserably failed to bring home the guilt of the accused under any of the sections they were charged for, or to prove that the occurrence had taken place in the manner, as stated by the prosecution and that in the facts and circumstances of the case the F.I.R. appeared to be wholly unreliable as the same is said to have been prepared after deliberations and consultations with others at the police station itself and not in the village as alleged; that on the own showing of the prosecution another circumstances which goes to discredit and undermine the prosecution story is of any light source at the spot of occurrence. 12. The trial court further observed that so far as injury by spears is concerned, no injury which could be caused by a spear was found on the persons of any of the injured. 12. The trial court further observed that so far as injury by spears is concerned, no injury which could be caused by a spear was found on the persons of any of the injured. It was also of the view that as per the prosecution case, no case under Section 307I.P.C. is made out against any of the accused for the reason that P.W. 3, Dr. T.N. Shekhar, admitted that injuries nos. 4 and 7 on the person of Ayodhya Prasad, P.W. 2 were grievous, but they were all on leg and shoulder and were not on any vital part. The doctor also admitted that though injuries nos. 1 and 3 were on vital parts yet they were simple ones and denied the suggestion that the injury caused to P.W.2, Ayodhya Prasad or to Musarraf was of spear, and that the injury caused to Ayodhya Prasad or to Mussarraf can also be caused by falling on road from a speedy bicycle. The relevant extract of statement of Dr. 1 and 3 were on vital parts yet they were simple ones and denied the suggestion that the injury caused to P.W.2, Ayodhya Prasad or to Musarraf was of spear, and that the injury caused to Ayodhya Prasad or to Mussarraf can also be caused by falling on road from a speedy bicycle. The relevant extract of statement of Dr. T.N. Shekhar considered by the court below in this regard is as under: 9- ^^v;ks/;k dh pksV uEcj 2] 4] 7 vkSj 8 ;fn dksbZ euq"; lkbZfdy ls rsth ls tk jgk gks vkSj fxj iM+s rks vk ldrh gSA ;s pksVs lkbZfdy ls /khjs tk;s ij ugh vk ldrh gS ysfdu lkbZfdy ls tkus ij mWph tehu ls uhph tehu ij fxjus ls vk ldrh gSA eSa bl lEcU/k esa dksbZ jk; ugh ns ldrk fd pksV uEcj 2] 4] 7 vkSj 8 ds vykok cfd;k pksVs lkbZfdy mij fxj tkus ds dkj.k vk ldrh gS ;k ughA ;s pksVs 24-1-76 ds 8 cts jkr dh Hkh vkuk laHko gSA 10- fcuk fjdkMZ ns[ks eSa ugh cryk ldrk fd bu nksuksa esa ls dksbZ et:c vLirky esa Hkjrh fd;k x;k Fkk ;k ughA 11- eSa fcuk fjdkMZ ns[ks ;g Hkh ugh cryk ldrk fd v;ks/;k et:c dk Mkbax fMDyjs'ku fy[kk x;k Fkk ;k ughA v;ks/;k dh pksV uEcj 9 vkSj 3 [krjukd gks ldrh Fkh vkSj muls ekSr Hkh gks ldrh FkhA eSa ugh cryk ldrk fd v;ks/;k vkSj e'kjQ dk dksbZ mipkj esjs ;gka vLirky esa vkus ds iwoZ gqvk Fkk ;k ughA ;k mu ij dksbZ nok yxh Fkh ;k ughA ,slk dksbZ uksV~l eSus batjh fjiksVZ esa ugh fd;k gSA ,sls fdlh mipkj ds y{k.k ;fn eq>s feyrs rks mls batjh fjiksVZ esa ntZ dj nsrkA 12- eSa v;ks/;k vkSj e'kjQ vyh dks igys ls ugh tkurk FkkA^^ 13. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of record, we observe that incident is said to have occurred on 24.1.1976 at 8.00 P.M. People had gathered at the spot and the injured were provided immediate help. They were taken to the police station on rickshaw after written report was scribed. This would not take more than two and half hours to reach the police station about 4.8 k. ms. from the place of occurrence. They were taken to the police station on rickshaw after written report was scribed. This would not take more than two and half hours to reach the police station about 4.8 k. ms. from the place of occurrence. For this reason, we are of the considered view that the delay in lodging of the FIR has not been satisfactorily explained before the trial court by the informant, Ayodhya Prasad. It also appears from record that there was a long enmity between the parties, but no motive for the said incident has been enumerated in the F.I.R. In fact, the same has been tried to be explained by P.W. 2, Ayodhya Prasad in his statement which appears to be after thought. 14. The trial court has also disbelieved the case of prosecution on the ground that light of torch was insufficient and none of the witness could have seen the assailants or the weapons by which they are said to have caused the injuries which is supported by the fact that there was no source of light at the place of occurrence at the relevant time. This appears to be fully considered by the court as from the statement of P.W.4, Shiv Nandan, it appears that when he reached at the place of occurrence, the accused had ran away and he could not recognize them from the distance in his torch light. This was found doubtful by the court below as the witnesses including Hira Lal and Jagdeo who are claimed to have a torch with them, have neither been produced nor the supurdginama in respect of their torch is on record. 15. As source of light is doubtful, which is apparent from the record that first informant also could not recognize the accused persons, though it is stated by him that accused persons were armed with spear, lathi and steel pipe. Furthermore, it has not been mentioned in the FIR that the assailants/accused persons had used spear in the alleged incident which is said to have been committed on 24.1.1976 at about 8.00 P.M in which only the clavicle and tibia bone of P.W. 2, Ayodhya Prasad, are said to have been fractured and as per the doctor's opinion it could have could come by falling from a speedy bicycle. Even Musarraf who accompanied Ayodhya Prasad had not been examined though he is claimed to be an injured witness of the incident. 16. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, the court below appears to have rightly come to the conclusion that the manner in which incident is said to have taken place is doubtful and not proved against the accused persons. There is no reason why P.W. 4, Shiv Nandan and P.W.5, Hira Lal, would have been falsely implicated. P.W.7, Ram Pyare has been discharged by the prosecution as hostile witness who stated that when the alleged incident took place, he was not present there. 17. We are also unable to understand why the accused persons would have committed the said offence with the aid of same unknown persons when the offence could have been committed by the said unknown persons without aid of the accused. The case of the prosecution in the manner set up, is to be not trustworthy. The offence might have been committed by unknown persons and accused were falsely implicated for the reason that there was no occasion for the accused persons to be present on the spot of incident or they neither knew when Ayodhya Prasad could be returning and whether he would be alone on his bicycle or with someone. Even who would be on the seat of the bicycle could not be known from before. Admittedly, the incident had taken place at a spot where there was no light. As stated earlier the witnesses could not have seen anything in the light of their torches after the assailants are said to have run far away from the place of occurrence. Therefore, story by the informant in the manner set up is not trustworthy and creates a reasonable doubt in our minds about involvement of the accused persons in the said incident. 18. For all the reasons stated above, we concur with the view taken by the court below acquitting accused persons as there is no illegality or infirmity in the order and judgment impugned in this appeal by the State. It is, accordingly, dismissed.