JUDGMENT Hon’ble Servesh Kumar Gupta, J. The impregnability of the judgment and order dated 18.01.2003 rendered by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Udham Singh Nagar, in Sessions Trial No.330 of 1999, State Vs. Sunil and others, is under challenge. The learned Judge, by way of the said judgment, found all the appellants guilty for the offences of section 147, 308(149) and 323(149) of I.P.C. They have appropriately been sentenced for those offences. At the same time, they were acquitted from the charge levelled against them under sections 504 and 506 (Part-2) I.P.C. 2. As it appears from the First Information Report, lodged on 24.02.1998 at 9.05 AM in the police station Gadarpur, all the appellants invaded into the field of informant Lal Bachan when his son Raju Prasad was ploughing the same. They all, being armed with Lathis and baton in their hands, began to beat Raju Prasad claiming their ownership over the said field. With the result, informant’s son became seriously injured. On hearing the hue and cry raised by Raju Prasad, PW3 Chandrabhusan and PW4 Ram Pyare (both injured) and Sanjay Kumar came to his rescue, who too were beaten by the assailants with the weapons in their hands besides kicks and fists. On account of this extensive beating, the witnesses also suffered injuries. Having come to know about this occurrence from his nephew Radha Mohan, informant Lal Bachan reached at the spot just within ten minutes, where the entire sequence of occurrence was also disclosed to him by his son. Accused persons also extended threat to Raju Prasad with the warning not to plough that field thenceforth. The incident occurred on 22.02.1998 at about 10 A.M. Thereafter, all the injured, namely, Chandra Bhushan, Ram Pyare and Raju Prasad were examined in the Primary Health Center, Gadarpur. From there, injured Ram Pyare was further referred for X-ray of his skull to the higher center Government Hospital Kashipur, where the same was got done. The investigation culminated into the submission of chargesheet against all the eight appellants for the offences of section 147, 308, 323, 504 and 506 of I.P.C. Learned Sessions Judge, accordingly, levelled the charges. 3. It would be worthwhile to reproduce the injuries of PW2 Raju, PW3 Chandra Bhushan and PW4 Ram Pyare, which are available on record. The investigation culminated into the submission of chargesheet against all the eight appellants for the offences of section 147, 308, 323, 504 and 506 of I.P.C. Learned Sessions Judge, accordingly, levelled the charges. 3. It would be worthwhile to reproduce the injuries of PW2 Raju, PW3 Chandra Bhushan and PW4 Ram Pyare, which are available on record. PW2 Raju was examined on 22.02.1998 at 10:45 AM i.e. on the date of occurrence itself soon after the incident. The following injury was noted in his injury report (Ex.Ka-6): - ‘Lacerated wound 7 x 1 x 1 cm over skull. 8 cm above bridge of Nose. Advised X-ray’. Conclusion- Above noted injuries caused by hard and blunt object. Duration is fresh. In the x-ray report (Ex.Ka-7) of Skull, the doctor found fracture of right temporal bone. 4. Injury report (Ex.Ka-4) of PW3 Chandra Bhushan reveals as under: - 3 (i) Incised wound 2½ x ¼ x ¼ cm over right side of skull. Edges sharp, 8 cm above right eye brow. (ii) Lacerated wound 2x ½ x ¼ cm over right side of skull, 12 cm above right pinna. (iii) Complain of pain left shoulder. Conclusion- Injury No.1 was caused by hard and sharp object and injury nos. 2 and 3 were caused by hard and blunt object. 5. Now, the injury report (Ex.Ka-5) of PW4 Ram Pyare reveals as under: - (i) Lacerated wound 5 x ½ x ½ cm right side of skull, 10 cm above right eye brow. X-ray. (ii) Contusion 6 x 4 cm over right side of skull, 8 cm above right pinna, advice X-ray. Bleeding from mouth and nose. In the opinion of doctor, all the injuries were caused by hard and blunt object whereas their duration was fresh. 6. Learned counsel for the appellants has assailed the findings recorded by the court below on the ground that all assailants were said to be armed with LATHIS and DANDAS while the injury no.1, i.e. incised wound on the person of PW3 Chandra Bhushan, could not have taken place by using the weapons merely LATHIS and DANDAS. So, on this premise, he has argued that entire prosecution case should be disbelieved. So, on this premise, he has argued that entire prosecution case should be disbelieved. This Court is not ready to accept the argument put forth by learned counsel for the reason that when PW3 was being cross-examined in the court below, no question was put to him to get clarified the nature of baton, which the assailants were holding in their hands, because at times, a baton may not always be in circular or round shape. On the other hand, a long piece of wood, which may be a part of some wooden furniture, can also be used as a baton while causing assault to the victim. The possibility cannot be ruled out that a baton sometimes may be of a quadrangular or triangular shape, either at its whole or at least at its either end. Learned cross- examiner, while putting question to PW6, the medical officer, has also not got explained this situation. Nor the Investigation Officer has been asked in his cross examination as to why he could not recover any of the weapons, either LATHIS or DANDAS which were used by the assailants while causing injuries to the victims. So, for not being cross-examined appropriately, it is difficult for this Court to extend any benefit to the accused, for the lapse on the part of defence counsel while cross-examining the witnesses. 7. Learned Amicus Curiae has vehemently argued that the First Information Report was delayed by two days. This argument is also not acceptable for the reason that the delay has been sufficiently been explained by PW1 Lal Bachan in his statement to the effect that his son was seriously injured hence, after getting him medically examined, the First Information Report was typed/drafted on that very date but he could not lodged the same either on 22nd or on the next day. All the more, no question has been asked from PW1 Lal Bachan as to why he could not lodged the report at least on the next day of the incident, if he was busy in saving the life of his son on 22nd. So, in absence of any defence question, while Lal Bachan was in the dock, no benefit can be extended for this delay in lodging the report and more so, for the reason when he has explained the delay in so many words. 8. So, in absence of any defence question, while Lal Bachan was in the dock, no benefit can be extended for this delay in lodging the report and more so, for the reason when he has explained the delay in so many words. 8. It has further been argued the injury reports were prepared not by any Surgeon but by a Radiologist. This argument is also of no avail for the reason that Gadarpur is a small town where at the nearest Primary Health Center, first available, the medical treatment was provided to the injured. That apart, a radiologist is also an M.B.B.S., nonetheless his specialization in the field of Radiology. So, he was well qualified to make examination of the injuries on the bodies of the victims. 9. All the accused persons, in their statement under section 313 of Cr.P.C. have denied the occurrence simplicitor. They have not explained anything as to how these injuries were found on the body of the victim, which could, at times, may be fatal also. They have simply stated that witnesses have deposed on account of enmity. They should have stated the reason for such animosity which was persisting between them. More so, the enmity is a double edged weapon and it is a law propounded a number of times by the Apex Court that while framing the opponents, sparing the real culprits is not permissible. 10. Thus, in view of what has been stated above, the Court dismisses the appeal by sustaining the impugned judgment and order passed by the court below. Appellants are on bail. Their bail bonds are cancelled and sureties are discharged. Let they be taken into custody forthwith to serve out the sentence awarded to each of them by the court below. 11. Let a copy of this judgment along with LCR be sent to the court concerned for compliance of the order.