ORDER : A3 in the Sessions Case in S.C. No. 102 of 2005 on the file of the learned I Additional Sessions Judge, Tirunelveli is the appellant. 2. In the said Court, after trial, on 26.09.2006, he was found guilty and sentenced as detailed below: Conviction Sentence Section 452 I.P.C. 1 year R.I. plus fine Rs.500/- i/d 2 months S.I. Section 324 I.P.C. 2 years S.I. plus fine Rs.1,000/- i/d 3 months S.I. Both the sentences were directed to run concurrently. Fine amounts paid. 3. The case of the prosecution in brief runs as under: (i) P.W.1 is having his 'Disco Ready Made Shop' in Valliyoor, Tirunelveli District. A1 was his tenant. A1 run his workshop there. A2 and A3 are acquaintance of A1. P.W.1 demanded A1 to vacate the premises. A1 had agreed to vacate on 05.08.2000. However, A1's father demanded further time. (ii) In this backdrop of the matter, on 05.08.2000, at about 5.55 p.m., A1 to A3 have trespassed into P.W.1's ready made garments shop. They cut P.W.1 with Aruvals. At that time, P.W.2, a friend of P.W.1 was also present. A3 assaulted P.W.2 with Aruval. P.W.2 sustained injuries. The occurrence has been witnessed to by P.Ws.1 to 3. At about 7.30 p.m., at the Valliyoor Police Station, P.W.1 gave Ex.P.1 complaint to P.W.9 S.I. of Police. He registered this case (Ex.P.9 printed F.I.R.). (iii) P.W.11, the Inspector of Police, Valliyoor Police Station took up his investigation. He visited the scene place. In the presence of P.W.4 and another person, he has prepared Ex.P.2 Observation Mahazar. Drew Ex.P.10 Rough Sketch of the Scene Place. Seized M.Os.2 to 4 blood stained clothes and M.O.6 glass pieces under Ex.P.11 Mahazar. He sent the injured P.Ws.1 and 2 to hospital. He has examined the injured witnesses and other witnesses and recorded their statement. Sent P.Ws.1 and 2 to hospital. (iv) P.W.5, Doctor treated P.Ws.1 and 2 and found the following injuries on P.W.2 and issued Ex.P.4 Accident Register Copy: “1. Lacerated wound 2 x 2 cm chest left below of clavicle. 2. Abrasion 1 x 1 cm Left side wound No (1).” (v) P.W.11 had arrested A3 on 07.08.2000 at 7 a.m. near Valliyur Bus Depot and recorded his confessional statement Ex.P.13 and seized M.O.1 Aruval under seizure Mahazar Ex.P.12. He has sent A3 to Judicial Magistrate, Valliyur for judicial custody. (vi) After P.W.11, P.W.10 continued his investigation. 2. Abrasion 1 x 1 cm Left side wound No (1).” (v) P.W.11 had arrested A3 on 07.08.2000 at 7 a.m. near Valliyur Bus Depot and recorded his confessional statement Ex.P.13 and seized M.O.1 Aruval under seizure Mahazar Ex.P.12. He has sent A3 to Judicial Magistrate, Valliyur for judicial custody. (vi) After P.W.11, P.W.10 continued his investigation. Concluding the investigation, he filed the final report against the accused including the petitioner under Sections 452, 294(b) and 324 I.P.C. and under Section 3 of T.N.P.P.D.L Act before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Valliyoor. 4. The learned Magistrate gave them copies under Section 207 Cr.P.C. Committed the case under Section 209 Cr.P.C. to the Court of Principal Sessions Judge, Tirunelveli. 5. The trial Court after hearing both sides and on consideration of the case-records, framed charges under Sections 452, 294(b) and 324 I.P.C. and Section 3 of T.N.P.P.D.L Act as against A3. He pleaded not guilty to the charges. 6. To substantiate the charges, prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 11, marked Exs.P.1 to 15 and exhibited M.Os.1 to 6. 7. When A3 was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., on the incriminating aspects in the prosecution evidence, he denied his complicity in this case. He did not let in any defence evidence. 8. Upon consideration of the said evidence, the trial Court convicted the appellant/A3 and sentenced him as already stated. 9. The learned counsel for the appellant/A3 would contend that the evidence of P.W.1 shows that he has not seen A3 having assaulted P.W.2. P.W.1 stated that what he heard it from others. So, he is an hearsay witness. P.W.2 did not pin point the appellant. P.W.3 served under P.W.1. He cannot speak as against his master. He is highly interested. He introduced four persons as accused. His evidence that A3 had assaulted P.W.2 on his shoulder has not been substantiated by the medical evidence of P.W.5. No independent witness has been examined. To P.Ws.1 to 3, A3 is a total stranger. F.I.R. was sent to the Magistrate after huge delay. F.I.R. in this case is not free from doubt. The evidence of prosecution witnesses cannot be relied on. Prosecution has not established the charges as against A3 beyond all reasonable doubts. 10. No independent witness has been examined. To P.Ws.1 to 3, A3 is a total stranger. F.I.R. was sent to the Magistrate after huge delay. F.I.R. in this case is not free from doubt. The evidence of prosecution witnesses cannot be relied on. Prosecution has not established the charges as against A3 beyond all reasonable doubts. 10. On the other hand, the learned Government Advocate (Criminal side) would submit that at the time of occurrence A3 having been present in the place of occurrence has been established by the prosecution. The ocular witness/P.W.3 had stated that he had witnessed A3 while attacking P.W.2 with Aruval. There is medical evidence. In the circumstances, the trial Court has rightly convicted the appellant and appropriately punished him. 11. I have anxiously considered the rival submissions, perused the trial Court's judgment and the entire materials on record. 12. Now, the question is whether the prosecution has established the charges under Sections 452 and 324 I.P.C. as against the appellant beyond all reasonable doubts. 13. The occurrence was on 05.08.2000, at about 5.55 p.m. in Valliyur in the shop of P.W.1. The specific case of the prosecution is that A3 has assaulted P.W.2 with an Aruval. P.W.2 has been treated by P.W.5 doctor. 14. In this connection, the trial Court has placed reliance on the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3 to convict the appellant. 15. A closure scrutiny of the evidence of P.W.1 shows that so far the charge as against A3 with reference to P.W.2 is concerned, the evidence of P.W.1 is hearsay. The evidence of P.W.2 is vague with reference to A3. In his cross-examination, P.W.3 admits that for the first time he had seen A3 in the said shop. P.W.3 had stated that A3 has assaulted P.W.2 on his shoulder. But the evidence of P.W.5 doctor is different. The oral evidence of P.W.3 is not substantiated by the medical evidence. Cross-examination of P.W.3 discloses that at the time of occurrence there were independent witnesses. But none of them has been examined. 16. The occurrence was on 05.08.2000 at about 5.55 p.m. in Valliyur. The F.I.R. was lodged at about 7.30 p.m. in Valliyur Police Station. The oral evidence of P.W.3 is not substantiated by the medical evidence. Cross-examination of P.W.3 discloses that at the time of occurrence there were independent witnesses. But none of them has been examined. 16. The occurrence was on 05.08.2000 at about 5.55 p.m. in Valliyur. The F.I.R. was lodged at about 7.30 p.m. in Valliyur Police Station. The F.I.R. has reached the Judicial Magistrate, Valliyur only on 07.08.2000 at about 10 a.m. The distance between the place of occurrence and the said Court is only about 1 k.m. Thus, there is delay in lodging the F.I.R. However, the delay remain unexplained. It shakes the veracity of the evidence of main prosecution witnesses. It also shakes the credibility of the said witnesses. 17. Now, in evaluating the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, we have no hesitation to hold that the charges framed against the appellant are not established beyond all reasonable doubts. 18. In view of the above, this Criminal Appeal is allowed. The appellant/A3 is found not guilty under Sections 452 and 324 I.P.C. He is acquitted. The bail bonds executed by him shall stand cancelled. Fine amounts already paid shall be refunded to him.