JUDGMENT : SURINDER GUPTA, J. Both the above-mentioned appeal and revision have been taken up together, as the same have arisen out of common judgment passed by Additional Sessions Judge (Ad hoc), Hoshiarpur dated 27.09.2003, whereby appellants Manjit Singh and Ranjit Singh were convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 307 and 324 of Indian Penal Code (for short- IPC) and sentenced as follows:- Under Section Sentence Fine In default 307 IPC To undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years each Rs.1000/- each To undergo further imprisonment for one month. 324 IPC To undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years each -- -- 2. While the appellants have challenged their conviction and sentence and sought their acquittal, complainant Hardip Singh has sought enhancement of substantive sentence and fine awarded to the appellants. 3. As per case of the prosecution, on 04.06.2001, complainant Hardip Singh had gone to Bus stand of village Chalang, due to some domestic work and was returning from there towards his home on scooter. At about 5.30 p.m., when he was little behind his village Baghiari, both appellants i.e. Manjit Singh and Ranjit Singh armed with knife and kirch type weapon and their father Davinder Singh empty handed, who were residents of village Jaura, were standing near their scooter. Davinder Singh stopped the complainant and raised lalkara to catch him and teach him a lesson for not paying the land revenue. He caught the complainant and Manjit Singh gave two kirch blows on the left flank of complainant. Ranjit Singh gave blow with kirch type weapon on his left flank and the other blow on his back side of left thigh. Complainant fell on the ground and both the appellants kept on giving him blows with their knife type weapons (kirch), which hit his left thigh and right thigh. Complainant raised raula, which attracted Santokh Singh son of Mahan Singh, who got the complainant relieved from the assailants. All the three accused left the spot on their scooter. Complainant was taken to Civil Hospital, Tanda, where he was medico-legally examined by Dr. Ashok Rishi PW4, who found following injuries on his person:- 1. Incised penetrating wound 1.5 cm x 0.5 cm, depth not probed, on the left little aspect lower half, wound was bleeding profusely. 2. Incised penetrating wound 0.5 cm x 0.2 cm, depth not probed. The wound was bleeding. Ashok Rishi PW4, who found following injuries on his person:- 1. Incised penetrating wound 1.5 cm x 0.5 cm, depth not probed, on the left little aspect lower half, wound was bleeding profusely. 2. Incised penetrating wound 0.5 cm x 0.2 cm, depth not probed. The wound was bleeding. Injury was on the left little aspect of chest, 6 cm below injury No.1. 3. Incised penetrating wound 1 cm x 0.5 cm, depth not probed, on the posterio little aspect of abdomen. Bleeding was present. 4. Incised penetrating wound 1 cm x 0.5 cm, depth not probed, into posterio aspect of left thigh. Bleeding was present. 5. Incised penetrating wound 1 cm x 0.5 cm, depth not probed, on the medial aspect of right thigh. Bleeding was present. 6. Incised penetrating wound 1 cm x 0.5 cm, depth not probed, on the medial aspect of left thigh upper half. 7. Incised penetrating wound 1 cm x 0.5 cm, depth not probed, on the posterior lateral aspect of right thigh upper half. 4. He kept all the injuries under observation and for surgical specialist opinion. In the opinion of the doctor, all the injuries were caused by sharp edged weapon and referred the complainant to Civil Hospital, Hoshiarpur. He prepared medico-legal report (Ex.PG) with pictorial diagram (Ex.PG/1) regarding injuries found on the person of the complainant. At Civil Hospital, Hoshiarpur, complainant was examined by Dr. Gurbachan Singh, Surgical Specialist. He has described the injuries on the person of the complainant while appearing as PW1, as follows:- “On 04.06.2001, under general anesthesia parts were cleaned and draped. Penetrating injury on the chest and abdomen i.e. injury No.1, 2 & 3 in MLR No.AKR/27/2K1 dated 04.06.2001 were explored and probed. Injury No.1 was penetrating into the peritoneal cavity through left dome of diaphragm. Injury no.2 and 3 were muscle deep. Abdomen was opened by making a mid-line incision. About 500 Mls of blood was sucked and mopped from the peritoneal cavity. Injury No.1 in MLR was communicating with the peritoneal cavity through left dome of diaphragm. About 2.5 cm lateral to the heart. There was a perforation of the stomach near its greater curvature in its upper 1/3rd and there was a tear of the corresponding part of ometum also. The perforation was closed in two layers. Injury No.1 in MLR was communicating with the peritoneal cavity through left dome of diaphragm. About 2.5 cm lateral to the heart. There was a perforation of the stomach near its greater curvature in its upper 1/3rd and there was a tear of the corresponding part of ometum also. The perforation was closed in two layers. First layer with 3-0 catgut on round body needle and second layer with 3-0 mercilk on round body needle. The omental tear was sutured with 3-0 mercilk and the tear of left dome of diaphragm was stitched with interrupted sutures of 3-0 mercilk. All the bleeders were secured and legated. Complete haemostasis was achieved and peritoneal toilet done with normal saline. Abdomen was closed in layers after putting a drain in the pel-vic cavity. Antiseptic dressing was done. Injury no.4 and 5, 6 and 7 were muscle deep on exploration and probing. I have bought the original bed head ticket which is Ex.PA. My operations notes are contained in Ex.PA/1.” 5. He sent his surgical opinion regarding injuries no.1 to 7 and on receipt of the surgical opinion, Dr. Ashok Rishi PW4 declared injury No.1 as dangerous to life and rest of all the injuries as simple vide his opinion Ex.PH. 6. On receipt of information, ASI Kulwinder Singh PW5 reached Civil Hospital, Tanda and moved application for recording statement of injured Hardip Singh, who was declared unfit to make statement. On the next day, he went to Civil Hospital, Hoshiarpur and sought opinion of the doctor to record statement of complainant, who was again declared unfit to make statement. On 06.06.2001, he again reached Civil Hospital, Hoshiarpur and moved application Ex.PD, on which Doctor vide opinion Ex.PD/1 declared Hardip Singh as fit to make statement. He recorded statement of Hardip Singh Ex.PE and sent the same for recording of FIR vide his endorsement Ex.PE/1, whereupon formal FIR Ex.PE/2 was registered at Police Station, Tanda, District Hoshiarpur. He took clothes of complainant i.e. his pant, vest and shirt (Ex.P1 to P3) into possession vide recovery memo Ex.PF, prepared rough site plan of the place of occurrence Ex.PJ and recorded statements of witnesses. Appellant Manjit Singh was arrested on 14.07.2001 and on his disclosure statement knife like kirch was recovered from the heap of cow dung cakes lying in the verandah of his house, which he wrapped in a glazed envelope. Appellant Manjit Singh was arrested on 14.07.2001 and on his disclosure statement knife like kirch was recovered from the heap of cow dung cakes lying in the verandah of his house, which he wrapped in a glazed envelope. Vespa scooter of accused was produced before him by Avtar Singh on 20.07.2001, which was taken into possession vide recovery memo Ex.PL. After completion of the investigation, police presented the challan against appellant Manjit Singh, which was committed to the Court of Sessions for trial vide order dated 11.10.2001. Thereafter, Challan against accused Davinder Singh (non-appellant) was presented, which was also committed to the Court of Sessions for trial. Both the accused were charge-sheeted for the offence punishable under Section 307 IPC. After framing charge, learned Trial Court recorded statement of Hardip Singh as PW1 and thereafter appellant Ranjit Singh was ordered to be summoned to face trail for the offences punishable under Sections 307 and 324 IPC. On the application, moved by the prosecution under Section 319 Code of Criminal Procedure (for short-Cr.P.C.). All the three accused were again charge-sheeted while appellants Manjit Singh and Ranjit Singh were charge-sheeted for the offence punishable under Section 307 and 324 IPC while Davinder Singh was charge-sheeted for the offence punishable under Section 307 and 324 read with Section 34 IPC. 7. In support of its case, prosecution examined Dr. Gurbachan Singh as PW1, complainant Hardip Singh as PW2, eyewitness Santokh Singh as PW3, Dr. Ashok Rishi as PW4, ASI Kulwinder Singh, Investigating Officer as PW5. Learned Addl. APP gave up witnesses Sarwan Singh ASI, Head Constable Maan Singh, Constable Satwinder Singh, Sub Inspector Tejpal Singh, Sub Inspector Ajay Singh being unnecessary and closed the prosecution evidence. 8. On conclusion of prosecution evidence, statements of accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. were recorded wherein the appellants denied the prosecution version and pleaded their false implication. 9. Appellant Manjit Singh stated in his defence as follows:- “Hardip Singh was given injuries by some other persons because he had teased a girl during a retirement party at the house of Sital Singh on the day of occurrence. I along with other accused have been falsely implicated after due deliberations.” 10. Appellant Ranjit Singh stated in his defence as follows:- “Case is false and I have been falsely implicated. I along with other accused have been falsely implicated after due deliberations.” 10. Appellant Ranjit Singh stated in his defence as follows:- “Case is false and I have been falsely implicated. Hardip Singh was given injuries by some other persons because he teased a girl during retirement party at the house of Sital Singh on the day of occurrence.” 11. Accused examined Dr. Ram Parkash Saroya, Medical Officer, Civil Hospital, Hoshiarpur as DW1, who had admitted Hardip Singh complainant in the hospital on 04.06.2001 at about 08.05 p.m. On clinical examination, he found the vitals of patient as normal. They also examined Baldev Raj, resident of Baghiari as DW2, who stated that Santokh Singh, uncle of Hardip Singh has his land situated towards village Garhi and not towards village Jaura. In case he had to go his land, he need not come towards village Jaura. 12. Learned Trial Court on appraisal of the evidence observed that participation of Davinder Singh in the crime is highly doubtful and suspicious. Giving benefit of doubt, he was acquitted while both the appellants were convicted and sentenced for the offences punishable under Sections 307 and 324 IPC (as discussed in the opening para). 13. When the appeal was listed for hearing, none appeared for appellants. Notices were issued to the appellants to appear who could not be served as they had left the given address, as such initially, Mr. R.S. Rana, Advocate was appointed as amicus curiae to assist this Court and at later stage Ms. Aditi Girdhar, Advocate was appointed as amicus curiae. 14. I have heard learned amicus curiae for appellant, learned counsel for revision petitioner-complainant and learned State counsel and have perused the paper book and lower Court record with their assistance. 15. Learned amicus curiae has argued that there is two days delay in recording the FIR, which has not been duly explained. The complainant was throughout conscious after the incident, as such there is no explanation for the delay in reporting the matter to the police. The cloth of the injured and weapon of offence were not shown to the doctor. Even if, the prosecution version be believed that ASI Kulwinder Singh had gone to the hospital twice but the complainant was declared unfit to make statement, the police could record statement of Santokh Singh, eyewitness. The cloth of the injured and weapon of offence were not shown to the doctor. Even if, the prosecution version be believed that ASI Kulwinder Singh had gone to the hospital twice but the complainant was declared unfit to make statement, the police could record statement of Santokh Singh, eyewitness. Clothes of complainant were not sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory to examine the blood stains on it and to verify as to whether there were cuts on the clothes corresponding to the injuries caused by sharp edged weapon. The site plan prepared by the police do not show as to from which spot Santokh Singh had witnessed the occurrence. The appellants have come up with a defence that the complainant had teased a girl in retirement party at the house of Sital Singh and was given injuries by some persons present there. It was due to inimical relations with accused that they were falsely implicated. The trial Court has believed defence version that Davinder Singh was falsely implicated. Ranjit Singh was also found innocent during investigation by the police. His presence at the spot, is also not made out particularly in view of the statement of Dr. Gurbachan Singh, PW1 that possibility of all the injuries on the person of injured-complainant being caused by one weapon cannot be ruled out. The police has not recovered any weapon from appellant Ranjit Singh. A kirch (knife like weapon) having length of its blade as 8½ inch was recovered from Manjit Singh. The Investigating Officer, who arrested Manjit Singh was also not examined, rather given up being unnecessary. The observation, the trial Court has given while acquitting Davinder Singh accused are squarely applicable for Ranjit Singh, appellant as well. 16. Learned State Counsel has argued that complainant as well as PW3 Santokh Singh have fully supported case of the prosecution. The Court has given benefit of doubt to Davinder Singh, as he was an old aged person and no active role in the occurrence was attributed to him. To appellant Ranjit Singh, specific injuries have been attributed. The mere fact that he was found innocent by the police during investigation, is no ground for his acquittal. The motive is duly proved. The delay in reporting the matter to the police has been duly explained. Police was going to hospital to record the statement of Santokh Singh. To appellant Ranjit Singh, specific injuries have been attributed. The mere fact that he was found innocent by the police during investigation, is no ground for his acquittal. The motive is duly proved. The delay in reporting the matter to the police has been duly explained. Police was going to hospital to record the statement of Santokh Singh. Clothes of injured were taken into possession by ASI Kulwinder Singh PW5 and these were also produced in the Court. Nothing was put to this witness in his cross-examination that there was no corresponding cuts on the clothes of injuries inflicted with kirch. The prosecution has duly proved its case against both the appellants and they were rightly convicted and sentenced by the trial Court. 17. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner-complainant has argued that the injuries suffered by the complainant were on vital parts and very serious in nature. He had to spend a lot on his treatment. All these facts have not been seen by the trial Court while awarding sentence to the appellants and no amount was ordered to be paid to the complainant as compensation to meet with the expenses of his treatment. 18. The arguments of learned amicus curiae for the appellants revolve around two facts; firstly, there is delay of two days in reporting the matter to the police and secondly appellant Ranjit Singh has been falsely implicated and he was rightly found innocent by the police. 19. In order to examine the above submissions of learned amicus curiae for the appellants, I revert to the statement of complainant Hardip Singh. Mark-X recorded by Deputy Superintendent of Police, Dasuya on 09.10.2001, wherein he had named Manjit Singh as the person who caused him the injuries with knife. He had specifically stated that Ranjit Singh was not present at the time of occurrence. His attention was also drawn towards his statement mark-X portion A to A1, wherein he stated that while going to village Baghiari, he was stopped by Davinder Singh and Manjit Singh. He has stated that he named accused Ranjit Singh also but his name was not recorded in his statement mark-X. There is nothing on record to show that petitioner ever complained to any higher Officer that his statement mark-X, has not been correctly recorded. Second reason which create doubt about the presence of Ranjit Singh at the spot is the testimony of Dr. Second reason which create doubt about the presence of Ranjit Singh at the spot is the testimony of Dr. Gurbachan Singh PW2, who stated that possibility of all the injuries on the person of Hardip Singh being caused by one weapon cannot be ruled out. This statement reflects that there is every possibility that all the injuries on the person of complainant were caused by one weapon. The statement of Dr. Gurbachan Singh PW1 assumes importance in view of the fact that no weapon was recovered from Ranjit Singh and the Investigating Officer, who conducted further investigation after transfer of PW5 Kulwinder Singh, ASI was not examined or was even cited as witness in the list of witnesses. Kulwinder Singh ASI, while appearing as PW5 has stated that he had arrested Manjit Singh on 14.07.2001 and thereafter he was transferred and further investigation was conducted by other police official. It was stated in the report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. submitted against appellant Manjit Singh that the further inquiry against Ranjit Singh was with one Deputy Superintendent of Police and supplementary challan against him will be produced at later stage. However, no supplementary challan was produced against appellant Ranjit Singh and in the challan against Davinder Singh, his name was mentioned in Column No.2 as he was found innocent. Complainant while appearing as PW2 has stated that Manjit Singh gave him two kirch blows on his left flank and Ranjit Singh gave knife blows on his left flank and left thigh. Thereafter, both gave him knife blows on his left and right thigh. There were in all six injuries on the person of complainant, which in the opinion of doctor, may have been caused by one weapon. Keeping in view the fact that second weapon allegedly used in the offence has not come on record, the police found Ranjit Singh as innocent, observation of the learned trial Court while giving benefit of acquittal to Davinder Singh can also be applied while reaching the conclusion about the presence of Ranjit Singh at the spot. Learned trial Court while discarding prosecution version regarding presence and participation of Davinder Singh in the occurrence has observed that the presence of Davinder Singh is doubtful as such type of allegations are attributed to innocent members of the family in order to rope in entire family. Learned trial Court while discarding prosecution version regarding presence and participation of Davinder Singh in the occurrence has observed that the presence of Davinder Singh is doubtful as such type of allegations are attributed to innocent members of the family in order to rope in entire family. Though those observations were made keeping in view the fact that only lalkara was attributed to Davinder Singh but the learned trial Court failed to take note of the fact about the statement of complainant mark-X, police investigation and the opinion of the doctor regarding the weapon used in the offence. Keeping all these facts into account, I find the version of the prosecution regarding the role attributed to Ranjit Singh in the occurrence as highly doubtful and giving benefit of doubt, appellant Ranjit Singh is entitled to acquittal. 20. Now, coming to the role of appellant Manjit Singh, I find that the prosecution has produced ample, cogent and convincing evidence which was relied by trial Court to reach the conclusion that he had caused injuries on the person of complainant. 21. So far as the delay in reporting the matter to the police is concerned, the same is duly explained by the Investigating Officer, who time and again reached the hospitals to record statement of complainant. If Santokh Singh has not come forward with his version or police has not recorded his statement, this cannot be a reason to discard version of the occurrence as given by the complainant. The clothes of injured Hardip Singh were taken into possession by ASI Kulwinder Singh PW5 vide recovery memo Ex.PF. These clothes were also produced as Ex.P1 to P3. No question was put to the Investigating Officer in cross-examination to shatter the veracity of his statement or to verify that there were no cuts corresponding to the injuries on the person of complainant on the clothes. The doctor had not taken the clothes in possession because the same were taken in possession by Investigating Officer. The Investigating Officer has prepared the rough site plan of the place of occurrence. Santokh Singh eyewitness while appearing as PW3, has stated that at the time of occurrence, he was going from village Baghiari towards village Jaura and had witnessed the occurrence. The Investigating Officer has prepared the rough site plan of the place of occurrence. Santokh Singh eyewitness while appearing as PW3, has stated that at the time of occurrence, he was going from village Baghiari towards village Jaura and had witnessed the occurrence. The mere fact that the spot from where he had seen the occurrence, has not been shown by the Investigating Officer in the site plan, is no reason to discard his statement. Though appellant Manjit Singh has come up with a defence version, but had not led any evidence in support of his defence. Even to complainant, no suggestion as per the defence of the appellant was given. This shows that the defence version of the appellant is just an afterthought. On perusal of evidence on trial Court's record, I find no legal or factual infirmity in conclusion arrived by trial Court holding appellant Manjit guilty for offences punishable under Sections 307 and 324 IPC. 22. As a sequel of my above discussion, appeal filed by appellant Ranjit Singh has merits and the same is accepted. His conviction and sentence for the offences punishable under Sections 307 and 324 IPC are set aside and he is ordered to be acquitted of the charge framed against him. 23. Appeal filed by Manjit Singh is dismissed and his conviction for the offences punishable under Sections 307 and 324 IPC is maintained. So far as the substantive sentence awarded to appellant Manjit Singh is concerned, I find that the same commensurate with the nature of offence committed by him. No reason is made out to enhance the same. However, keeping in view the fact that complainant had suffered injuries and was hospitalized, remained under treatment for a considerable long time, I am of the opinion that he deserves to be compensated. The amount of fine imposed upon appellant Manjit Singh is enhanced from Rs.1000/- to Rs.50,000/-. The sentence in default of payment of fine, is also enhanced from one month to six months. In the event of amount of fine being recovered, the same be paid to the revision petitioner-complainant Hardip Singh as compensation. Accordingly, the revision petition filed by complainant Hardip Singh is partly allowed. 24. The sentence of appellant Manjit Singh was suspended vide order dated 09.07.2004. He be taken into custody and sent to jail to undergo the remaining part of his sentence.