JUDGMENT Anil Kumar Srivastava-II, J. 1. This is revision against the judgment and order dated 29.7.2005, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Faizabad in Criminal Appeal No. 67/2002, whereby the judgment and order dated 08.10.2002 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Faizabad in criminal case No. 1578/2002, arising out of crime No. 224/93, Police Station Poora Kalandar, District Faizabad, was confirmed wherein the accused-revisionist were convicted and sentenced under section 323, 325 IPC for six months’ simple imprisonment and one year rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs. 2000/- with default stipulation. Both the sentences were directed to run concurrently. 2. According to the prosecution version, on 07.6.1993 at about 10: 00 AM when the complainant-injured Raja Ram Tiwari was passing through the ‘sahan darwaja’ of accused persons then accused Shiv Naik, Ram Naik and Raj Naik, who are real brothers, attacked him by ‘danda’ due to the old enmity. Injured sustained fracture and other injuries. Incident was seen by Mast Ram, Indrapal. A written report was submitted by the injured at police station Poora Kalandar on 07.6.1993 at 12: 05 wherein a case crime No. 225/1993, under section 323, 325, 504, 506 IPC was registered. Injured was medically examined at 02: 00 PM at PHC Masaudha, Faizabad by Dr. F.B. Singh. After investigation charge sheet was submitted against the accused-revisionist. 3. Accused were charged under section 304, 323, 325, 504, 506 IPC who denied the charges and claimed trial. Prosecution has produced PW-1 Mast Ram (declared hostile), PW-2 Indrapal (declared hostile), PW-3 injured and complainant, PW-4 Dr. F.B. Singh, PW-5 D.R. Shukla Radiologist, PW-6 S.I. Prem Shankar Dixit. After appreciating the evidence on record, the learned trial court came to the conclusion that the evidence of PW-3 Raja Ram Tiwari is wholly reliable which is supported by the medical evidence. Accordingly, finding of conviction was recorded against the accused. 4. Feeling aggrieved, accused preferred an appeal which was dismissed by the learned appellate court. 5. Learned counsel for the revisionist submits that there was no motive for the accused for committing the crime. It is further submitted that eyewitnesses have turned hostile. Learned court below have convicted the accused-appellant on the basis of sole testimony of injured. There was enmity between the complainant and accused. Accused have been falsely implicated due to the enmity. 5. Learned counsel for the revisionist submits that there was no motive for the accused for committing the crime. It is further submitted that eyewitnesses have turned hostile. Learned court below have convicted the accused-appellant on the basis of sole testimony of injured. There was enmity between the complainant and accused. Accused have been falsely implicated due to the enmity. It is further submitted that the place of occurrence is also changed but the learned courts below did not appreciate the evidence in accordance with law. 6. It is an admitted fact that there was enmity between the complainant as well as the accused. This enmity itself gives a reason for commission of the crime. In the first information report itself it is mentioned that there is an old enmity between the complainant as well as the accused. First information report was lodged promptly within two hours. It is settled legal position that a prompt first information report shows that there was no occasion for any deliberations or consultations by the complainant which supports the prosecution version. 7. A prompt F.I.R. lends credence to the prosecution case because a prompt F.I.R. eliminates all the chances of cooking up of a false story. Hon’ble the Apex Court in the case of Meharaj Singh v. State of U.P., (1994) 5 SCC 188 while emphasizing the importance of recording a prompt FIR the Supreme Court observed as under: - “FIR in a criminal case and particularly in murder case is a vital and valuable piece of evidence for the purpose of appreciating evidence led at the trial. The object of insisting upon prompt lodging of the FIR is to obtain earliest information regarding the circumstance in which the crime was committed, including the names of the actual weapons, if any, used, as also the names of the eye witnesses if any. Delay in lodging the FIR often result in embellishment, which is a creature of an afterthought. On the account of delay, the FIR not only gets bereft of the advantage of spontaneity, danger also creeps in of the introduction of a coloured version of exaggerated story.” 8. Delay in lodging the FIR often result in embellishment, which is a creature of an afterthought. On the account of delay, the FIR not only gets bereft of the advantage of spontaneity, danger also creeps in of the introduction of a coloured version of exaggerated story.” 8. In Thulia Kali v. State of Tamil Nadu, (1972) 3 SCC 393 the Supreme Court observed as under: - “...first information report in a criminal case is an extremely vital and valuable piece of evidence for the purpose of corroborating the oral evidence adduced at the trial. The importance of the report can hardly be overestimated from the standpoint of the accused.” 9. In Kishan Singh through L.Rs. v. Gurpal Singh and others, (2010) 8 SCC 775 the Supreme Court held that “Prompt and early reporting of the occurrence by the informant with vivid details gives assurance regarding truth of its version. In case there is some delay in recording the FIR the complainant must give an explanation for the same. Undoubtedly, delay in lodging FIR does not make the complainant’s case improbable when such delay is properly explained.” 10. Hon’ble the Apex court in the case of Nanhe v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 1973 (3) SCC 317 has held that a prompt F.I.R. eliminates the chances of cooking up of a false story. 11. Admittedly, eyewitness namely PW-1 Mast Ram and PW-2 Indrapal have turned hostile. Now there remains the sole testimony of PW-3 Raja Ram Tiwari complainant-injured. 12. It is settled legal position that conviction can be based on the sole testimony of the injured if it finds support and corroboration from the medico-legal report. Reliance has been placed on Abdul Sayeed v. State of M.P., (2010) 10 SCC 259 by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Baleshwar Mahto and Another v. State of Bihar and Another, (2017) 3 SCC 152 wherein it was held that: - “28. The question of the weight to be attached to the evidence of a witness that was himself injured in the course of the occurrence has been extensively discussed by this Court. The question of the weight to be attached to the evidence of a witness that was himself injured in the course of the occurrence has been extensively discussed by this Court. Where a witness to the occurrence has himself been injured in the incident, the testimony of such a witness is generally considered to be very reliable, as he is a witness that comes with a built-in guarantee of his presence at the scene of the crime and is unlikely to spare his actual assailant(s) in order to falsely implicate someone. “Convincing evidence is required to discredit an injured witness.” [Vide Ramalagan Singh v. State of Bihar, (1973) 3 SCC 881 , Malkhan Singh v. State of U.P., (1975) 3 SCC 311 , Machhi Singh v. State of Punjab, (1983) 3 SCC 470 , Appabhai v. State of Gujarat, (1988) Supp SCC 241, Bonkya v. State of Maharashtra, (1995) 6 SCC 447 , Bhag Singh v. State of Punjab, (1997) 7 SCC 712 , Mohar v. State of U.P., (2002) 7 SCC 606 , Dinesh Kumar v. State of Rajasthan, (2008) 8 SCC 270 , Vishnu v. State of Rajasthan, (2009) 10 SCC 477 , Annareddy Sambasiva Reddy v. State of A.P., (2009) 12 SCC 546 and Balraje v. State of Maharashtra, (2010) 6 SCC 673 . 13. Medico-legal examination of the injured was conducted by PW-4 Dr. F.B. Singh on 07.6.1993 at 02: 00 PM. He found 11 injuries on the body of the injured. Except injury No. 5 all the injuries were simple in nature and were fresh and could have been caused by hard and blunt object. X-ray of injury No. 5 was conducted by PW-5 Dr. D.R. Bhuwan who found a fracture in the left forearm in radius and alna. 14. Keeping in view the medico-legal examination report now it is to be seen as to whether the statement of PW-3 Raja Ram Tiwari inspires confidence. 15. In the first information report, place of occurrence was shown as in front of sahan darwaja of accused. In the site plan place of incident is shown by letter ‘A’ which is towards western side of the house of accused. PW-6 S.I. Prem Shankar Dixit is the Investigating Officer who has prepared the site plan. 15. In the first information report, place of occurrence was shown as in front of sahan darwaja of accused. In the site plan place of incident is shown by letter ‘A’ which is towards western side of the house of accused. PW-6 S.I. Prem Shankar Dixit is the Investigating Officer who has prepared the site plan. PW-3 Raja Ram Tiwari stated that when he was going from the front side of the house of the accused and when he reached near a peepal tree accused attacked him. It is further stated that the peepal tree is towards western side of the house of the accused within a distance of five latha while the distance from his house is about two bigha. In the site plan also the place of occurrence is shown by letter ‘A’. It is near peepal tree. It is consistent case of the prosecution that the incident had taken place near peepal tree. Although the injured was coming from his house and reached at the place of occurrence after crossing the house of the accused. This statement of the injured witness finds support from the statement of PW-6 SI Prem Shankar Dixit, Investigating Officer, who has stated that towards western side of the house of the accused there is a field of Raj Naik. One way is towards western side. Thereafter there is field of complainant. There is a ‘med’ between the field of complainant and the accused. Complainant was coming from this ‘med’. The ‘med’ is shown towards western side of the field of accused. Place of incident is established as place ‘A’. 16. PW-3 Raja Ram stated that he was assaulted by the accused by lathi-danda. He got injuries. Blood was also there. Blood also fell on the ground. There was a fracture. He could not write the first information report. He got the report scribed from one person as he was not in a position to write the report. Injuries sustained by the injured finds support from the statement of doctor who has stated that 11 injuries were found on the body of the injured, out of which injury No. 5 was a fracture in the left arm. So far as injuries are concerned, a suggestion is given to the witness that he received the injuries with an accident with a tractor. Hence, it is admitted that injuries were caused to the injured. So far as injuries are concerned, a suggestion is given to the witness that he received the injuries with an accident with a tractor. Hence, it is admitted that injuries were caused to the injured. So far as mode of causing the injuries is concerned, prosecution has successfully established that the injuries were caused by the accused. 17. Having gone through the evidence on record, I am of the view that the learned court below have rightly held the accused guilty for the offence punishable under section 323, 325, 504, 506 IPC. Accordingly, conviction of the accused is confirmed. So far as sentence is concerned, it is a case wherein incident took place in the year 1993. About 25 years have passed. Accused were sentenced for six months simple imprisonment under section 323 and one year rigorous imprisonment and fine under section 325 IPC. 18. In Bankat and Another v. State of Maharashtra, (2005) 1 SCC 343 ; accused were convicted under Section 326 IPC and sentenced for one year imprisonment with fine. Hon’ble the Apex Court reduced the sentence to the period already undergone on the ground that the parties have settled the dispute outside the Court and 10 years have elapsed from the date of incident. 19. In Sattan Sahani v. State of Bihar and others, (2002) 7 SCC 604 ; accused were sentenced to three years’ rigorous imprisonment under Section 326 IPC. In appeal, Hon’ble the Supreme Court reduced the sentence to the period already undergone on the ground that the incident took place about two decades back and parties have also compromised. 20. In Uthem Rajanna v. State of A. P., 2005 (11) SCC 531 , accused was convicted and sentenced for six months under Section 304-A IPC along with fine and for three months under Section 338 IPC. In appeal Hon’ble the Apex Court has reduced the sentence to the period already undergone. 21. In Neelam Bahal and another v. State of Uttarakhand, (2010) 2 SCC 229 , accused was convicted under Section 307 IPC and was sentenced to undergo seven years’ rigorous imprisonment. Hon’ble the Apex Court has convicted accused under Section 326 IPC and reduced the sentence to period already undergone, i.e. almost one year, on the ground that the incident happened in the year 1987 when the accused was of young age of 25 years. 22. Hon’ble the Apex Court has convicted accused under Section 326 IPC and reduced the sentence to period already undergone, i.e. almost one year, on the ground that the incident happened in the year 1987 when the accused was of young age of 25 years. 22. Since the incident has taken place in the year 1993 and now parties are living peacefully in their village, it would be expedient in the interest of justice that the sentence be modified to the period already undergone and fine as imposed by the courts below. 23. Accordingly, revision is partly allowed. Conviction of the accused - revisionist is confirmed but the sentence is modified to the period already undergone and fine of Rs. 6000/-. In default of payment of fine, accused shall undergo simple imprisonment for one month. Out of the realized fine, Rs. 12,000/- shall be paid to the injured as compensation. Fine be deposited within a period of eight weeks from today. Accused are on bail. They need not to surrender. Their personal bonds and sureties are discharged. 24. Office is directed to certify the judgment to the learned lower court forthwith. Office is further directed to send the lower court record to the learned trial court forthwith. Learned trial court should send the compliance report within eight weeks. Learned trial court shall send a notice to the injured communicating this order to him so as to make him available for payment of compensation.