JUDGMENT : Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J. 1. Pappu s/o. Kishori Lal, Rahul s/o. Ghanshyam Das and Manoj @ Anjali s/o. Late Sannu Ram, were tried by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No.2, Jaipur City, Jaipur. The said Court in Sessions Case No.9/2008, vide impugned judgment dated 09.04.2009 acquitted Manoj @ Anjali of offences under Sections 324/34 and 307/34 IPC. The trial Judge, however, convicted Pappu for offences under Sections 307/34 and 324/34 IPC and Section 4/25, Arms Act and Rahul for offences under Sections 307/34 and 324/34 IPC. Having convicted the accused-appellants Pappu and Rahul for the above said offences, the trial court, vide a separate order of even date, sentenced them as under:- Accused-appellant, Pappu "U/s. 307/34 IPC: Ten years rigorous imprisonment, to pay a fine of Rs. 5000/- and in default thereof to undergo six months simple imprisonment. U/s. 324/34 IPC: Three years rigorous imprisonment, to pay a fine of Rs. 2000/- and in default thereof to undergo three months simple imprisonment. U/s. 4/25, Arms Act: Two years simple imprisonment, to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- and in default thereof to undergo one month simple imprisonment. Accused-appellant, Rahul "U/s. 307/34 IPC: Ten years rigorous imprisonment, to pay a fine of Rs. 5000/- and in default thereof to undergo six months simple imprisonment. U/s. 324/34 IPC: Three years rigorous imprisonment, to pay a fine of Rs. 2000/- and in default thereof to undergo three months simple imprisonment. (All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently)" 2. Aggrieved against their conviction and sentence, the appellants filed the present appeal. 3. Criminal proceedings were set into motion on the basis of statement (Ex.P.5) made by injured-complainant Mohd. Yakub (PW.16). 4. Mohd. Yakub (PW.16) in his statement (Ex.P.5) stated that he is resident of Banjaro Ka Mohallah, near Badi Masjid, Hasanpura, P.S. Sadar, Jaipur. He further stated that on 9.11.2007 at about 8.00 PM he went out of his house and in front of NBC Factory, English Liquor Vend, took a beer. After sometime he started returning towards his house. While he was going on foot and reached near Shiv Mandir, apposite Nijam Pan Shop, he purchased a pouch of Gutkha. Meanwhile, Anjali, Rahul and Pappu residing in Harijan Mohallah, came and Pappu asked him to give Gutkha. While he was taking the pouch of Gutkha out of his pocket, someone caused knife blow on his back. While he was going on foot and reached near Shiv Mandir, apposite Nijam Pan Shop, he purchased a pouch of Gutkha. Meanwhile, Anjali, Rahul and Pappu residing in Harijan Mohallah, came and Pappu asked him to give Gutkha. While he was taking the pouch of Gutkha out of his pocket, someone caused knife blow on his back. Later, two blows of knife were caused in his back and on thigh. 5. In the statement (Ex.P.5) on the basis of which formal FIR (Ex.P.6) was registered, it was specifically stated that ^^bu yksxksa esa fdlus pkdw ls ekjk eq>s /;ku ugha gSA** 6. The complainant Mohd. Yakub (PW.16) in his statement (Ex.P.5) further stated that after the blows were given, he ran away from the spot and he was saved by Rafiq, Anju and Wahid. Thereafter he went to his house and later in an auto rickshaw was brought to SMS Hospital. 7. Thus, in the initial version (Ex.P.5) on the basis of which formal FIR (Ex.P.6) was registered, it was stated that the three accused Manoj @ Anjali, Pappu and Rahul arrived at the spot and caused injuries with knife blows. As to who caused injuries, no specific author of the injury has been named. In the FIR (Ex.P.6) it has also not been stated as to which injury has been caused by which accused. 8. The above said FIR (Ex.P.6) was investigated and a report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. was submitted before the court below. 9. As stated above, accused-appellant Manoj @ Anjali was acquitted of offences under Section 324/34 and 307/34 IPC, but accused-appellants Pappu and Rahul, were convicted and sentenced in the manner stated above. 10. In the context of above, at first instance, it will be necessary to take note of the medical evidence. 11. Dr. N.L. Disaniya (PW.17) on 10.11.2017 medico-legally examined Mohd. Yakub (PW.16) and vide injury report (Ex.P.15) noted five injuries on his person. It will be apposite here to note the injuries caused on the person of Mohd. Yakub (PW.16), as noted in the statement of Dr. 11. Dr. N.L. Disaniya (PW.17) on 10.11.2017 medico-legally examined Mohd. Yakub (PW.16) and vide injury report (Ex.P.15) noted five injuries on his person. It will be apposite here to note the injuries caused on the person of Mohd. Yakub (PW.16), as noted in the statement of Dr. N.L. Disaniya (PW.17), as under:- ^^pksV la[;k 1 & Nkrh ds ck;sa Hkkx esa nks ?kksisa gq, ?kko Fks ftudh eki 1-5 xq.kk -5 lsehΠpksV ds fdukjs lkQ dVs FksA pksV ij rktk [kwu tek gqvk FkkA pksV la[;k 2 & isV ds ck;sa Hkkx esa 2-5 xq.kk -1 lsehΠdk ?kko FkkA pksV la[;k 3 & ihB ij <+kbZ vkSj uhps ds Hkkx esa 2-5 xq.kk 1 lsehΠdk ?kkasik gqvk ?kko FkkA pksV la[;k 4 & isV ds nk;sa Hkkx esa 1-5 xq.kk -5 lsehΠdk ?kksaik gqvk ?kko FkkA pksV la[;k 5 & ck;sa ?kqVus ij 1 xq.kk 1 lsehΠ[kjksap FkkA** 12. Mohd. Yakub (PW.16) appeared in court and made a departure from his initial statement (Ex.P.5) and assigned all knife injuries on his person to Pappu accused. However, the witness stated that Anjali was standing there at a distance and Rahul made him fall on the ground. In court the witness specifically stated as under:- ^^vfHk;qDr iiq] jkgqy ogka vk;s vkSj esjs ls xqV[kk ekaxk vkSj ihNs esjs pkj okj pkdw ls fd;k iiq us pkdw ls okj fd;k Fkk ihB ij pkdw ekjk ,oa lkeus ls Hkh pkdw ekjk Qlfy;ksa ij Hkh pkdw dqy lkr okj pkdw ls fd;k FkkA buds lkFk vUtyh uke dk yM+dk Hkh Fkk tks nwj [kM+k FkkA jkgqy us eq>s fxjk fn;k FkkA** The witness stated that after knife blows were given, Pappu and Rahul ran away from the spot. 13. Rafiq (PW.6) who was cited as eye-witness in the occurrence, in court stated that Pappu and Yakub (PW.16) both were standing and having a talk. After sometime Pappu took out a knife and followed Yakub and caused stab injuries on the person of Yakub. Pappu, after causing injuries, left the spot. Thus, Rafiq (PW.6) has not attributed any injury to Rahul. 14. Jahid (PW.14) another eye-witness has turned hostile to the prosecution as he stated that he has not witnessed the occurrence. 15. Sonu (PW.15) has also turned hostile to the prosecution and deposed that he has not seen the occurrence. 16. Pappu, after causing injuries, left the spot. Thus, Rafiq (PW.6) has not attributed any injury to Rahul. 14. Jahid (PW.14) another eye-witness has turned hostile to the prosecution as he stated that he has not witnessed the occurrence. 15. Sonu (PW.15) has also turned hostile to the prosecution and deposed that he has not seen the occurrence. 16. I have heard Shri Anil Sharma, learned counsel appearing on behalf of appellant Rahul, and Shri Prakash Thakuriya, learned Public Prosecutor for the State. Admittedly, occurrence in the present case had taken place on 9.11.2007 at 10.30 PM. Statement (Ex.P.5) of complainant-injured Mohd. Yakub (PW.16) was recorded on 12.11.2007 at 2.25 PM. Thus, the FIR was lodged after delay of about 64 hours. None of the eye-witness who were cited, had lodged the report. Even in the highly belated FIR (Ex.P.6), no injury has been assigned to Rahul. The complainant Mohd. Yakub (PW.16) in his statement (Ex.P.5) leading to registration of FIR has stated that knife blows were caused to him, but as to who caused the knife blows he is not aware. Thus, in the initial statement (Ex.P.5) only presence of Manoj @ Anjali, Rahul and Pappu was admitted, but author of the injuries were not specified. Later Mohd. Yakub (PW.16) attributed all injuries to Pappu. Only role assigned to Rahul is that he made injured Mohd. Yakub (PW.16) fall on the ground. 17. Taking delay into consideration and the fact that complainant Mohd. Yakub (PW.16) later in court absolved Manoj @ Anjali, this court cannot place implicit reliance so far role assigned to accused-appellant Rahul is concerned. It seems to be a blemish. Mohd. Yakub (PW.16) has exaggerated the version and unnecessarily dragged Rahul into criminal litigation. 18. Be that as it may, it is case of the prosecution that Rahul has not caused any injury to injured Mohd. Yakub (PW.16). 19. Rafiq (PW.6) is an independent witness. He stated that all the injuries were caused by Pappu. Therefore, Rafiq (PW.6) neither admitted presence of Rahul, nor has assigned any role to him in the occurrence. Therefore, this court is of the view that a case is made out to sift the grain from the chaff. 20. Thus, as an abundant caution, benefit of doubt is granted to the accused-appellant Rahul and he is acquitted of the charges. Therefore, Rafiq (PW.6) neither admitted presence of Rahul, nor has assigned any role to him in the occurrence. Therefore, this court is of the view that a case is made out to sift the grain from the chaff. 20. Thus, as an abundant caution, benefit of doubt is granted to the accused-appellant Rahul and he is acquitted of the charges. Now, so far accused-appellant Pappu is concerned, he caused five knife injuries to Mohd. Yakub (PW.16). The said injuries were opined to be dangerous to life. Thus, conviction of accused-appellant pappu for offences under Sections 307 and 324 IPC is maintained. Conviction of the accused-appellant Pappu of offence under Section 4/25, Arms Act is also upheld. 21. In the present case, occurrence had taken place on 9.11.2007. Period of more than 10 years has already elapsed. It is well settled legal proposition that the appeal is continuation of the trial. Appellant Pappu is in the corridors of the courts for last more than one decade. 22. Considering sufferance of protracted trial as a mitigating circumstance, sentence of ten years rigorous imprisonment, awarded by the trial court upon accused-appellant Pappu for offence under Section 307 IPC, is reduced to 8 (eight) years rigorous imprisonment. However, sentence of fine and default clause qua appellant Pappu, as awarded by the trial court for offence under Section 307 IPC, is maintained. The sentence awarded by the trial court to accused-appellant Pappu for offences under Section 324 IPC and Section 4/25, Arms Act is also upheld. The sentence awarded for offences under Sections 324 IPC and Section 4/25, Arms Act shall run concurrently with the sentence reduced for offence under Section 307 IPC by this court. 23. Consequently, appeal preferred on behalf of accused-appellant Rahul is accepted and he is acquitted of the charges. Appeal on behalf of accused-appellant Pappu is dismissed with modification in sentence in above terms. 24. Vide order dated 10.2.2010, sentence awarded upon the accused-appellant Rahul was suspended by this court and he was ordered to be released on bail. Hence, bail bonds and surety bonds furnished by him are discharged. The trial court is directed to comply with the provisions of Section 437A Cr.P.C.