JUDGMENT : 1. Iftkar Ahmed son of Jubed Ali, Fajlu Rehman son of Mushtak Ali, and Firoz Ahmed son of A Rasid, all three residents of Malpura, were sent for trial. The prosecution story, in nutshell, which has emerged in the charges framed against the accused, is that on the night of 8.10.1989, at about 9:00 PM, in the Manak Chowk of town Malpura, accused caused injuries to Rajesh Kumar (P.W.3), Pawan Agarwal (P.W.6) son of Tara Chand and Pawan Kumar (P.W.8) son of Ratan Lal armed with sharp edged sword and thus, committed offence punishable under Section 307 IPC. The charge specificaly stated that accused Fajlu Rehman caused injury with sword on the head of Rajesh Kumar (P.W.3) with intention to kill him and thus he was substantively charged for the offence under Section 307 IPC, whereas others being armed with other weapon, committed offence punishable under Section 307/34 IPC. 2. The court of Sessions Judge, vide impugned judgment dated 13.5.1992, convicted the appellants for the offences under Sections 307/34 and 324/34 IPC. Having convicted the appellants for the aforesaid offences, the trial Judge vide a separate order of even date, sentenced them as under:- U/s. 307/34 IPC - to undergo four years RI and to pay a fine of Rs.500 each. U/s. 324/34 IPC - to undergo six months RI each. In default of payment of fine, accused were further ordered to undergo additional one month imprisonment. 3. Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. Upon deposit of fine by the accused, it was ordered that Rs. One Thousand shall be disbursed to injured Rajesh Sharma (P.W.3). 4. Aggrieved against their conviction and sentence, appellants have filed the present appeal. The present appeal was admitted on 15.5.1992 and on the same date, sentence awarded upon the appellants was suspended and they were ordered to be released on bail. 5. The criminal proceedings in the present case were set into motion on the basis of written report (Exhibit-P/1) presented by Mahesh Sharma (P.W.1) before Sub Inspector Ashok Kumar (not examined) who was then posted at Police Station Malpura. Radheyshyam Sharma (P.W.14) who was posted as SHO, Police Station Malpura, posted at relevant time deposed in the court that on 8.10.1989, Ashok Kumar was posted as Probationer Sub Inspector and Mahesh Sharma (P.W.1) had presented written report (Exhibit-P/1) before him. Radheyshyam Sharma (P.W.14) who was posted as SHO, Police Station Malpura, posted at relevant time deposed in the court that on 8.10.1989, Ashok Kumar was posted as Probationer Sub Inspector and Mahesh Sharma (P.W.1) had presented written report (Exhibit-P/1) before him. Upon said written report presented, under the orders of Ashok Kumar (not examined), who was then posted as Sub Inspector, case was registered. Radheyshyam Sharma (P.W.14) being SHO, deposed that he being conversant with the signatures of Ashok Kumar can identify the same and proved the written report (Exhibit-P/1), presented at the instance of Mahesh Sharma (P.W.1). On the basis of written report (Exhibit-P/1), formal FIR (Exhibit-P/2) bearing No. 145/1989 was registered at Police Station Malpura for the offences under Sections 323, 341, 324/34 and 307/34 IPC. The written report (Exhibit-P/1) when translated into English, reads as under:- “To SHO Saheb, Police Station Malpura. Sir, It is submitted that today on 8.10.1989, in the night at 9:00 PM, I, Rajababu, Ashok Jain, Anurodh Govil and one or two other persons were standing at Manak Chowk near Capital Studio. Suddenly, from the side of Manak Chowk, 3-4 boys came running towards Hathai armed with naked swords. These boys went 10 to 15 steps towards Hathai and they opened attack on two boys both who were named as Pawan. They caused them injuries on the shoulders and on the head. On the noise raised, Pakdo – Pakdo, meanwhile, they ran away from the spot. Meanwhile, Gopal Sharma son of Satyanarayan Sharma came there. He informed me that above said persons with intention to cause injuries to my brother Rajesh Sharma had opened attack and caused injuries to him on the head with sword. His (injured) condition is precarious. We have taken above injured Rajesh to the hospital. Then I came to hospital. Since my brother was serious, he was referred by the doctor to Jaipur. The name of these persons is known to my brother and other two boys both named Pawan. The above said persons after restricting the way have opened attack with swords with intention to commit murderous assault. I am presenting the report. Action be taken. Applicant Mahesh Sharma S/o Raghunandan Sharma, Ram Mohalla, Malpura.” 6. The name of these persons is known to my brother and other two boys both named Pawan. The above said persons after restricting the way have opened attack with swords with intention to commit murderous assault. I am presenting the report. Action be taken. Applicant Mahesh Sharma S/o Raghunandan Sharma, Ram Mohalla, Malpura.” 6. From the above said written report (Exhibit-P/1), following facts are discernible:- (a) That unnamed 3-4 persons came running armed with naked swords and they caused injuries to two persons both of them named as Pawan. (b) That Gopal Sharma son of Satyanarayan Sharma, who reached at the spot informed the complainant Mahesh Sharma that above said persons have also caused injuries to his brother Rajesh Kumar Sharma (P.W.3). (c) That accused after causing injuries decamped from the spot. (d) That Rajesh Kumar Sharma (P.W.3) had also suffered injury in the occurrence. Since his injury on the head was serious, he was referred for specialized treatment to SMS Hospital at Jaipur. (e) That in the occurrence three persons namely Rajesh Kumar Sharma (P.W.3) Pawan Agarwal (P.W.6) son of Tarachand Agarwal and Pawan Kumar (P.W.8) son of Ratan Lal have suffered injuries in the occurrence. 7. Dr. Vivekanand (P.W.12) on 9.10.1989 in the night at 1:40 AM, medico-legally examined Rajesh Sharma (P.W.3) and in the injury report Exhibit-P/12, noted following injuries:- (i) Incised wound 4cm x 1/2 cm x scalp deep on Right parietal region anteriorly placed obliquely tailing downards and anteriorly with fresh clotted blood. (ii) Incised wound 3cm x 1/2 cm x scalp deep on Right parietal region on area 2cm posterior to injury no.1 placed obliquely tailing anteriorly and downwards. (iii) Incised wound 5cm x 1/2 cm x scalp deep on middle of vault of skull placed obliquely with fresh bleeding tailing downwards and to Left lateral side. (iv) Incised wound 11cm x 1.5 cm x bone deep placed vertically and little obliquely on left side of occipital area going upwards to left parietal region with fresh bleeding. No tailing is seen. (v) Incised wound 7cm x 1cm x bone deep placed obliquely in L shape on Right side parieto-occipital region with fresh bleeding. 8. Injuries nos. 1 to 5 being fracture were declared as grievous. Patient was operated upon and as per opinion of the doctor, injuries were sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature except for timely medical aid. 9. 8. Injuries nos. 1 to 5 being fracture were declared as grievous. Patient was operated upon and as per opinion of the doctor, injuries were sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature except for timely medical aid. 9. Mahesh Sharma (P.W.1) the complainant in the court stated that three persons came from the side of Manak Chowk and he cannot identify them. The said persons caused injuries to Pawan Agarwal (P.W.6), Pawan Kumar (P.W.8). This witness stated that he was informed by Gopal Sharma that the said persons have also caused injuries to his brother Rajesh Sharma (P.W.3). 10. Rajababu Jain (P.W.2) in the court stated that on 8.10.1989, at 9:00 PM, three persons came from the side of Manak Chowk. They were Firoj, Iftkar and Fajlu, present in the court. They caused injuries to both Pawan Agarwal (P.W.6) and Pawan Kumar (P.W.8). 11. It may be noted here that Pawan Agarwal (P.W.6) in the court has specifically stated that due to darkness, he could not identify the assailants who caused him injuries. Therefore, so far injuries to Pawan Agarwal (P.W.6) are concerned, the injured has not identified the assailants. 12. Similarly, Pawan Kumar (P.W.8), in the court also stated that he cannot identify three boys who had caused him injuries. Therefore, Pawan Kumar (P.W.8) had also absolved the accused of the offences for the lack of identification. 13. Rajesh Kumar Sharma (P.W.3) in the court stated that on 8.10.1989, at 9:00 PM, he was returning to his house. When he was going through street of Sindhis, Fajlu caused a blow on his head. He caused further injuries by inflicting six to seven blow. Iftkar gagged his mouth and Firoj caught hold of his hands and legs and Fajlu caused injuries. 14. Ashok Kumar (P.W.4) is a witness regarding occurrence in which Pawan Agarwal (P.W.6) and Pawan Kumar (P.W.8) were caused injuries. 15. Ratan Lal (P.W.9) father of Pawan Kumar (P.W.8) has also not identified the assailants. He deposed that he reached at the spot when the injuries had already been caused. 16. Tara Chand (P.W.10) father of Pawan Agarwal (P.W.6) has also not supported the prosecution case and has not identified the assailants. 17. Rajkumar (P.W.11) in the court stated that he cannot identify the assailants but he was informed that the said persons have also caused injuries to Rajesh Sharma (P.W.3). 18. 16. Tara Chand (P.W.10) father of Pawan Agarwal (P.W.6) has also not supported the prosecution case and has not identified the assailants. 17. Rajkumar (P.W.11) in the court stated that he cannot identify the assailants but he was informed that the said persons have also caused injuries to Rajesh Sharma (P.W.3). 18. Having noted the testimony of the eyewitnesses, this Court need not notice the testimony of the official witnesses. 19. In the present case, the occurrence had taken place on 8.10.1989 at 9:00 PM. The written report (Exhibit-P/1) was presented by Mahesh Sharma (P.W.1) brother of injured Rajesh Sharma (P.W.3) on 8.10.1989 at 9:30 PM. In the FIR (Exhibit-P/2), name of assailants has not surfaced. All other eyewitnesses except, Rajesh Sharma (P.W.3), Rajababu Jain (P.W.2), Ashok Kumar (P.W.4) have neither named the accused nor identified them in the court. 20. Rajesh Sharma (P.W.3) in cross-examination admitted that he was having no enmity with the accused. This witness further stated that in the street of Sindhis, nobody came forward to save him. This witness stated that with great difficulty, he reached home. At home, his brother Satyanarayan met him and he narrated the occurrence to him in cursory manner. He had not narrated the entire occurrence. It will be apposite here to reproduce following portion from the cross-examination of Rajesh Sharma (P.W.3), as under:- dksbZ jSxj flU?kh eq>s cpkus ugh vk;k A pksV yxus ds ckn eSa Lo;a mBdj ?kj x;k gks rks eq>s /;ku ugh A izn’kZ ih-1 es fy[kk gqvk gS tks eq> irk ugha A mlds ckn eS cMh eqf’dy ls ?kj igqapkÞ eq>s /;ku ughaA , ls ch rdAÞ ?kj ij eq>s esjk HkkbZ lR;ukjk;.k feykA eSus esjs HkkbZ ls gYdh lh ckr dh FkhA eSuS lkjh ?kVuk dh ckr HkkbZ dks ugha crkbZA eSaus iqfyl dks HkkbZ dks lkjh ckr crkus ds ckjs esa fy[kk;k gks eq>s /;ku ughaA esjs dks t;iqj vLirky esa rhu&pkj fnu ckn gks’k vk;k FkkA gekjs fj’rsnkjksa us bu eqyftekuksa ds uke ugha crk, FksA 21. Rajababu Jain (P.W.2) had not seen the accused causing injuries to Rajesh Sharma (P.W.3). He has only stated that he had seen Firoj, Iftkar and Fajlu coming from the side of Manak Chowk and they caused injuries to two persons who were named as Pawan Kumar. Similarly, Ashok Kumar (P.W.4) stated that he was present in front of Capital Photostudio. Rajababu Jain (P.W.2) had not seen the accused causing injuries to Rajesh Sharma (P.W.3). He has only stated that he had seen Firoj, Iftkar and Fajlu coming from the side of Manak Chowk and they caused injuries to two persons who were named as Pawan Kumar. Similarly, Ashok Kumar (P.W.4) stated that he was present in front of Capital Photostudio. He saw three boys namely Firoj, Iftkar and Fajlu. They came running and caused injuries to Pawan Agarwal (P.W.6) and Pawan Kumar (P.W.8). Thus, Ashok Kumar (P.W.4) had also not seen the accused causing injuries to Rajesh Sharma (P.W.3). 22. It may be noted here that both Pawan Agarwal (P.W.6) and Pawan Kumar (P.W.8) have not identified the assailants, who caused them injuries. They have stated that they are unable to identify the accused. Thus, Rajababu Jain (P.W.2) and Ashok Kumar (P.W.4) have not seen accused causing injuries to Rajesh Sharma (P.W.3). Statement (Exhibit-D/1) of Rajesh Sharma (P.W.3) was recorded by police on 13.10.1989, i.e. after four days of the occurrence. Therefore, it is apparent that name of the accused have surfaced for the first time after four days of the occurrence. 23. I have heard Shri NA Naqvi learned Senior Counsel duly assisted by Shri. Nawab Ali Rathore for the appellants and Shri. Prakash Thakuriya learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the State. 24. The learned counsel for the appellants has urged that no reliance can be placed upon the testimony of solitary witness Rajesh Sharma (P.W.3) as all other witnesses have not stated that in their presence injuries were caused to Rajesh Sharma (P.W.3). It is contended that injuries were caused by three persons in Sindhi colony, which is densely populated area and no person from Sindhi Colony has deposed against the accused. It is also contended that Rajesh Sharma (P.W.3) has admitted in the cross-examination that with difficulty he reached home and narrated the occurrence to his brother Satyanarayan Sharma (not examined). He has not narrated the entire occurrence to his brother Satyanarayan Sharma. It has come in the cross-examination of Rajesh Sharma (P.W.3) that he had not narrated the name of accused to his relatives. Thus, it is urged that it is case of a false implication and as a result of consultations and deliberations, name of accused were introduced later. 25. It has come in the cross-examination of Rajesh Sharma (P.W.3) that he had not narrated the name of accused to his relatives. Thus, it is urged that it is case of a false implication and as a result of consultations and deliberations, name of accused were introduced later. 25. I have given thoughtful consideration to the rival submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties. 26. It is pertinent to note here that the learned Public Prosecutor has defended the impugned judgment rendered by the trial court. The trial Judge only relied upon the testimony of Rajesh Sharma (P.W.3) to convict the appellants. 27. In the present case, admittedly injured Rajesh Sharma (P.W.3) divulged the name of accused after four days of the occurrence. In the FIR, accused have not been named. Mahesh Sharma (P.W.1) was present at the spot alongwith Rajababu Jain (P.W.2) and Ashok Kumar (P.W.4). Rajababu Jain (P.W.2) and Ashok Kumar (P.W.4) knew the accused and have identified them in then court as persons who came to Manak Chowk in front of Capital Photo Studio, where Mahesh Sharma (P.W.1) was standing alongwith them. Upto that extent, if story of the prosecution is believed then Rajababu Jain (P.W.2) and Ashok Kumar (P.W.4) ought to have revealed the name of the accused to Mahesh Sharma (P.W.1). But, written report (Exhibit-P/1) leading to registration of FIR (Exhibit-P/2) is silent so far name of accused is concerned. Therefore, no reliance can be placed upon the testimony of Rajababu Jain (P.W.2) and Ashok Kumar (P.W.4), as they have introduced the name of accused later. Furthermore, they have not witnessed the injuries caused to Rajesh Sharma (P.W.3). 28. However, this Court cannot ignore that Rajesh Sharma (P.W.3) has admitted that he was having no enmity with the accused, therefore, Rajesh Sharma (P.W.3) will be the last person to substitute the real assailants. 29. Taking into consideration that name of the accused surfaced after four days, this Court is of the view that conviction of the appellants namely Iftkar and Firoj cannot be sustained, as they have not caused any injury to Rajesh Sharma (P.W.3). Rajesh Sharma (P.W.3) has stated that Iftkar had gagged his mouth, whereas Firoj caught hold of his hands. This seems to be blemish, as result of consultations and deliberations due to delay in naming the accused. Rajesh Sharma (P.W.3) has stated that Iftkar had gagged his mouth, whereas Firoj caught hold of his hands. This seems to be blemish, as result of consultations and deliberations due to delay in naming the accused. Therefore, it cannot be ruled out that Iftkar and Firoj can be victims of widening of net, as Rajesh Sharma (P.W.3) inflated number of accused. Therefore, this Court has to resort to sift the grain from chaff and by doing so, shall extend the benefit of doubt to appellants Iftkar and Firoj. 30. So far the appellant Fajlu is concerned, he has been specifically named as person who caused injuries to Rajesh Sharma (P.W.3). In the context that there was no enmity between accused and the injured, this court finds no reason as to why injured Rajesh Sharma (P.W.3) who suffered serious injuries, will falsely implicate Fajlu. Hence, conviction of Fajlu appellant is sustained by relying upon the testimony of Rajesh Sharma (P.W.3). 31. Having upheld the conviction of Fajlu, this Court has to ponder regarding the quantum of sentence. 32. The occurrence in the present case has taken place in the year 1989. A period of twenty-nine years has elapsed. It is well settled legal position that appeal is a continuation of the trial. Taking sufferance of protracted trial as mitigating circumstance, sentence of four years awarded upon the appellant Fajlu under Section 307 IPC is reduced to one year RI. Further, the sentence awarded under Section 324 IPC shall run concurrently with the sentence reduced by this Court under Section 307 IPC. However, sentence of fine is enhanced to Rs.20,000/-, in default thereof appellant Fajlu shall undergo additional six months RI. 33. With the above modification in sentence qua Fajlu, his appeal is disposed of. 34. As a result of above discussion, appeal is accepted qua Iftkar and Firoj by giving them benefit of doubt by way of abundant caution. The judgment of conviction and order of sentence is set aside qua Iftkar and Firoj and they are acquitted of charges. The conviction of Fajlu is sustained, however, his sentence is reduced in above terms, hence, his appeal is disposed of. 35. In the present case, Rajesh Sharma (P.W.3) had suffered serious injuries, therefore, he will be entitled to compensation under under the Victim Compensation Scheme formulated by the State of Rajasthan under Section 357-A Cr.P.C. 36. The conviction of Fajlu is sustained, however, his sentence is reduced in above terms, hence, his appeal is disposed of. 35. In the present case, Rajesh Sharma (P.W.3) had suffered serious injuries, therefore, he will be entitled to compensation under under the Victim Compensation Scheme formulated by the State of Rajasthan under Section 357-A Cr.P.C. 36. Secretary, Rajasthan Legal Services Authority Jaipur is directed to disburse the amount of compensation under the Victim Compensation Scheme to Rajesh Sharma (P.W.3). 37. A copy of this judgment be sent to the Secretary, Rajasthan Legal Services Authority Jaipur. Copy of the judgment alongwith record be sent to the trial court forthwith. The trial Judge shall issue warrant of arrest and take accused appellant Fajlu into custody. The period undergone by the accused as undertrial or after conviction shall be set off by taking recourse to Section 428 Cr.P.C.