JUDGMENT T. Amarnath Goud, J. - This is a revision petition under Section 397 read with under Section 401 of the Cr.P.C. against the judgment dated 08.04.2022, passed in Criminal Appeal No. 06 of 2021, by the Ld. Sessions Judge, North Tripura, Dharmanagar, whereby and where under the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 07.09.2021 passed in PRC (WP) 59 of 2019, by the Ld. Chief Judicial Magistrate North Tripura, Dharmangar, has been upheld. 2. For the sake of brevity the parties are referred to as in the cause title of PRC (WP) 59 of 2019. The Prosecution case in brief is on 25.04.2019 at about 0010 hours at Sanicherra PHC under Churaibari PS, the accused criminally intimidated informant Smt. Nachima Begam of dire consequences. Secondly, the accused voluntarily caused hurt to the informant and her colleagues being public servants in the discharge of their duties as such public servants, or with intent to prevent or deter them or any other public servant from discharging their duties as such public servants, or in consequence of anything done or attempted to be done by them in the lawful discharge of their duties as such public servants. Thirdly, the accused assaulted or used criminal force to the informant and her colleagues being public servants in the execution of their duties as such public servants, or with intent to prevent or deter them from discharging their duties as such public servants, or in consequence of anything done or attempted to be done by them in the lawful discharge of their duties as such public servants. Fourthly, the accused committed mischief with regard to the furniture of Sanicherra PHC thereby causing loss or damage to the amount of Rs. 50/- or upwards. Fifthly, the accused committed an act of violence against the informant, a Medicare Service Person, as defined under section 2(c) of the Tripura Medicare Service Persons and Medicare Service Institutions (Prevention of Violence and Damage to Property) Act, 2013. On receipt of the FIR lodged by the informant, police investigated the case and submitted charge-sheet under sections 353/332/427/506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and under section 3 of the Tripura Medicare Service Persons & Medicare Service Institutions (Prevention of Violence and Damage to Property) Act 2013 against the accused. 3. On receipt of the FIR lodged by the informant, police investigated the case and submitted charge-sheet under sections 353/332/427/506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and under section 3 of the Tripura Medicare Service Persons & Medicare Service Institutions (Prevention of Violence and Damage to Property) Act 2013 against the accused. 3. The trial court after examining the record and witnesses framed the following points for determination: i) Whether the accused criminally intimidated informant Smt. Nachima Begam of dire consequences? ii) Whether the accused voluntarily caused hurt to the informant and her colleagues being public servants in the discharge of their duties as such public servants, or with intent to prevent or deter them or any other public servant from discharging their duties as such public servants, or in consequence of anything done or attempted to be done by them in the lawful discharge of their duties as such public servants? iii) Whether the accused assaulted or used criminal force to the informant and her colleagues being public servants in the execution of their duties as such public servants, or with intent to prevent or deter them from discharging their duties as such public servants, or in consequence of anything done or attempted to be done by them in the lawful discharge of their duties as such public servants? iv) Whether the accused committed mischief with regard to the furniture of Sanicherra PHC thereby causing loss or damage to the amount of Rs. 50/- or upwards? v) Whether the accused committed an act of violence against the informant, a Medicare Service Person, as defined under section 2 (c) of the Tripura Medicare Service Persons and Medicare Service Institutions (Prevention of Violence and Damage to Property) Act, 2013? 4. For convenience of discussion, all the points of determination were taken together by the trial court. Firstly the discussion began with the eye-witnesses. 5. PW 1 Mst. Nachima Begam, the informant, deposed that on 25.04.2019 she was posted as Staff Nurse at Sanicherra PHC. On that day, at about 00.10 am she was performing night duty. Accused Sri Parikshit Singha appeared there with a patient. The accused inquired about the doctor. She told him to wait. The accused suddenly became angry and damaged the table and chairs of PW 1's Duty Room and slapped her. PW 1 was pregnant at that time. On that day, at about 00.10 am she was performing night duty. Accused Sri Parikshit Singha appeared there with a patient. The accused inquired about the doctor. She told him to wait. The accused suddenly became angry and damaged the table and chairs of PW 1's Duty Room and slapped her. PW 1 was pregnant at that time. Sri Manringbum Halam and Sri Danshuarai Halam, GDA staff of the PHC, were there. They tried to stop the accused, but the accused was aggressive and he could not be stopped. In the meantime, Dr. Biswabandhu Debnath reached there. The accused kept on abusing them in filthy language. Police was informed. Police went to the spot on the night of the incident itself. On the following day, PW 1 lodged the FIR. The complaint petition was written by her husband. In cross-examination, PW 1 stated that she did not inform the matter to the CMO, North Tripura in writing. She also stated that on the date of the incident, her husband was in her official quarter. 6. PW 2 Sri Donsuarai Halam deposed that on 25.04.2019 he was posted as GDA at Sanicherra PHC. On that day, in the midnight he was performing night duty. Accused Sri Parikshit Sharma appeared there with a patient. He inquired about the doctor. The informant told him to wait. The accused suddenly became angry and damaged the table and chairs of their Duty Room and slapped the informant. PW 2 and Sri Manringbum Halam were there. They tried to stop the accused, but the accused was aggressive and he could not be stopped. In the meantime Dr. Biswabandhu Debnath reached there. The accused cooled down and went away. In cross-examination, PW 2 stated that the IO of this case did not inquire of him in connection with this case. 7. It is further observed by the trial court that it is a matter of record that prosecution could not bring into evidence any medical document to confirm the injuries sustained by the informant. However, this is a case under sections 506/332/353/427 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and under section 3 of the Tripura Medicare Service Persons and Medicare Service Institutions (Prevention of Violence and Damage to Property) Act, 2013. Under these provisions of law, degree or gravity of injury sustained by the victim is immaterial. However, this is a case under sections 506/332/353/427 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and under section 3 of the Tripura Medicare Service Persons and Medicare Service Institutions (Prevention of Violence and Damage to Property) Act, 2013. Under these provisions of law, degree or gravity of injury sustained by the victim is immaterial. Therefore, medico-legal report of the victim is dispensable in this case. Moreover, in a criminal trial, the best evidence is that of the eye-witnesses, and medical evidence is only of advisory nature. Hence, in the present case, failure of prosecution to bring into evidence any medical document does not affect its case to the least. 8. It is further observed by the trial court that it is a matter of record that the incident complained of took place on 25.04.2019 at about 0010 hours and the FIR was lodged on the same day at 1340 hours. Therefore, there was a delay of about 13 hours and 30 minutes in lodging the FIR. Column no. 8 of printed form of FIR does not state the reason for such delay in lodging the FIR. However, in my considered opinion, such delay was not fatal for prosecution. The reason is, there is no law for the time being force in India which lays down specific time-frame for lodging of FIR. Delay in lodging of FIR is fatal only because it provides room for embellishment. In the present case, the informant was performing night duty in the hospital as Staff Nurse. It was not reasonably expected from her to go to the police station to report the incident leaving the patients of Sanicherra PHC in the hands of the GDA. Moreover, the incident happened in the midnight and as per printed form of FIR the distance between the alleged place of occurrence and Churaibari PS was about seven kilometers. Hence, it was reasonable on the part of the informant to wait for the following day to lodge the FIR. 9. Finally by the judgment of conviction dated 07.09.2021, the trial court has observed in the following manner: 'Offence under section 332 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 is punishable with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both. 9. Finally by the judgment of conviction dated 07.09.2021, the trial court has observed in the following manner: 'Offence under section 332 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 is punishable with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both. On consideration of the submissions at the point of sentence, taking lenient view, I hereby I sentence convict Sri Parikshit Singha under section 332 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay fine of Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) in default to rigorous imprisonment for further two months.' 10. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied thereby with the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 07.09.2021, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Ld. Appellate Court. 11. The points involved in the decision of the appeal were whether informant i.e. PW-1 Mst Nachiam Begam was a Public Servant or a Medicare Service Person, and whether Mst. Nachima Begam was prevented or deterred by the convict-appellant to discharge her duty as Public Servant or PW 1 faced violence by the convict-appellant as a Medicare Service Person in her place of duty at Sanicherra Public Health Centre. 12. PW 1, Mst. Nachima Begam i.e. the informant-cum-victim in her examination-in-chief has stated that on 25-04-2019 she was posted as Staff Nurse at Sanicherra Public Health Centre and on that day at about 0010 hours while PW 1 was performing night duty accused Parikshit Singha appeared at Sanicherra PHC with a patient and inquired about the doctor on duty. Then PW 1 asked accused Parikshit Singha to wait but suddenly he became angry and damaged the table and chairs of the duty room of PW 1 and accused Parikshit Singha also slapped PW 1, Mst. Nachima Begam whereas she was carrying pregnancy at the relevant time. PW 1 further deposed that Sri Manringbum Halam and Sri Danshuarai Halam, GDA staff of Sanicherra PHC were present in the duty room of PW 1 and witnessed the incident with their own eyes. PW 1 also deposed that at the time of occurrence those GDA Staff tried to stop accused Parikshit Singha but he was so aggressive that he could be stopped. In the meantime Dr. Biswabandhu Debnath reached there but accused Parikshit Singha continued to abuse PW 1 and others in filthy language. PW 1 also deposed that at the time of occurrence those GDA Staff tried to stop accused Parikshit Singha but he was so aggressive that he could be stopped. In the meantime Dr. Biswabandhu Debnath reached there but accused Parikshit Singha continued to abuse PW 1 and others in filthy language. PW 1 also deposed that police was informed and in the same night police visited Sanicherra PHC and only thereafter the accused cooled down. On the following day PW 1, Mst. Nachima Begam lodged her written complaint to Churaibari Police Station. 13. PW 2, Sri Danshuarai Halam and PW 3, Sri Manringbum Halam in their respective examination-in-chief have stated that on 25-04-2019 they were posted at Sanicherra PHC as GDA staff and on that day both of them were performing night duty. At about 0010 am accused Parikshit Singha appeared at Sanicherra PHC with a patient and inquired about the doctor on duty. Then informant Mst. Nachima Begam, the Staff Nurse on duty told accused Parikshit Singha to wait and the informant also called the doctor over telephone but suddenly accused Parikshit Singha became angry and started to damage the table and chairs of their duty room and he also slapped the informant, Mst. Nachima Begam. Both P.Ws 2 and 3 tried to stop the accused but the accused was so aggressive that he could be stopped and that time accused Parikshit Singha also pushed P.Ws. 2 and 3. In the meantime Dr. Biswabandhu Debnath reached there and then accused cooled down and went away. 14. It appears from the impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by the Ld. Trial court that as per opinion of the Ld. Trial court the prosecution could not bring home the charge under Section 427 of Indian Penal Code as the Investigating Police Officer could not produce any damaged furniture of Sanicherra PHC before the Ld. Trial court as seized material object but from the oral evidence of all the three victims and eye witnesses i.e. P.Ws 1, 2 and 3 it has been proved beyond any shadow of doubt that on the relevant date and time accused Parikshit Singha visited Sanicherra PHC with a patient and inquired about the doctor on duty to PW 1, Mst. Nachima Begam, the Staff Nurse on duty at the relevant time. Nachima Begam, the Staff Nurse on duty at the relevant time. From the oral evidence of those three prosecution witnesses it has also been proved that accused Parikshit Singha did not prevent or deter P.Ws. 1, 2 and 3 to discharge their official duties as public servants rather without any provocation from the side of those three prosecution witnesses accused Parikshit Singha suddenly became angry and started to damage the table and chairs of Sanicherra PHC and that time accused Parikshit Singha also slapped the informant-cum-victim, Mst. Nachima Begam who was carrying her pregnancy during that time. Apart from this accused Parikshit Singha also pushed P.Ws 2 and 3 without any provocation. 15. By the judgment dated 08.04.2022, the appellate court has held as follows: 'In view of the aforesaid discussion and findings, the impugned judgment and order of conviction dated 07.09.2021 passed by Ld. Chief Judicial Magistrate, North Tripura, Dharmanagar in case No. PRC(WP) 59 of 2019 is hereby confirmed and upheld only with a modification that the convict-appellant Sri Parikshit Singha shall have to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year and also to pay fine of Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand) only for committing an offence punishable under Section 3(a) of the Tripura Medicare Service Persons and Medicare Service Institutions (Prevention of Violence and Damage to Property) Act, 2013 and in default to payment of fine money the convict-appellant shall have to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of further two months instead of an offence punishable under Section 332 of the Indian Penal Code.' 16. Being aggrieved by the judgment dated 08.04.2022, the present petitioner prefers the instant revision petition before this court for the fair ends of justice. 17. After perusing the entire records placed before this court, this court is of the opinion that the conviction of one year and a fine of Rs. 50,000/- sentenced by the trial court dated 07.09.2021 which has been confirmed by the judgment and order dated 08.04.2022 of the appellate court by way of concurrent finding is modified to the extent that the period in which the petitioner-accused was in jail, the sentence is reduced to that effect and the fine of Rs. 50,000/- is set aside. 18. With the above observation, the sentence is modified and the revision is allowed in part.