IMPORTANT POINT
FIR is not encyclopedia of events. Omissions are not fatal.

Judgment :-

S.B. Sinha, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. This appeal is directed against a judgment and order dated 27.08.2008 holding the appellant guilty for commission of offence under Section 324 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code ("IPC" for short) and sentencing him to undergo one years rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs.1,000/- only.

3. One Surendra Kumar Sehgal was a student of D.B.S. (P.G.) College. Appellant herein also was a student of B.A. Part II of the same college. On 31.1.2000, when Surendra Kumar Sehgal was entering the college through its gate to attend his N.C.C. class, appellant along with three other persons who were armed with "Khukries" (a sharp edged weapon) assaulted him on instigation made by the appellant as a result whereof he suffered five injuries, which are as under:

"i. Incised wound 6 cm x 1.0 cm muscle deep on back side of head 11 cm above right ear. This injury was fresh and it was bleeding.

ii. Incised wound 2 cm x 0.5 cm x skin deep backside of the head and 7 cm below the injury no.1 and the blood was oozing from this injury.

iii. Incised wound 5 cm x 1 cm x muscle deep, on the left of head and 6 cm above the left ear.

iv. Incised wound 2.5 cm x 1.1. cm x muscle deep. In the left upper forearm of index finger of left hand from which blood is coming out.

v. Incised wound 2 cm x 1 cm x muscle deep on the side of middle finger of left hand and blood is coming out this."

4. Appellant was tried for commission of an offence under Sections 307, read with Section 34 of the IPC along with Surendra @ Sonu, Manoj @ Monu and Hargopal. Surendra and Manoj are brothers of the appellant whereas Hargopal is their maternal uncle.

5. The learned trial judge recorded a judgment of conviction finding the accused persons guilty of commission of offence under Section 324 read with Section 34 of the IPC.

However, by reason of the impugned judgment whereas the other accused, namely, Surendra, @ Sonu, Manoj @ Monu & Hargopal were given the benefit of doubt, the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the learned trial judge as against the appellant was upheld. However, his sentence was reduced to rigorous imprisonment for one year from three years.

6. Mr. Sanjeev Bhatnagar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant would urge:

(i) On a plain reading of the First Information Report ("FIR" for short) it would appear that the appellant was not armed with any "Khukri"; no overt act was attributed to him and his involvement in the matter both in regard to possession of an arm as also an instigation to others to assault him being an outcome of improvement in the depositions of the complainant before the court, the impugned judgment is liable to be set aside.

(ii) Out of four accused, three having been acquitted, appellant in any event could not have convicted with the aid of Section 34 of the IPC.

7. Mr. Jatinder Kumar Bhatia, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State, on the other hand, would support the impugned judgment.

8. The occurrence took place at about 1.00 p.m. on 31.1.2000. The FIR was lodged on the same day at about 3.15 p.m. The statement of the informant was recorded by the Investigating Officer. It was hand written. Before us, the finding of fact arrived at by both the courts below that the informant received injuries inflicted on him by "Khukri (s)" is not in dispute. It also stands admitted that the first informant was assaulted with a sharp edged weapon by more than one person. In the FIR, it had categorically been stated that the appellant along with three others who were armed with "Khukri" accosted him at about 1O clock when he entered in the College through a gate.

9. It is also not in dispute that he sustained injuries on his head as also on his hand. He named Narendra Singh (P.W.1) as one of the eye-witnesses. He, however, was declared hostile. It has, however, not been disputed that the said Narendra Singh and one Shailly brought him to the hospital. He claimed to have