The main legal point established in the judgment is the significance of prompt lodging of FIR and the implications of delay in the prosecution's case, leading to the benefit of doubt being given to the accused.

Sunita Gupta, J.

1. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment dated 10.05.2001 and the order of sentence dated 14.05.2001 vide which the appellants were convicted for offence punishable u/s 307/34 IPC and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for 3 years and fine of Rs.5,000/- each, in default of payment of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for 5 months.

2. The prosecution case as revealed from report u/s 173 of the Cr.P.C, 1973 is that on 15.11.1995, on receipt of DD No.82B dated 01.11.1995, SI Surender Kumar Guliya reached Maharaja Agrasen Hospital where Kamal Kumar was found admitted in the hospital. He gave a statement, inter alia, to the effect that he is doing white washing and painting work. For last one month he was working with Contractor Laxman and his brother Tejpal, resident of DDA Flats, Ranjit Nagar, near Satyam cinema. In the month of October 1995, he was doing white washing work at Ranjit Nagar, DDA Flats on the asking of the aforesaid contractors. On 29.10.1995, he demanded his dues of Rs.1,400/-. However, they told him to pay the amount whenever the same will be available, as such he did not go for work on 30/31.10.1995. On 01.11.1995, both the brothers came to his house and told him that they will settle his dues and as such he should report there for work. He along with his associate Surender Kumar Yadav who used to reside in his house and was also doing white wash work went along with the Contractors to DDA flats, Ranjit Nagar. At about 5 p.m he demanded his payment, then they asked him to paint the garder. However, he told them that since the duty hours are over, therefore, he will finish the work on the next day. But they insisted, on which he told them that in order to paint the garder, there is need of stairs otherwise it will be dangerous. However, Laxman insisted him to do the painting work by holding the railing. Despite his refusal, they did not agree and under compulsion, he started doing the painting work. At about 6 p.m, Tejpal gave a kick blow on the railing as a result of which he lost his balance. Saria of the railing got broken as a result of which, he fell down from the third floor and became unconscious. On the basis of this statement, FIR u/s 288/337 IPC was registered.

3. During the course of investigation, both the accused were arrested and a charge-sheet was submitted u/s 288/338/307 IPC. Charge for offence u/s 307/34 IPC was framed against both the appellants to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

4. In order to substantiate its case, prosecution examined seven witnesses. All the incriminating evidence appearing against the accused was put to them. They pleaded their innocence and alleged that due to strained relations, this false case has been foisted upon them. They have examined two witnesses in support of their defence. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, vide impugned judgment, both the appellants were convicted for offence u/s 307/34 IPC and sentenced as stated above. Feeling aggrieved by the same, the present appeal has been preferred by them.

5. I have heard Mr.S.C.Phogat, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms. Fizani Hussain, learned APP for the State and have perused the record. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that although the incident is alleged to have taken place on 01.11.1995, however, the FIR has been registered only on 15.11.1995. No satisfactory explanation has come on record for delay in lodging the FIR. It was submitted that Ex.PW6/DA and Ex.PW6/DB are the first statement of injured and his father wherein they have stated that while painting the garder, accidentally, his leg slipped as a result of which Kamal fell down and sustained injuries. Therefore, when on receipt of information, the SI went to the hospital, he recorded in DD No.91B that the incident had taken place accidentally and the DD was kept pending. After 15 days of deliberation, a fresh statement was given by the injured implicating the appell