A.C. Upadhyay, J.

1. Accused revision-Petitioner was put on trial for commission of offence under Section 326, IPC read with Section 34, IPC together with three other co-accused. On conclusion of the trial before learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Kailashahar, the Petitioner together with other co-accused were convicted under Section 326, IPC read with Section 34 and sentenced to suffer R.I. for 3 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/- in default payment of fine to suffer S.I. for 6 months. The aforesaid judgment of the trial Court was carried on appeal before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, North Tripura, Kailashahar whereby the appellate Court acquitted all the co-accused except the Petitioner and maintained the conviction and sentence imposed on the Petitioner by the trial Court.

2. I have heard arguments advanced by Ms. N. Guha, learned Counsel appearing for the revision-Petitioner and Mr. R.C. Debnath; learned Special Public Prosecutor representing the State of Tripura.

3. The facts, leading to filing of this Re-vision Petition, may be stated, in brief, as follows:

On 16-1-1997 at about 6 p.m., the victim namely, Kripesh Dey was at Bairatal Bazar. The accused persons jointly attacked him with dagger causing bleeding injury on the right side at the back behind the abdomen. When the victim was allegedly stabbed with dagger by accused Jitendra Malakar from behind he was held up by other co-accused. The victim was shifted to Kanchanbari hospital immediately after the occurrence and later on, he was shifted to R.G.M. hospital at Kailashahar, for medical treatment. However, the FIR was lodged in Fatikroy P.S. on 18-1-1997 i.e. after two days from the date of incident. On the basis of the said FIR, a case was registered arid investigation was launched. On completion of the investigation, the investigating: officer submitted charge-sheet under Section 326 read with Section 34, IPC.

4. On conclusion of the trial, the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Kailashahar convicted all the accused persons under Section 326/34, IPC arid sentenced them as aforesaid.

5. The judgment and Order passed by the learned trial Court was carried on appeal before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kailashahar, North Tripura, wherein except the accused-Petitioner, all the remaining accused persons were acquitted. Learned Counsel appearing for the accused-Petitioner emphasized, mainly on the fact of identification of the accused-Petitioner with the help of "kupi lamp" (a small kerosene lamp with wick), which was placed far away from the place of occurrence. Learned Counsel further emphasised on the fact that the kupi lamp, which was the source of light for the purpose of recognizing the accused-Petitioner at night was not seized by the police during investigation.

6. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner further submitted that-two days delay in lodging the FIR is fatal to the prosecution case. Though some explanation has been given for delayed submission of the FIR but the reason so given is not cogent and reliable since the first informant, on many occasions, passed through the police station where he could have lodged the FIR. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner further contended that evidence of the witnesses regarding the incident of occurrence is not direct evidence and the injured at no point of time reported the witnesses regarding the assault made on him by the accused-Petitioner. Therefore, the statement of witnesses, who reported to have heard the name of the accused-Petitioner from the victim, would only be hearsay evidence, which is not admissible in evidence.

7. By drawing the attention of this Court to the statement of P.W. 6 and P.W. 3, learned Counsel for the accused-Petitioner submitted that there are material contradictions in the evidence of these witnesses, which cuts at the root of prosecution story and as the mode of identification is hot indicated by the victim in his evidence, Learned Counsel further pointed out tha