The judgment emphasizes the importance of satisfactorily explaining delays in lodging FIRs, consistency and reliability in witness statements, and the need for conclusive medical evidence in criminal cases.

Nirmal Singh, J. - This appeal is directed against judgment/order dated March 9, 1992 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Ferozepore vide which the appellant has been convicted and sentenced as under :

Suba Singh 307 Indian Penal Code To undergo RI for 3-1/2 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 2500/- or in default to undergo RI for two months.

2. The case of the prosecution is that on 4.4.1990 at about 10.00 P.M. Mal Singh (PW3), along with his brother Swaran Singh (PW4), was taking meals. Someone from outside their house abused their father Harnam Singh calling by name. Mal Singh and his brother Swaran Singh came up of the house and found Suba Singh and Boota Singh present there. Suba Singh appellant had a gandasa while Boota Singh was empty handed. Suba Singh again abused and challenged them to come out of the house. Thereupon, Swaran Singh asked them to restrain from abusing and told them to go their house. In the meantime, his father Harnam Singh and his brother also came there. Boota Singh caught hold of Mal Singh and Suba Singh gave a gandasa blow on the head of Swaran Singh on the left side. Swaran Singh fell down on the ground and raised raula "Mar Ditta Mar Ditta" by his father Harnam Singh and his brother Kaka Singh, on which the accused ran away from the spot with their respective weapon of offence. Swaran Singh was removed to the Civil Hospital, Gurharshahai on the next day i.e. on 5.4.1990 where he was referred to Civil Hospital, Ferozepore and was medico- legally examined on 5.4.1990 at about 9.40 A.M. ASI Kartar Singh recorded the statement of Swaran Singh injured but he was found unfit to make statement on that day. ASI recorded the statement of Mal Singh on 8.4.1990 Exhibit PW3/A on the basis of which FIR Exhibit PW5/C was recorded.

3. After completion of the investigation, challan was presented before the Ilaqa Magistrate. As the case was exclusively triable by the Court of Session, the same was sent to the said Court and ultimately the case was entrusted to Additional Sessions Judge, Ferozepore for trial.

4. From the persual of the documents relied upon by the prosecution, the appellant was charge-sheeted under Section 307 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

5. To prove its case, the prosecution examined PW1 Dr. M.L. Narang, Medical Officer, who on 5.4.1990 at about 9.40 A.M., medico-legally examined Swaran Singh son of Harnam Singh, 20 years old male, resident of village Ranjitgarh and found the following injury on his person :

"An incised wound 7 cm x 1 cm x bone deep on the left side of the head. The wound started 10 cm above the medial end of left eyebrow ran longitudinally backward. Blood clot was present. X-ray was advised."

The injury was kept under observation. The patient was conscious.

6. PW2, Dr. Ashok Kumar Bhagat Radiologist, Civil Hospital, Ferozepore, who x-rayed Swaran Singh and opined that there was depressed fracture of the left side of parietal bone. PW3 Mal Singh is the complainant and eye-witness of the occurrence. PW4 Swaran Singh is an injured witness. PW5 ASI Kartar Singh is the investigator of this case.

7. When the appellant was examined under Section 313 Criminal Procedure Code to explain the incriminating circumstances appearing against him in the prosecution evidence, he denied simpliciter and alleged false implication. When the appellant was called upon to lead evidence in defence, he did not examine any witness.

8. After appreciating evidence on record, the learned Additional Sessions Judge believed the prosecution version and convicted and sentenced the appellant as stated in para No. 1 of the judgment. Aggrieved by which, the present appeal has been preferred.

9. Shri M.S. Sidhu, learned counsel for the appellant, assails the judgment of the learned trial Court on the ground that the trial Court has not appreciated the evidence on record in right perspective. He submitted that there is a delay in lodging the FI