The delay in lodging the FIR was explained by medical evidence and police procedures, leading to the rejection of the appellant's claim for benefit of doubt.

Manjari Nehru Kaul, J.

The instant appeal has been filed by the accused-appellant Jagdish Kumar @ Laddu against the impugned judgment dated 10.01.2013 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Kapurthala vide which he was convicted and sentenced as under:-

U/s 450 IPC :	To undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 4 years and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- or in default of payment of fine, to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for a period of 6 months.
U/s 326 IPC :	To undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 3 years and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- or in default of payment of fine, to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for a period of 6 months.
U/s 324 IPC :	To undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 2 years.
U/s 323 IPC :	z To undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 6 months.

2. Briefly stated, the prosecution story is that on the intervening night of 22.07.1997 and 23.07.1997, injured Manoj Kumar while sleeping on the roof of his house, was inflicted blows with sharp edged weapon on the rear side of his neck and right cheek by an assaulter. On infliction of the said injuries when he was awakened, he saw accused-appellant Jagdish Kumar @ Laddu standing besides him with a kohari. The appellant then inflicted one more blow of kohari which hit on the back side of the neck of Manoj Kumar. On hue and cry being raised by Manoj Kumar, his mother, who was nearby, was awakened. In the meanwhile, the appellant after throwing the kohari, fled from the spot. Injured Manoj was removed to the local hospital by his relatives soon thereafter and later on he was referred to DMC Hospital, Ludhiana. The motive behind this occurrence was that about 6 months' prior to this occurrence, there had been an altercation between the uncle of injured Manoj Kumar and the appellant. The appellant had since then been nursing a grudge against the complainant party. Since the injured Manoj was declared unfit to make a statement by the attending doctor, his statement could be recorded on 27.07.1997, wherein he gave the aforesaid detailed account.

3. The prosecution in support of its case relied primarily on the evidence of PW-1 Dr. Sanjeev Uppal, PW-2 Manoj Kumar (complainant) PW-3 Dr. Prabhdeep Singh Nain, PW-4 Dr. Kailash Kapur, PW-5 Roshan Lal and PW-6 SI Ranjit Singh.

4. The prosecution case was put to the accused-appellant and his statement was recorded under Section 313 of Code of Criminal Procedure. The accused-appellant denied the allegations levelled against him and pleaded false implication.

5. In defence, the appellant-accused examined DW-1 and C-1 Baljit Singh.

6. The trial Court relying on the evidence of the prosecution witnesses convicted and sentenced the accused-appellant as already mentioned above.

7. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned State counsel besides going through the record.

8. Learned counsel for the appellant vehemently urged that the learned trial Court was in error in not appreciating that there was an unexplained delay in lodging of the instant FIR and for which the benefit of doubt should have gone to the accused-appellant as the delay was used to fabricate a false version against the accused-appellant.

9. I have given my anxious consideration to the same but I am unable to agree to the submissions of the learned counsel for the appellant as it has come in the testimony of PW-4 Dr. Kailash Kapur, Medical Officer, Civil Hospital, Phagwara that on 23.07.1997, injured Manoj Kumar PW-2 was medically examined by him and after giving the necessary emergency treatment, he was referred to Civil Hospital, Ludhiana for further management. Not only this, this witness has further stated that vide Ex. PH (reference chit), he had passed on the information about injured Manoj Kumar having been brought to