IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. Criminal Appeal No. 526 of 2001. Decided on : 8.7.2008. State of Himachal Pradesh …Appellant. Versus Suresh Kumar @ Guddu & Others. ..Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting ? No.` For the Appellant : Mr. Rajinder Dogra, Additional Advocate General. For the respondents : Mr. Romesh Verma, Advocate vice Mr. O.P.Sharma, Advocate. __________________________________________________________ Rajiv Sharma, Judge (Oral) The respondents were prosecuted in Criminal case No.185-II/97 under Sections 451, 323, 506 /34 I.P.C. in the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dehra, District Kangra, H.P. and were acquitted by him on 21.12.2000. The brief facts necessary for the adjudication of this appeal gathered from the judgment of the trial Court are that on 11.10.1996 at about 9.00 P.M. accused Kailash, Punjab Singh and Suresh Chand came to the house of the complainant Shri Paras Ram (PW-1) and inquired from him about his son Billa. The complainant told that his son was not present at home. The accused persons started ______________________ 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the Judgment ? 2 beating him, his wife Leela Devi and grand son Anil Kumar with fist blows, kicks and stones as a result of which all of them suffered injuries on their person. The complainant (PW-1) raised an alarm and after hearing the noise Sh. Bishamber Dass and his wife came to the spot and saved the complainant and his family members from the accused persons. F.I.R. was lodged on the next day at 4.30 P.M. The case was investigated by S.I. Krishan Chand, SHO, Police Station Jawalamukhi. The challan was put up after the investigation was carried out. The prosecution had examined nine witnesses to prove its case. The respondents were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. The trial Court acquitted the respondents on 21.12.2000. Hence this appeal. The learned Additional Advocate General has strenuously argued that the prosecution has proved its case and the judgment dated 21.12.2000 is not sustainable in the eyes of law. Mr. Romesh Verma, Advocate vice Mr. O.P.Sharma, Advocate has supported the judgment dated 21.12.2000. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also perused the record carefully. PW-1 Sh. Paras Ram is the complainant. The incident has taken place according to him at 9.00 P.M. on 11.10.1996. However, the F.I.R. No.140/1996 was registered at Police Station, Jawalamukhi at 4.30 P.M. The distance between the Police Station and the house of the complainant is less than 2 K.M. The prosecution has not explained the delay in lodging the F.I.R. It is not per se fatal if there is any delay in lodging the F.I.R. However, the delay has to be explained satisfactorily by the prosecution. In the present case, the prosecution has failed to explain why there was inordinate delay in lodging the F.I.R. 3 PW-1 has deposed before the trial Court that he has seen the accused persons in the light. However, PW-3 and PW-4 have not supported the PW-1. PW-3 & PW-4 had categorically admitted that the accused could not be identified due to darkness. PW-1 has stated that he was entering the house when he was beaten up by the respondents. However, his wife has stated that PW-1 was already at his house. PW-1 has stated that he had no enmity with the accused persons. This version has not been supported by PW-3 and PW-4. PW6 & PW-7 independent witnesses have not supported the case of the prosecution. There are also material contradictions in the statements of PW-1, PW-3 and PW-4 the manner in which the injuries were inflicted upon them. It has also come in the statement of PW-7 that one day before the incident, PW-1 had quarrelled with the brother of accused Suresh Kumar and smashed his head. The trial Court, on the basis of the correct appreciation of the evidence, had acquitted the respondents. The trial Court has taken into consideration that the relations between the parties were not cordial. There was inordinate delay in lodging the F.I.R. by the complainant. There are material contradictions in the manner in which the injuries were inflicted upon the complainant and his family members by the accused. There are material contradictions in the statements of PW-1, PW-3 and PW-4 with regard to identification of the accused-respondents. PW-1, as noticed above, has deposed that he had identified the accused in the light. However, PW-3 & PW-4 have categorically stated that the respondents could not be identified as it was dark on the spot and it was not possible to see anyone. The judgment of the trial Court is well reasoned judgment and this Court will not interfere in the same. 4 Consequently, there is no merit in the appeal and the same is dismissed. The bail/surety bonds are discharged. ( Rajiv Sharma ), Judge. July 8, 2008. (GR)