IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASHTAN, JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR. S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 34/1985 Mohan Lal Versus Bharat Kumar & Others. Date of Judgment: 21st April, 2008. Hon’ble Mr. Justice R. S. Chauhan Mr. A.K. Gupta, for the Appellants. None for the accused-respondents. BY THE COURT : The complainant, Mohan Lal, has challenged the judgment dated 18.10.84 passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge No.2, Kota, whereby the learned Judge had acquitted the accused respondents for offence under Section 323 and 324 of Indian Penal Code ('IPC' for short). The brief facts of the case are that the appellant Mohan Lal had filed a complaint before the court wherein he alleged that on 29.8.79 while he and his uncle Prithviraj (P.W.3) were going on his scooter, they were called by the accused respondents. They went to the shop of the accused-respondents. At that time Goverthan Sahai was sleeping in his shop and Mohan Lal and Govind Lal were sitting in the shop. After some discussion about Mohan Lal's sister, allegedly the accused respondents assaulted the complainant and his uncle. Allegedly, Bharat Kumar hit Prithviraj on his head with a hammer ; Govind Lal hit Prithviraj on his head with a knife; the accused Mohan Lal threw the complainant Mohan Lal on the ground and attacked him with knife on his head and on his leg; accused Goverdhan hit complainant Mohan Lal on his head with an iron pipe. Accused Bharat Kumar struck the complainant Mohan Lal with a knife over his eye. Santosh and Suresh intervened to save the complainant and his uncle. Subsequently, the complainant went to the police station to lodge, the report but the police refused to do so. Instead of registering a case, the police arrested them. Therefore, a criminal complaint was filed in the court on 29.10.79. In order to support their case the prosecution examined eight witnesses and submitted number of documents. The accused- respondents examined five witnesses in defence and also submitted the documents. After going through the oral and documentary evidence, the learned trial court acquitted the accused respondents as aforementioned. Hence this appeal by the complainant-appellant. Mr. A.K. Gupta, the learned counsel for the complainant- appellant, has argued that the learned trial court has erred in dismissing the case of the complainant on the ground that there was a delay of two months in filing the complaint and there were contradictions in the testimonies of the witnesses. According to him the said delay was explained by the complainant. The contradictions noticed by the learned trial court are minor in nature. Therefore, on the basis of said minor contradictions the accused respondents could not have been acquitted. Although the accused-respondents were served, no one has appeared on their behalf, therefore, this court does not have benefit of any assistance from their side. It is, indeed, a settled principle of criminal law that in case there are two views possible of the evidence, then the High Court should be weary of interfering with an acquittal order. A bare perusal of the testimony of Chhitar (P.W.5) and testimony of Maqsood Ahmed (P.W.6) clearly reveal that there is a contradiction on material fact. Simultaneously, there is a contradiction between the testimony of Maqsood Ahmed (P.W.6) and Mohan Lal (P.LW.1) as to who had hit Prithviraj on the head with a hammer. Similarly, there is contradiction in the testimony of Chhitar (P.W.5) and Maqsood Ahmed (P.W.6) on the point as to who had hit Prithviraj with a hammer. Since there is a contradiction within the testimonies of the witnesses on a material point, therefore, the witnesses are unreliable. Hence, the learned trial court was certainly justified in not believing the witnesses and in acquitting the accused respondents. The complainant-appellant has tried to explain the delay of two months in filing of the criminal complaint ostensibly on the ground that they were arrested by the police. However, such an explanation is a flimsy one. For, although the complainant and few other persons were arrested in the cross-case arising out of the same incident, the arrest could not have prevented any other person from their family from lodging the FIR or from filing a criminal complaint before the concerned Magistrate. Therefore, the learned trial court has rightly concluded that the delay in filing of the criminal complaint stands unexplained. For the reasons stated above, this appeal has no force. It is, hereby, dismissed. Since the accused respondents are on bail, their bail-bonds need not be forfeited. ( R.S. CHAUHAN ) J. MRG.