1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR. O R D E R State of Rajasthan vs. Ghanshyam & Ors. S.B. Criminal Leave to Appeal No.52/2009 under Section 378(i)& (iii) Cr.P.C. against the judgment dated 08.08.2007 passed by Shri Sandeep Kumar Sharma, RJS, Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate No.1, Hindaun City in criminal case no.943/02(new number 484/03). Date of Order ::::: February 27,2009 Present HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE BHANWAROO KHAN Mrs. Rekha Madnani, P.P. The facts relevant for the disposal of this criminal leave to appeal in short are that on 24.4.2000 complainant Sadhu Ram lodged a report with the police with the averments that on 18.4.2000 accused respondents Ghanshyam came at his house and hurlled abuses and when he asked him not to do so and to go away from there then accused Ram Dayal, Dal Chand, Chaturbhuj and Babu Lal armed with lathi came there and gave beting to him. The interveners i.e. his wife Sushila, 2 sons Hemendra and Bhagwan were also beaten. On the basis of this complaint the police registered a case under Sections 147, 323, 504 and 451 IPC and after investigation submitted a negative final report for the other offences with the opinion that only offence under Section 323 IPC is made out. The complainant then filed a protest petition and the learned trial court took cognizance under Sections 323 and 451 IPC and trial proceeded. Substance of charge under Sections 323 and 451 IPC was readover to the accused to which they denied and claimed trial. To prove its case the prosecution examined five witnesses only and rest of the prosecution witnesses did not appear despite sufficient time being given to the prosecution. In their statements under Section 313 Cr.P.C. the accused respondents denied the allegations. However, no witness was examined in defence. The trial court after hearing the parties analysing the entire evidence produced by the prosecution by the impugned judgment dated 8.8.2997 acquitted all the accused respondents of the charges levelled. Hence, this leave to appeal by the State of Rajasthan. Heard learned P.P. and perused the impugned judgment. 3 The incident is of 18.4.2000 and the report was lodged on 24.4.2000. Thus, it is clear that there is delay of 6 days in lodging the report but there is no satisfactory explanation about this delay. The complainant submitted two injury reports and as per the statement of the complainant Sadhu Ram PW.1, the doctor who prepared the injury reports only obtained his signatures on blank papers. The other witnesses are the wife and sons of the complainant. The medical officer who prepared the injury reports has not been produced. The injury reports also prepared on 24.4.2000. After analysing the entire evidence of the prosecution, the material contradictions in the statements of the prosecution witnesses and also in absence of any independent witness coupled with inordinate unexplained delay in reporting the matter to the police, I am of the opinion that the learned trial court has reached at a right conclusion and no interference in the judgment of acquittal is required. Consequently, leave to appeal is refused and this leave to appeal is, dismissed. (Bhanwaroo Khan),J. bairwa