Crl.A. 197/2010 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE H. BARUAH JUDGMENT AND ORDER(ORAL) 1. Heard Mr. M.U. Mondal, learned counsel appearing for the appellant as we ll as Mr. Hirendra Kashyap, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.2 to 6. Also heard Mr. K. Munir, learned Addl. P.P. appearing for the State responde nt No.1. 2. Feeling aggrieved by the acquittal of the respondent Nos.2 to 6 by impug ned judgment and order dated 31.8.2010 from the charges under Section 147/294/32 3/506 IPC, the appellant has preferred this appeal challenging the acquittal con tending inter-alia therein that the learned trial Judge committed error and ille galities in acquitting the respondents from the charges. 3. The brief facts involved in this appeal are that on 2.7.2009 at 6.00 P.M . while the complainant (PW-1) was on the road for his home, the respondent Nos. 2 to 6 suddenly restrained him on the road being armed with lathi and dao and as saulted him with hands. However, he managed to flee away from the place and took shelter in the house of one Mahendra Barman. The respondents had been to the ho use of Mahendra Barman and tried to assault him there also. Hullah being raised, his (PW-1) wife (PW-2) and daughter (PW-3) arrived at the p lace of occurrence and while they were returning Home with the complainant (PW-1 ), the respondents on the way abused his wife and daughter and assaulted them. O n arrival of the villagers at the place of occurrence, the respondent Nos.2 to 6 fled away therefrom. Being thus assaulted and humiliated by the respondents, on 7.7.2009, the complainant (PW-1) filed the complaint before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kokrajhar was made over to the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Ma gistrate for disposal. After enquiry under Section 202 CrPC cognizance was taken against the respondents under Sections 147/249/323/506 IPC. 4. To substantiate the charges, the complainant brought witnesses into the witness box including himself. The respondents, however, did not examine any wit ness nor produced any document in support of their case and after examination of the respondents under Section 313 CrPC, the Trial Court finding no evidence acq uitted all the respondents from the charges. 5. From the facts and the evidence on record it appears that the alleged occurrence took place in two phases, (1) while the complainant, (PW-1) was comin g from Tulshibil Bazar to his residence and (2) while he was returning home alon g with his wife and daughter from the house of one Mahendra Barman in whose hous e he (PW-1) had taken shelter. The learned trial Judge while examining the evide nce of the PW-1 and the other witness came to finding that the evidence on recor d could not make out a case under the charges as leveled against the respondents . The evidence of PWs is very much categorical that while PW-1 was returning hom e with his wife and daughter (PW-2 and PW-3) respondents on the way assaulted PW -2 and PW-3. He also stated in his evidence further that while he was in the res idence of Mahendra Barman, his wife and daughter came there and reported him tha t they were assaulted by the respondents. Therefore, in view of the evidence of PW-1 and also in view of the evidence of PW-5, the learned trial Court took the view that neither of the evidence of PW-1 nor the evidence of PW-5 can be believ ed in the context of assault on PW-2 and PW-3 by the respondents. On this score alone, the learned trial Judge did not agree with the evidence on record as proj ected and took a view that the evidence is insufficient to record conviction aga inst the respondents under the charges. 6. In regard to the delay that occurred in the lodgment of the complainant before the Chief Judicial Magistrate though there appears an explanation in the complaint that in order to settle the dispute between the parties an attempt for amicable settlement at the village level was made no evidence is adduced to tha t effect A mere statement that an attempt was made to settle the dispute in betw een the parties amicably at the village level would not be enough to explain the delay in filing the complaint. In order to explain the delay in filing the comp laint, on the point as projected by the complainant, the complainant ought to ha ve adduced evidence to that effect by examining some of the villagers who were i nvolved in the settlement at the village level. Since, no evidence is forthcomin g to justify the delay in the lodgment of the complaint before the Chief Judicia l Magistrate, there is every possibility of the concoction, manipulation and emb ellishment. The occurrence had taken place on 2.7.2009 and the complaint was lod ged on 7.7.2009. It appears delay of five days. This Court therefore, finds that the complainant (PW-1) was unable to explain the delay properly in the lodgment of the complaint before the Chief Judicial Magistrate. 7. In regard to the evidence of PW-1, in the context of admissibility, it w ould be appropriate for this Court to marshal it. He stated before the trial Jud ge on oath that being chased by the respondents, he took shelter in the house of Mahendra Barman. He was there for about two hours together and while he was the re, his wife and daughter came and informed him about their assault by the respo ndents. Therefore, the factum of assault on PW-2 and PW-3 by the respondents as claimed by the PW-1 while returning home cannot be believed in view of his own t estimony and also in view of the evidence of PW-5. Purna Barman’s categorical ev idence is that while he was coming from Bazar, he witnessed assault on PW-2 and PW-3 by the respondents. But this witness never stated before the Trial Court th at PW-2 and PW-3 was also accompanied by PW-1. Therefore, in view of evidence of PW-1 that his wife and daughter was assaulted while they were returning home fr om the house of one Manabendra Barman cannot be relied on and accepted. 8. The learned Trial Court, therefore, took a view that neither of the evid ence of PW-5 nor the evidence of PW-1 can be believed. It also took a view that there was ample scope for the complainant (PW-1) to introduce some new facts du ring the intervening period (2.7.2009 to 7.7.2009). 9. The criminal jurisprudence requires of that every charge against an accu sed is required to be proved beyond all reasonable doubt. From the meticulous pe rusal of evidence on record we would find that the evidence of the witnesses can not be believed for the purpose of recording conviction against the respondents. If evidence of some one is to be believed, evidence of the some other shall hav e to be dis-believed. This Court therefore, finds no ground to interfere within the impugned judgment and order. 10. This Court finds no merit in this appeal. Accordingly, the same is dismi ssed.