IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA Cr.A.No.210 of 2001 Reserved on 4.1.2008 Date of decision 10.1.2008 State of H.P. Appellant Versus Ram Pal alias Pala and others Respondents Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the appellant: Mr.M.A.Khan & Ms.Meenakshi Sharma, Deputy Advocate Generals. For the respondents: Mr.N.K.Thakur, Advocate, Rajiv Sharma,J. The respondents were prosecuted in a Criminal Case No. 132/2 of 1996 under Sections 452, 323, 324,506 read with Section 34 of the I.P.C. in the court of Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Bilaspur and were acquitted on 30.10.2000. The brief facts which can be culled out from the judgment of the trial court are that Hari Om Dutt a resident of Village Beri Rajadian had reported the matter to the police on 16.8.1995 that on 15.8.1995 at about 10.30 p.m. he and his younger brother Tilak Raj were sitting in their shop at Beri Rajadian when the accused came to their shop and started giving filthy abuses to the complainant and his brother. The accused persons entered the shop and gave beatings to the complainant and his brother Tilak Raj. Consequently, FIR was registered i.e. Ex. PW-3/A and the matter was investigated. The challan was put up. The prosecution had examined six witnesses to prove its case. The accused were examined under Section 313 Cr. P.C. The accused were acquitted by the trial Court 1 Whether reporter of local papers is allowed to see the judgment? No 2 on 30.10.2000. The State has filed this appeal against the judgment dated 30.10.2000. The learned Deputy Advocate General had strenuously argued that the prosecution has proved the case against the respondents. He further contended that the trial court had mis-appreciated the evidence on record, resulting in miscarriage of justice. Mr. N.K.Thakur, learned counsel appearing for the respondents had supported the judgment dated 30.10.2000. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record carefully. The incident is dated 15.8.1995. The FIR Ex. PW-3/A was registered at the instance of the complainant PW-3 Hari Om Dutt on 16.8.1995. There is no explanation why the FIR has been registered on the second day that too at 4 p.m. In normal circumstances the FIR should have been lodged immediately after the incident. The distance between the spot where the incident took place and police station is 1 ½ kilometers. It has come in the FIR Ex.PW-3/A lodged at the behest of the complainant that he and his brother were sitting in the shop when they were attacked by the accused on 15.8.1995. However, in his statement PW-3 had stated that on 15.8.1995 accused Ram Pal along with other accused persons came to the shop and started beating him. PW-4 Tilak Raj had stated that he was sitting in the shop at 10.30 p.m. on 15.8.95 when he came to know that the accused persons had picked up quarrel with his brother and thereafter he proceeded to the spot. PW-3 had disclosed before the Police at the time of the registration of the FIR that he and his brother were sitting at their shop when they were given beatings by Ram Pal and his companions. This casts doubt about the prosecution story. There is variance in the contents of the FIR Ex.PW-3/A and the statements of PW- 3 and PW-4 which cannot be reconciled. The version of PW-5 can also not be relied upon in view of the variance in the statements of PW3 and 3 PW-4 vis-à-vis Ex.PW-3/A. The trial court after noticing inconsistencies, discrepancies and contradictions in the evidence brought on record by the prosecution has rightly acquitted the respondents. Consequently the prosecution has failed to prove the case against the respondents. There is no merit in this appeal and the same is accordingly dismissed. The bail bonds furnished by the respondents are discharged. January 10, 2008 (g) ( Rajiv Sharma ), J