***

NEERJA K. KALSON, J. –

The present revision has been filed against the judgment dated 12.11.2013 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Rewari (for short ‘Appellate Court’) whereby appeal filed by the petitioner-complainant was dismissed and the judgment of acquittal dated 29.03.2012 of learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Kosli (for short ‘trial Court’) passed in FIR No.129 dated 29.09.2006 under Sections 323, 341 and 506 IPC, Police Station Kosli, was upheld.

2. The aforesaid FIR was registered on the basis of complaint dated 22.09.2006 moved by the complainant-Murlidhar son of Shadi Ram wherein he alleged that on 16.09.2006 at about 08.30 a.m, when he was going to Bus Stand, Lukhi in connection with some personal work, he found accused Dalip Singh at the entrance of his house. The moment Dalip Singh saw him, he (accused) started hurling abuses at the complainant and then he manhandled with him. In the process, turban of the complainant got removed. He was pushed down and was threatened with dire consequences if he crossed that passage again. Meanwhile, Udai Parkash, Ramesh and Vinod reached there and saved the complainant. The complainant further alleged that on previous occasion also, the accused had maltreated him and his son but owing to his old age he had kept mum.

3. After completion of investigation, challan/report under Section 173 Cr.P.C was presented before the Area Magistrate.

4. Upon finding a prima-facie case, charges under Sections 323, 341 and 506 IPC were framed against the accused to which he did not plead guilty and claimed trial.

5. In order to prove its case, prosecution examined PW-1 Murlidhar, PW-2 Udai Parkash, PW-3 Ramesh Kumar, PW-4 SI Rampal, PW-5 Dr. Amit Yadav, PW-6 Abhey Singh and closed the evidence. 6. Statement of accused was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C wherein all the incriminating material available in the prosecution evidence was put to him, however, the accused denied the same and pleaded false implication.

7. In defence, no evidence was led by the accused.

8. After appraisal of the entire evidence, learned trial Court vide judgment dated 29.03.2012, acquitted accused-respondent No.2.

9. Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment, complainant-petitioner preferred an appeal, however, the same was dismissed vide judgment dated 12.11.2013. Hence, the present revision at the instance of the complainant.

10. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the judgments passed by both the Courts below are based on surmises and conjectures. A glance of the evidence produced by the prosecution would show that on 16.09.2006, the accused caused hurt to the complainant, pushed him down to the earth and criminally intimidated him with dire consequences. It is further contended that the prosecution is not required to meet out each and every lapse. Moreover, the accused did not lead any defence evidence to disprove the case of prosecution.

11. It is further contended that when direct evidence in the shape of evidence of injured, eye witnesses and medical evidence is present, the requirement of motive is watered down. It is also contended that in view of the fact that in the present case, a senior citizen, who was a freedom fighter, was disrespected by the accused in the public place within the public view, the case of the prosecution cannot be thrown out on the ground of absence of specific evidence with regard to motive.

12. It is also contended that the occurrence is admitted by the accused. Even PW-2 and PW-3 are the witnesses from the locality; they were not the interested witnesses and by examining them, the prosecution has discharged its burden. It is further contended that the Courts below fell in error in holding that there are discrepancies in the statements of the witnesses. In fact, the prosecution witnesses belonged to rural areas and hailing from agricultural family, therefore, minute details of the occurrence cannot be expected from them.

13. Lastly it is submitted that the Courts below adopted a hyper technical view while considering the point of delay in lodging the FIR. In fact, delay in lodging the FIR per se is not fatal to the prosecution, nor promptness in lodging of the same can be a guarantee of truth of the facts noted in the complaint. In such a situation, the Court has to scrutinise statements of the prosecution witnesses with more care and caution. A close scrutiny of statements of the prosecution witnesses shows that their evidence is trustworthy and reliable so the delay in reporting the matter to the Police pales into insignificance.

14. I have learned counsel for the petitioner and have perused the paper-book with her able assistance.

15. The first and foremost point to be noticed by this Court is the delay in registration of the FIR. The alleged incident took place at about 08:30 a.m on 16.09.2006, whereas the instant FIR was got registered on 22.09.2006. It is well settled law that delay in lodging the FIR ipso facto is not fatal to the prosecution's case, but an unexplained or inordinate delay can weaken it significantly. If the delay is not explained, it puts the Court on guard to scrutinise the statements of the prosecution witnesses to find out as to whether they are trustworthy and reliable.

16. In the present case, there is no explanation worth the name either in the complaint Ex.PW-1/A; or in the deposition made before the learned trial Court with regard to delay. The occurrence was not reported to the Police for six days. There is no fixed time limit for registering an FIR. Each case is judged on its own unique facts and circumstances. In the present case, son of complainant was a member of Block Samiti. This aspect of the matter raises a doubt in the story as propounded by the prosecution and impels this Court to find out as to whether the evidence of prosecution is reliable and trustworthy or not.

17. Keeping that aspect in mind, it is borne out from the record that a civil litigation is pending between son of the complainant and nephew of the accused. It is admitted by PW-6 SI Abhey Singh, the investigating officer of this case that he did not make any inquiry from the villagers about the incident; nor did he join any witness therefrom. He further deposed that there was political rivalry between the accused and the complainant’s son. PW-2 Udai Parkash deposed that the accused was instrumental in getting complainant’s son suspended from Block Samiti. In such circumstances, if at all, the incident as alleged by the prosecution had taken place, the complainant and his son would not have taken time of six days in lodging the FIR.

18. The argument raised by learned counsel for the petitioner-complainant that respondent No.2-accused did not prove his innocence by leading any evidence in defence is inconsequential because the burden to prove its case always lies upon the prosecution. However, this Court is in complete agreement with the argument raised by the learned counsel that when direct evidence is present, the motive takes back seat. Nevertheless, the evidence produced by the prosecution is neither trustworthy, nor impeccable when judged coupled with the fact that there is unexplained delay of six days in lodging the FIR.

19. In view of the observations made hereinabove, this Court is of the considered opinion that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable shadow of doubt. There is no flaw in the judgments passed by the Courts below. The evidence has been appreciated in a correct perspective.

20. Both the Courts below have acquitted respondent No.2/accused. It is well settled that where two views are possible, one favouring the accused and the another against the accused, the one favouring the accused should be preferred.

21. While exercising revisional jurisdiction, this Court does not find any flaw in the impugned judgments warranting interference. Consequently, the present revision petition is dismissed.

22. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.

Petition dismissed.

********