JUDGMENT 1. This appeal has been directed against the judgment dated 31.10.1980 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, No. 1, Bharatpur, whereby he acquitted the accused - respondents for the offences u/ss. 395 & 397 IPC. 2. Briefly the facts necessary for the disposal of this appeal are that on 1.2.1979 at about 7.00 p.m. Baijnath Saraf (PW 1) was going from his house to his shop situated near Laxman Mandir, Bharatpur, when he came near Arya Samaj School respondents Sirla, Bhima, Madho & Udaibhan along with two others, who were armed with lathies, stopped him. Respondent Sirla exhorted his companions to inflict lathi blows to kill him and also to rob him. It is alleged that Sirla & Madho inflicted one lathi blow each on the head of Baijnath. Udaibhan dealt a lathi blow on his hand and the other un-named culprits dealt lathi blows on his left thigh. It is further alleged that respondent-Sirla snatched away the gold chain while respondent-Madho forcibly took away the HMT Wrist Watch of Baijnath. On hearing the alarm raised by Baijnath, his brother-Om Prakash (PW 8) came, there. Vinod Kumar and Brij Mohan also witnessed the said incident. Due to those injuries Baijnath became unconscious. He was brought to the Government Hospital, Bharatpur. Dr. Brij Kishore Sharma (PW 4) examined him and found the following injuries on his person vide MLR Ex-. P 4:- 1. lacerated wound (oblique) 2 x 1 x 2" x 1/4 x bone deep on right frontal region of head just behind upper border of right forehead reaching midline 2. lacerated wound 1/2" x ⅛ x bone deep on left fronto-parietal region 3" above left ear 3. abrasion (vertical) 2 x 1 x 2 X 1 x 4" on lower half of right forearm. 4. contusion (red in colour) oblique 1 x 1 x 2" x 1/2" on left forearm. 5. two parallel abrasions obliquely placed 1x 1 x 2" x ⅛" and 1 x 1 x 4" x ⅛ on antro-medical aspect of lower third of left thigh. 6. swelling 2" x 1" on the back of upper third of right forearm and whole of lower third. 3. Dr. Brij Kishore informed the S.H.O., Police Station, Kotwali, Bharatpur vide is letter Ex.P 15 that Baijnath had sustained multiple injuries, that he was confused and semi-conscious and that his general condition was normal. 6. swelling 2" x 1" on the back of upper third of right forearm and whole of lower third. 3. Dr. Brij Kishore informed the S.H.O., Police Station, Kotwali, Bharatpur vide is letter Ex.P 15 that Baijnath had sustained multiple injuries, that he was confused and semi-conscious and that his general condition was normal. Since the said letter did not disclose any cognizable offence, no case was registered. However, the S.H.O., sent A.N. Mishra A.S.I., to the hospital. Since Baijnath has been given sedative drugs, the doctor informed the said ASI that Baijnath was not in a fit condition to give statement and therefore, his statement could not be recorded. 4. It is alleged that Baijnath regained consciousness on 2.2.79 at about 10.00 a.m., when his parcha bayan (Ex.P 1) was recorded by A.N. Mishra, ASI and on that basis the formal FIR (Ex.P 11) was drawn. X-ray examination of Baijnath revealed that there was no bony injury on his skull. However a fracture on the lower third of shaft of the right ulna was detected. 5. During investigation, it transpired that respondent-Sutta @ Reghupat also inflicted injuries to Baijnath Lateron the accused respondents were arrested. It is alleged that on 11.4.79 respondent-Sirla volunteered information Ex.P 12 to the effect that he had pledged the gold chain to Om Prakash-Goldsmith, which he could get recovered, But no gold chain was recovered at his instance. On the other hand the said Om Prakash Produced two pieces of gold chain before the investigation Officer, who seized them vide Recovery Memo Ex.P 10. It is further the case of the prosecution that respondent-Madho volunteered information dated 27.4.79 (Ex.P 13) to the effect that he had given one HMT Janta Wrist Watch to the proprietor of M/s. Laxmi Radio Watch Co. for its repair, which he could get recovered. Since Madho was remanded to judicial custody, the said watch could not be recovered at his instance. However on 29.4.79 a wrist watch was produced by Virendra Kumar, Proprietor-Laxmi Radio Watch Co. before the investigation Officer, which was seized vide Recovery Memo Ex.P 9. It is alleged that the said two pieces of gold chain and the HMT Wrist Watch were correctly identified by Baijnath during the test parade conducted by the Judicial Magistrate. However on 29.4.79 a wrist watch was produced by Virendra Kumar, Proprietor-Laxmi Radio Watch Co. before the investigation Officer, which was seized vide Recovery Memo Ex.P 9. It is alleged that the said two pieces of gold chain and the HMT Wrist Watch were correctly identified by Baijnath during the test parade conducted by the Judicial Magistrate. After completion of investigation, a challan was filed against the accused-respondents in the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bharatpur, who in turn committed the case to the learned Sessions Judge from where it was transferred to the learned trial Judge. 6. Charge for the offences U/ss. 359 & 379 IPC were framed against the respondents, who denied the indictment and demanded trial. To prove its case, the prosecution examined as many as 14 witnesses. The respondents in their plea recorded u/s. 313 Cr.PC denied all the circumstances appearing against them in the prosecution evidence and asserted that a false case has been foisted against them. However, no witness was examined in defence. The learned trial Judge after trial by the impugned judgment acquitted the respondents, Hence this State appeal. 7. We have heard Shri M.L. Goyal, the learned Public Prosecutor and Shri Soral the learned Advocate for the respondents at length and carefully perused the record of the trial court in extenso. We have also gone through the statements of PW 1 Baijnath and the alleged eye-witnesses Brij Mohan (PW 2), Om Prakash (PW 8) and Vinod Kumar (PW 13) as also the statements of other prosecution witnesses. We find that the statements of injured Baijnath and the alleged eye-witnesses are replete with material contradictions, significant inconsistencies and substantial improvements. The specific overt acts of individual-respondents assigned by Baijnath in his statement have not been corroborated by any other eye-witness. In our considered opinion, the learned trial Judge has discussed, analysed and evaluated the prosecution evidence in a right perspective and has not committed any error in disbelieving PWs Baijnath, Om Prakash, Brij Mohan and Vinod Kumar. The alleged incident had taken place in a busy market of Bharatpur, which was alleged to have been witnessed by many nearby shop keepers. However, the prosecution has not examined those independent shop keepers. Non-production of those independent witnesses raises an adverse inference against the prosecution. 8. The FIR in this case was lodged with delay, which was not satisfactorily explained. However, the prosecution has not examined those independent shop keepers. Non-production of those independent witnesses raises an adverse inference against the prosecution. 8. The FIR in this case was lodged with delay, which was not satisfactorily explained. Besides this, it is alleged that Siria and Madho had volunteered information U/s. 27 of the Evidence Act, in respect of the Gold Chain and the HMT Wrist Watch, but those articles were not recovered at their instance. On the other hand, two pieces of gold chain were produced by Om Prakash, while HMT Wrist Watch was produced by one Virendra Kumar of Laxmi Radio Watch Co. Those articles were also not duly sealed by the Investigation Officer. Moreover not a fringe of evidence was produced by the prosecution to show that the seals on the packets of those articles remained intact and those were not tampered with till those packets were produced before the learned Magistrate, who had conducted the test parade. Thus the test identification of those articles stands vitiated. The name of respondent Sutta does not find mention either in Parcha Bayan Ex.P 1 or even in the police statement of Baijnath Ex.D. 1. The Investigation Officer also did not care to get the test identification parade conducted in respect of respondent-Sutta. No recovery was made at the instance of Sutta. The motive of the alleged incident has also not been proved. Thus the prosecution has miserably failed to successfully bring home the offences u/ss. 395 & 397 IPC against the respondents. 9. In our considered opinion, the impugned judgment does not warrant any interference. Consequently this appeal is devoid of any force and substance and the same is hereby dismissed. The ball bonds of the respondents stand discharged. *******