JUDGMENT 1. - This is an appeal against acquittal passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge Sriganganagar on 23.4.1984. 2. I have heard the learned Public Prosecutor as well as learned counsel for the respondent Vipin Kumar. 3. The facts are as follows : Ex.P/12, statement of Sandeep Kumar was recorded in Government Hospital, Sriganganagar on 29.4.82 at about 12.30 p.m. According to it, Sandeep Kumar was living in a rented room in 113 P' Block. Sriganganagar. Anand Pandit was also living with him. Sandeep Kumar had notes of English which were given to him by Professor Talwar as he was his student. These notes were borrowed by Vipin Kumar about a month back as he was his class fellow. On the date of occurrence, i.e. 27.4.82, Sandeep Kumar went to Vipin Kumar respondent in order to obtain his notes. One Pawan Kumar son of Shri Harbhagwan Das Arora was also sitting there. Complainant asked for the notes but the accused respondent refused. Then 'complainant pressurised him and asked as to why the notes were not being returned and insisted for their return. Then respondent lost his control and said that it would be returned just now. Then he suddenly brought a Kurd' (knife) which was hanging on the wall. Then Pawan Kumar intervened but by that time Vipin Kumar, respondent, attacked on him. When Pawan Kumar intervened he also suffered two injuries on his hands. Injured Sandeep Kumar suffered injury on his chest and second injury was caused in his hand by which his fingers were injured. Police registered a case vide Ex.P/13 and his medical examination was performed which is Ex.P/5. Accused respondent was arrested on 14.5.82 and on his information weapon was recovered. Challan under Section 307 IPC was submitted which was committed to the learned Sessions Judge and then transferred to learned Additional Sessions Judge who framed charge on 2.9.82 for the offence under Section 307 and in alternative under Section 326/324 IPC. Prosecution examined as many as 12 witnesses. Then the accused respondent was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. Thereafter the learned Sessions Judge heard both the parties and acquitted the respondent as stated above. 4. Before dealing with the evidence, I will like to cite (1991) 1 SCC 166 . Prosecution examined as many as 12 witnesses. Then the accused respondent was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. Thereafter the learned Sessions Judge heard both the parties and acquitted the respondent as stated above. 4. Before dealing with the evidence, I will like to cite (1991) 1 SCC 166 . Ashok Kumar v. State of Rajasthan , wherein it has been held that while caution is the watchword, in appeal against acquittal as the trial Judge has occasion to watch demeanour of witnesses, interference should not be made merely because a different conclusion could have been arrived at. Prudence demands restraint on mere probability or possibility but in perversity or misreading, interference is imperative otherwise existence of power shall be rendered meaningless. The conclusion is that interference of High Court with trial court's decision is called for in case of perversity or misreading of evidence. 5. Learned Public Prosecutor contended that the judgment of acquittal is based on conjectures and surmises and the delay of 48 hours in lodging the FIR is explained as the complainant was admitted in hospital and he had no surviving person who could go to the police. She has also submitted that it did not matter much if the statement of Pawan Kumar was recorded late. She has, therefore, prayed that the acquittal should be set aside and the respondent be suitably punished. 6. Learned counsel for the respondent vehemently submitted that the case against respondent was not proved and that he had a specific case that Sandeep Kumar came to him alongwith Pawan Kumar and asked for the notes which he was searching out for two days. He replied so but there was a quarrel. Thereafter Sandeep took some of the books and copies of the respondent and then said that he may come with notes and get his books and copies returned. The respondent then tried to take his books and copies back but then Sandeep Kumar and Pawan Kumar caught hold of him and said that he would be killed. Then Sandeep caught him by his neck and when he wanted to get out of grapple in order to save himself, he did use the Kurd' (knife). This all happened inside the room. Therefore, according to the learned counsel for the respondent whatever has been done, it was in the self defence. Then Sandeep caught him by his neck and when he wanted to get out of grapple in order to save himself, he did use the Kurd' (knife). This all happened inside the room. Therefore, according to the learned counsel for the respondent whatever has been done, it was in the self defence. He has also submitted that there was an extra ordinary delay in lodging the report and that Sandeep could have very well gone and reported the matter to the police as he did not have any serious injury. He cited 1996 SCC (Cr.) 972, Ramesh Babulal Doshi v. State of Gujrat , and submitted that the approach of the High Court while reversing order of acquittal should be such that the High Court must examine the reasons given by the trial court for recording order of acquittal and if the High Court finds that the reasons are cogent and convincing it should not disturb the finding by reappraising the evidence. 7. On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor cited AIR 1983 SC 305 , State of Maharashtra v. Balram Bama Patil and others and submitted that it is not necessary that bodily injury capable of causing death should have been inflicted and acquittal on ground that injuries inflicted were in nature of simple hurt cannot be sustained. So I have to see as to what are the reasons of acquittal by the learned Sessions Judge and what is the evidence on record. First of all I will take up the delay in lodging the report. 8. The occurrence took place on 27.4.82 but the report Ex.P/12 came to be lodged on 29.4.82. PW-10 Sandeep Kumar has stated that his relations came on 29.4.82 who were his uncles Jagdish Chandra and Yashpal. According to Ex.P/1, which is an indoor patient ticket, he was admitted in the hospital on 27.4.82 itself and his treatment was started on the same day. It was Pawan Kumar who took him in a riksha to hospital. Sandeep Kumar has further stated that he remained unconscious in the hospital and then he reported the matter to the police on 29.4.82 when he came to senses. But Ex.P/1, indoor patient ticket, does not prove that he was unconscious till 29.4.82. It was Pawan Kumar who took him in a riksha to hospital. Sandeep Kumar has further stated that he remained unconscious in the hospital and then he reported the matter to the police on 29.4.82 when he came to senses. But Ex.P/1, indoor patient ticket, does not prove that he was unconscious till 29.4.82. However, Pawan Kumar, who is said to be an eye witness of the occurrence and who took Sandeep to the Hospital and was his friend, could have very well reported the matter to the police. When PW-11 Pawan Kumar came to the court to depose, he did not utter a single word as to why the matter was not reported to the police by him, particularly under the circumstances when he took the injured to hospital and the police station was on the way. He, of ..curse, admitted that he did not report the matter to the police but there is no explanation as to why he did not do so. The conclusion would be that the story of the accused respondent might be true. So there was no explanation of the delay in lodging the report. The learned Additional Sessions Judge did consider the point and came to the conclusion that the explanation of delay given by the prosecution was not acceptable. He was right in doing so. 9. The injury report of Sandeep Kumar, Ex.P/5, mentions that he had six injuries by sharp weapon out of which first five injuries were simple while the sixth was on the left clavicle region of the size of 21/2" X 1" and it was not of such a nature that Sandeep Kumar would have remained unconscious for 48 hours. It is on record that Sandeep Kumar was in a position to speak and the police also tried to record his statement twice but Sandeep Kumar was procrastinating it. According to PW-9 Kasiram, when he went to Sandeep Kumar to record his statement on the date of occurrence itself. Sandeep Kumar stated that he was not in a position to give any statement as he was having pain and then PW-9 Kasiram came back. On 28.4.82, Prakash Chand, ASI, went to record statement of Sandeep Kumar and then he said that he would give statement at 10 a.m. on 29.4.82. These facts were mentioned in Rojnamcha' in Ex.D/3, D/4 and D/6. On 28.4.82, Prakash Chand, ASI, went to record statement of Sandeep Kumar and then he said that he would give statement at 10 a.m. on 29.4.82. These facts were mentioned in Rojnamcha' in Ex.D/3, D/4 and D/6. The reason appears to be that the uncles of witness came on 29.4.82 and then he gave the statement on the basis of which FIR was registered. So though Sandeep Kumar was a student, he was extraordinarily smart and the police might be under some influence to procrastinate the things to 29.4.82. Even if the accused respondent has accepted the occurrence in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C., prosecution had sufficient opportunity of 48 hours to manipulate the things and record the FIR in the way that the accused respondent may be involved. The delay is definitely fatal in this case. 10. The next question is whether the occurrence took place in the way the prosecution is saying? The story of the prosecution is that the occurrence took place outside the room and the respondent attacked on Pawan Kumar thrice. Sandeep Kumar ran away from the room and even then respondent chased him and injured but the statements of Sandeep Kumar Ex.D/1 and of Pawan Kumar Ex.D/2 do not corroborate it. Statement of Pawan Kumar was recorded on 29.4.82 while the incident had already taken place on 27.4.82. The police very well knew that an incident had taken place on 27.4.82 who co-operated with Sandeep Kumar and waited to record the statement of even Pawan Kumar till the report was lodged by Sandeep Kumar. Pawan Kumar was studying in LL.B. Ilnd year in April, 1982 and I can expect that he knew as to what is FIR and what is a cognizable case. He did not report the matter to the police for the reasons that the defence version appears to be correct. He and Sandeep Kumar belong to the same village and had lived in the same room for a year or so and, therefore, they could have very well gone to the house of the respondent. The story that Pawan Kumar was already sitting in the room of Sandeep Kumar, was not found to be true by the learned Additional Sessions Judge and I concur with him. 11. It is clear from the record that Sandeep Kumar, Pawan Kumar and Vipin Kumar have been class fellows and were having good relations. The story that Pawan Kumar was already sitting in the room of Sandeep Kumar, was not found to be true by the learned Additional Sessions Judge and I concur with him. 11. It is clear from the record that Sandeep Kumar, Pawan Kumar and Vipin Kumar have been class fellows and were having good relations. The learned Additional Sessions Judge was of the view that in the circumstances it was not believable that the respondent would try to kill or cause grievous or simple hurt in the facts and circumstances of this case on a very petty matter of not returning the notes which were prepared by Professor Talwar and were given to Sandeep Kumar and which he had handed over to the respondent who was not returning them. It is evident from the cross examination of Sandeep Kumar that he had never demanded the notes from respondent on earlier occasion before the day of occurrence, rather the accused respondent had himself assured him that he was to return the notes to him and that Sandeep Kumar had agreed that he may return according to his convenience. Therefore, the learned Additional Sessions Judge was right in holding that the genesis of the occurrence was not truly stated before the Court by the complainant. 12. The defence of the accused respondent has already been narrated by me and the learned Sessions Judge was of the view on the basis of AIR 1975 SC 1674 , Puran Singh & Ors. v. State of Punjab and AIR 1975 SC 2161 , Mohan Singh v. State of Punjab that the defence of the accused respondent was true. It is settled law that when an accused has a danger to his life he can use his right of self defence. It was so done by the accused respondent in this case because the accused respondent and his friend Pawan Kumar caught hold him by neck and the accused respondent apprehended that he may be killed in this way. Not only this much, but Sandeep Kumar himself admits that he impressed upon that he would take his notes back that day and he and his friend Pawan Kumar could have very well done so what they did with the accused respondent. Not only this much, but Sandeep Kumar himself admits that he impressed upon that he would take his notes back that day and he and his friend Pawan Kumar could have very well done so what they did with the accused respondent. The learned Additional Sessions Judge was of the view that the theory of defence might be true that Sandeep Kumar tried to take away the books and copies of the accused respondent which were very material for him and, therefore, occurrence might have taken place in defence of person and property. 13. According to PW-2 Dr. Hardeep Singh, Sandeep Kumar was admitted in hospital from 27.4.82 to 26.5.82 But according to him Sandeep Kumar started taking oral diet from 30.4.82 and was in a position to walk. According to the medical evidence the tubes were removed on 7.5.82 and stitches were removed on 6.5.82 and antibiotic medicines stopped on 10.5.82. In these circumstances, perhaps there was no justification in keeping Sandeep Kumar in hospital till 26.5.82. Learned Additional Sessions Judge has come to the conclusion that the injury No.6 was not grievous one and was not sufficient to cause death and he has given very cogent reasons and I have no reason to take a different view. 14. Another important fact is that the prosecution examined PW-5 Bharat Bhushan in whose house Vipin Kumar respondent was living. The witness returned to his home in the evening and then he came to know that Sandeep Kumar and Vipin Kumar had quarrelled with each other and found blood stains on the gate of the room of Vipin Kumar. He also came to know that it was Sandeep Kumar who had first attacked on Vipin Kumar. According to him, accused respondent was a simple and gentle boy and was living in his house for more than a year. This witness was not declared hostile by the prosecution and there is no reason why his statement should not be believed. Therefore, even from his statement the defence version is further fortified. 15. There is a long distance between "may be true" and 'must be true" as settled by so many authorities of Indian Courts. I am of the view that the prosecution was not in a position to prove its case and the learned Additional Sessions Judge was right in acquitting the accused respondent. 15. There is a long distance between "may be true" and 'must be true" as settled by so many authorities of Indian Courts. I am of the view that the prosecution was not in a position to prove its case and the learned Additional Sessions Judge was right in acquitting the accused respondent. Therefore, the acquittal recorded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge is right and there is no need to interfere. 16. The result is that the appeal fails and it is hereby dismissed.> Appeal dismissed. *******