JUDGMENT Arun Kumar Goal, J. (Oral): Heard learned counsel for the parties and I have also gone through the records of this case. 2. State has filed this appeal against the judgment passed by Shri Rajeev Bhardwaj, Judicial Magistrate 1st Class (4) Shimla, dated 9-4-1990. By means of impugned judgment, respondent has been acquitted of the charges under Sections 325 and 323, I.P.C. in case No. 28-2 of 1987. 3. Shri M.L. Chauhan, learned Assistant Advocate General urged in support of the appeal that the trial court has fallen into error by considering the delay in lodging the F.I.R. as fatal as well as by talking minor omissions/discrepancies in the statements of PWs 1 to 3 and 6. According to Shri M.L. Chauhan the so called omissions/contradictions in the statements of the prosecution witnesses were of such a character which did not require throwing out the case of the prosecution. Similarly, on the matter relating to delay on which the complaint has been dismissed, it was urged by Shri M.L. Chauhan that delay has been sufficiently explained in the present case and in no case it can be made a ground for rejection of the entire case of the prosecution. These submissions prima facie appear to be quite attractive but when tested with reference to the evidence and the submissions made on behalf of the respondent by the learned counsel, appear to have been raised simply to be rejected. 4. In order to properly understand, a few facts giving rise to this appeal need to be noticed. It is not in dispute that the incident is of 21-5-1989 at about 10 A.M. and FIR (Ex. PW-5/A) has admittedly been lodged on 25-5-1989. It is further case of the prosecution that the husband of the injured PW-1 Smt. Hansu Devi had gone to Kunihar for purchase of bull on 18-5-1989 and he came back on 23-5-1989. Further case of the PW-1 was that after incident she had gone to the police Station along with her brother-in-law Krishan Singh when the police refused to lodge the complaint by holding out that it was only to be lodged after her husband arrives. This incident of giving simple as well as grevious hurt by the respondent to PW-1 was witnessed according to prosecution by PW-2 Hem Raj and PW-3 Gita Devi. This incident of giving simple as well as grevious hurt by the respondent to PW-1 was witnessed according to prosecution by PW-2 Hem Raj and PW-3 Gita Devi. PW-4 Sanjeev Sharma and PW-6 Atul Mahajan have medically examined the injured PW-1 and the case was investigated by PW-7 Kanshi Ram, Investigating Officer. 5. Admittedly, Krishan Singh with whom in the first instance PW-1 went to Police Station immediately after incident for lodging the F.I.R. has not been produced, why and on what reasons, no explanation has come forth. When PW-7 Investigating Officer appeared, his statement indicates that none had come for lodging the complaint, as such, in the absence of there being any corroboration, the statement of PW-1 in this behalf does not inspire confidence and deserves to be rejected on this aspect of the case. PW-1 has stated on oath that her clothes were stained with blood and these were shown by her to the police, but when a reference is made to the statement of PW-7 as well as FIR Ex. PW- 5/A, a total different version comes forth. It has come in the F.I.R. that FIR was not lodged on 21-5-1989 when the said PW-1 claims to have visited the Police Station along with her brother- in-law due to the fact that she was having no pain and therefore the complaint was not lodged on that day. This further belies her claim that police refused to lodge the complaint or held out that it would only be lodged after her husband comes. In case her husband was not there, then she could have accompanied other members or her family viz PW-2 Hem Raj who is admittedly a member of her family to have lodged the complaint. In the face of this position lodging of delayed FIR vide Ex. PW-5/A i.e. after four days of the incident assumes significance. 6. No doubt that FIR is not a substantive piece of evidence but still the maker thereof can be confronted with what had been stated therein and in a given situation in the absence of proper explanation coming forth, the Court has to appreciate the weight to be attached to the FIR in question. In the background of this case, the possibility of the delayed FIR that too after a lapse of four days being the result of deliberations and consultations cannot be completely ruled out. In the background of this case, the possibility of the delayed FIR that too after a lapse of four days being the result of deliberations and consultations cannot be completely ruled out. That being so, the very basis of this case, lodging of FIR falls to the ground. 7. So far injuries sustained by PW-1 are concerned, the possibility of those having been sustained on account fall being there also does not advance the case of the prosecution. Except family members, no attempt was made by the investigating agency to ask for some other and independent corroborative evidence to show that the incident had in fact taken place. 8. Prosecution case needs to be examined from another aspect that in case husband of PW-1, complainant (i.e. PW-5) had arrived on 23- 5-1989 as held out by the injured PW-1, then in the ordinary course of things the complaint ought to have been lodged on that very day. Instead of doing so promptly the matter was dragged for another two days, it was thereafter the FIR was lodged on 25- 5-1989, that being so the prosecution case becomes doubtful. 9. Faced with the aforesaid situation, Shri M.L. Chauhan made a feeble attempt to persuade the Court by referring to the entire prosecution evidence and persisted that despite the above said discrepancies in the prosecution evidence, which are minor in nature, even then the appeal deserves to be allowed. This argument is without any merit and is hereby rejected. 10. No other point has been urged. 11. As a result of the aforesaid discussion, it is obvious that there is no merit in this appeal which is dismissed accordingly.