JUDGMENT M.R. Verma, J.—Feeling aggrieved by the judgment dated 19.12.1994 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Una whereby the accused-respondent (hereinafter referred to as the accused) has been acquitted of the charge under Section 324, IPC, the State has preferred the present appeal. 2. Briefly stated, the case of the prosecution is that on 28.7.1991 at about 8 p.m., PW-3 Ram Pal was called by the accused and was taken to his house. The accused is stated to have made said Ram Pal to take liquor to the extent that he fell unconscious. In the state of unconsciousness, the clothes of PW Ram Pal were removed by the accused and acid was sprinkled on his body leading to sustaining of injuries by said Ram Pal. When he started crying "Jal Gaya", his wife PW-1 Neelam Kumari went to the spot and brought him to their house with the help of certain other persons who had gathered there on hearing her cries, who also saved said Neelam Kumari and Ram Pal from Kishori Lal who had attempted to strangulate PW-1 Neelam Kumari. On July 29, 1991, PW-2 Ram Pal was admitted in hospital at Una. The matter was reported by PW-1 Neelam Kumari vide complaint Ex. PW-1/A addressed to the Deputy Commissioner, Una and copies thereof were endorsed to C.M.O., Una and Superintendent of Police, Una. On the basis of this complaint, finally FIR Ex. PW-9/A under Section 326, IPC came into being in Police Station, Una. On investigation, the Una police found that the accused has committed an offence punishable under Section 326, IPC, therefore, submitted a charge sheet against the accused, who came to be tried by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Una, who framed the charge under Section 324, IPC instead of Section 326, IPC. Finally, the accused was acquitted by the impugned judgment. Hence this appeal. 3. I have heard the learned Deputy Advocate General and the learned Counsel for the accused. 4. It may be pointed out at the very outset that the evidence brought on record renders the prosecution version as a bundle of improbabilities and self contradictory facts. 5. Finally, the accused was acquitted by the impugned judgment. Hence this appeal. 3. I have heard the learned Deputy Advocate General and the learned Counsel for the accused. 4. It may be pointed out at the very outset that the evidence brought on record renders the prosecution version as a bundle of improbabilities and self contradictory facts. 5. PW-1 Neelam Kumari, the complainant has clearly and unambiguously admitted that since the date of her marriage, the family of her husband and the family of the accused are not on speaking terms and till date, they are engaged in civil and criminal litigation and that her husband PW-2 Ram Pal is a dead drunkard. PW-5 Harbansi Devi is the mother of the alleged victim. She has also admitted in her cross-examination that her family is not on speaking terms with the family of the accused for the last 30 to 40 years and that civil and criminal litigation between there two families is going on, which was still on even at the time of the allgeged occurrence. PW-3 Ram Pal has also clearly admitted that the family of his father and the family of the father of the accused are not on speaking terms since long and the litigation between them is going on. Thus, it is the case of the most material witnesses in this case, i.e. the victim, his wife and his mother that the family of the accused and family of the complainant are not on speaking terms with each other. If that is so, it is improbable that the accused would have called PW-2 Ram Pal and then taken him to his house. This circumstances, in itself, is sufficient to hold that the version that the accused called the victim Ram Pal to his house with a view to get the cracks in his house repaired, is simply a fabricated version. 6. The second most important part of the matter which is also fatal to the case of the prosecution is that PW-2 Ram Pal was, admittedly, taken to the hospital at Una and was admitted there. His MLC Ex. PW-7/A issued by PW-7 Dr. S.P. Kanwar specifically mentions that the injuries were allegedly sustained by Ram Pal from a stove while he was boiling the milk for the kids on 28.7.1991. His MLC Ex. PW-7/A issued by PW-7 Dr. S.P. Kanwar specifically mentions that the injuries were allegedly sustained by Ram Pal from a stove while he was boiling the milk for the kids on 28.7.1991. What lends credibility to this version is the further endorsement on this certificate at the back, Ex. DA, wherein it has been mentioned that the burn injuries sustained by the patient i.e. PW Ram Pal were caused by stove/ boiling milk, as told by the patient himself. These contents of the MLC Ex. PW-7/A and endorsement Ex. DA are duly supported by PW-7 Dr. S.P. Kanwar and PW-11 at the time of their statements in the Court. There is no explanation whatsoever as to why the version as contained in the MLC and supported by these two witnesses that the injuries were sustained by PW-2 Ram Pal due to stove and the boiling milk is to be disbelieved when this version, according to the contents of the document, has been given by Ram Pal himself. What can be inferred from this circumstance is that PW Ram Pal sustained injuries from a stove while boiling milk thereon. However, in view of the enmity between his family and the family of the accused for the last not less than 40 years, a false case was made out against the accused with a view to implicate him for causing these injuries and, thus, settle scores with him. 7. The above conclusion is further strengthened by the fact that in case the injuries were caused to Ram Pal as alleged by the prosecution, the matter could have been reported to the police at once or at least at the time when he was taken to the hospital and was examined by the doctor, had he stated there that injuries were sustained by him because of the sprinkling of acid on him by the accused. However, complaint Ex. PW-1/A addressed to the Deputy Commissioner and copies whereof were endorsed to the Chief Medical Officer and Superintendent of Police, Una though does not bear the date, but appears to have been received in the office of the Deputy Commissioner on 1.8.1991, meaning thereby that the alleged occurrence was reported to the Deputy Commissioner on the 4th day of the alleged occurrence. 8. Such delay, unless explained by the prosecution, in itself, will be fatal to the case of the prosecution. 8. Such delay, unless explained by the prosecution, in itself, will be fatal to the case of the prosecution. There is nothing on record which may be treated as a reasonable explanation of this inordinate delay in reporting the incident to the police and, thus, this unexplained delay in reporting the incident is. also fatal to the case of the prosecution. 9. The above discussion leads me to the conclusion that the learned trial Magistrate who has discussed the evidence in his judgment in the right perspective, has rightly acquitted the accused of the offence for which he was charged and the acquittal order, therefore, does not call for any interference by this Court. Resultantly, the appeal fails and is accordingly dismissed. The bail bonds furnished by the respondent are discharged. Appeal dismissed. -