JUDGMENT 1. - The D.B. Cr. Leave to Appeal No.107/2008 has been preferred by the State to challenge the judgment of acquittal passed by the Court of Addl. Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No.2, Bikaner in Sessions Case No.126/2006 dated 18th Sept., 2007 by which the learned trial court acquitted the respondent Sahab Ram S/o Nand Ram for charge under Section 302 IPC by giving benefit of doubt. 2. D.B. Cr. Revision Petition No.406/2008 has been preferred by the complainant who is also of the same name i.e., Sahab Ram but son of Bhadar Ram. The complainant by preferring the revision petition challenged the same judgment dated 18th Sept., 2007 referred above. 3. The complainant Sahab Ram submitted a written report at Police Station Poogal on 23rd Oct., 2006 that on 21st Oct., 2006 he was in his Dhani with his family and in the night at 10.00 PM, the accused Sahab Ram S/o Nand Ram came to his Dhani and called complainant's son Sohan Lal to come out and the accused shouted that he will not spare him (Sohan Lal) and will kill him. The complainant father of Sohan Lal gave a counter shout, upon which the accused went away, but came within 10 minutes with one Lathi and again called complainant's son Sohan Lal, upon which the complainant's son came out from his house and according to the complainant, the complainant's son went with the accused to make the accused understand. However, when they reached towards the road, the accused hit the victim with the Lathi. Hearing the shouts, the complainant, his sons Mohan Lal and Madan Lal ran towards the place of occurrence. Seeing complainant and his two sons coming, the accused ran away. It is stated in the complaint that from the beating given by the accused, the complainant's son Sohan Lal suffered injuries on head. The victim son of the complainant was take to the hospital where he was given medicine, but there was no proper facility of the treatment of the victim in the said village hospital, therefore, the victim was taken to PBM Hospital, Bikaner where he was admitted on 22nd Oct., 2006. It is stated that the accused Sahab Ram contested Ward Panch election wherein the complainant and his family members did not give vote to the accused and, therefore, the accused has killed the complainant's son Sohan Lal. It is stated that the accused Sahab Ram contested Ward Panch election wherein the complainant and his family members did not give vote to the accused and, therefore, the accused has killed the complainant's son Sohan Lal. On the basis of alleged incident of 21st Oct., 2006, FIR was submitted on 23rd Oct., 2006 and formal FIR was registered and investigation started. The site map and reports were prepared. The blood soil and sample soil were seized and seizure memo Ex.P/6 was prepared. The deceased cloths were also seized and their seizure memos were prepared. The postmortem report Ex.P/10 was obtained. The victim suffered following injuries:- "Ante mortem injuries present over body at time of the examination: (i) Stitched lacerated wound 2.5 cm on Rt. side fore head near hair line and soft scab redish. (ii) Abrasion 0.5x0.5 cm on Rt. side fore head medial to injury No.1 and redish soft scab. (iii) Stitched lacerated wound 1.5 cm on Rt. frontal region and redish soft scab. All above mentioned injuries are ante mortem,caused by blunt object and about 24 to 48 hrs duration before death." 4. The cause of death was found "due to head injury" and injury on the body of the deceased was found sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature. The challan was submitted and charge under Section 302 IPC was framed, which was denied by the accused and he sought trial. The prosecution produced 9 witnesses and exhibited the relevant documents. The accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. The accused produced 5 witnesses in defence. The defence is that as per knowledge of the accused, the victim fell down from motor cycle and died. The trial court acquitted the accused and, therefore, these appeal and revision petition have been preferred by the State and the complainant. 5. Learned counsel for the complainant submitted that the victim Sohan Lal died due to injuries and those injuries have been inflicted by the accused,which fact has been proved by the evidence of prosecution witness PW-1 to PW- 14. It is submitted that the trial court committed error of law by rejecting prosecution case on the ground of late lodging of the FIR. It is submitted that the trial court committed error of law by rejecting prosecution case on the ground of late lodging of the FIR. It is submitted that since the complainant's son was serious, therefore, it was the duty of the father to take his son to hospital first and where he found that condition of complainant's son was out of control and, therefore, he took the victim to the bigger hospital in the city of Bikaner. In view of the above, the late lodging of FIR should not have been made ground for rejecting the prosecution case. It is submitted that there was no reason for discarding the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, who clearly stated that the respondent-accused inflicted the injuries upon Sohan Lal. The prosecution evidence has been discarded only because of some minor and irrelevant contradictions in the statement of the prosecution witnesses. The trial court committed error in drawing adverse inference for the prosecution evidence on the basis of relation of the prosecution witnesses with the victim. There was enmity as the respondent-accused contested the election of Ward Panch and the complainant family did not cast their votes in favour of the respondent-accused and because of that only, he took revenge by killing complainant's son. 6. We considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 7. The trial court did not reject the prosecution case on an isolated ground, delay in lodging FIR or merely on the ground that there are some contradictions in the statement of prosecution witnesses or only on the ground that witnesses are interested witnesses. The trial court found that entire story projected by the complainant is absolutely unbelievable and the injuries on the body of the victim could also even caused by his falling from the motor cycle. The trial court also considered the other relevant facts as well as the evidence of the defence witnesses and, thereafter, acquitted the accused. 8. We perused the evidence of PW-1 Sahab Ram - the complainant - the father of the deceased, PW-5 Madan Lal and PW-6 Mohan Lal - both are brothers of the deceased. As per their statements, the respondent-accused came to the house of the complainant and called complainant's son Sohan Lal and shouted that he will not spare him. 8. We perused the evidence of PW-1 Sahab Ram - the complainant - the father of the deceased, PW-5 Madan Lal and PW-6 Mohan Lal - both are brothers of the deceased. As per their statements, the respondent-accused came to the house of the complainant and called complainant's son Sohan Lal and shouted that he will not spare him. On this, complainant Sahab Ram retorted and gave challenge to the accused Sahab Ram, upon which he left the place. After 10 to 15 minutes, the accused Sahab Ram came back and gave challenge to Sohan Lal and asked him to come out. Sohan Lal came out from his house and went with accused where the accused inflicted injuries upon Sohan Lal by Lathi. Thereafter, all three witnesses Sahab Ram, Madan Lal and Mohan Lal ran towards the scene of occurrence, the accused ran from there. The said statement of prosecution witnesses appears to be unnatural. The complainant and his two sons including Sohan lal were threatened by the accused in the night at 10.00 PM that too in complainant's own residence. Hearing counter challenge by the complainant, the accused left then how could the victim could have been allowed to go with the accused when the accused according to the complainant witnesses came with Lathi and already gave threat to kill the complainant's son Sohan Lal. Be it as it may be, the incident occurred on 21st Oct., 2006 in the night at 10.00 PM and complainant and his two sons were present, but none of them reported the matter to the nearest Police Chowki till 23rd Oct., 2006. The report was submitted on 23rd Oct., 2006 after the death of victim. The place of incident is 35 kms away from Poogal Police Chowki and it was connected by road, there report was not submitted. The victim was taken to the village Dantor for treatment, there was also Police Chowki, but report was not submitted there. The victim was taken to the Bikaner and there also, the report was not submitted by the complainant. The report was submitted to the PW-9 Virendra Pal at Hospital on 23rd Oct., 2006 at 10.00 AM. The victim was taken to the village Dantor for treatment, there was also Police Chowki, but report was not submitted there. The victim was taken to the Bikaner and there also, the report was not submitted by the complainant. The report was submitted to the PW-9 Virendra Pal at Hospital on 23rd Oct., 2006 at 10.00 AM. How the report reached to the police before 23rd Oct., 2006 intially Rojnamcha Rapat was not exhibited but from Rojnamcha Rapat it is clear that a telephone message recevied from the PBM Hospital, Bikaner informing that one Sohan Lal (victim) was brought in the hospital after some dispute which occurred on 22nd Oct., 2006 and was admitted in hospital at 22nd Oct., 2006 has died on 23rd Oct.2006 at 3.20 PM. In Rojnamcha Rapat at 1.30 PM in the same night it is recorded that the accused Sahab Ram S/o Nand Ram could not be arrested after raid in the Dhani. Therefore, before the written report was submitted to the police station by the complainant, the police already came to know that accused is respondent Sahab Ram. From the record, it was also found that after postmortem of the victim, the body was handed over to the family members and on investigation, the complainant - father of the victim informed that the victim's shirt which victim was wearing at the time of incident has been given for washing and at present there is no blood on the shirt which is on the body of the victim. The explanation given by the PW-1 Sahab Ram for not lodging the FIR at Police Station Poogal and at Police Station Dantor cast serious doubt about the prosecution story. 9. Against this, the defence produced witnesses, who stated that the victim Sohan Lal suffered injury as he fell down from motor cycle and because of that injury, the victim Sohan Lal died. Dr. O.P. Saini PW-2, who conducted postmortem admitted that injuries, which the victim has been suffered, may also come because of one falling from motor cycle. 10. In the totality, the prosecution has failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that respondent-accused has committed crime of murder of the victim Sohan Lal.In view of the above, the appeal as well as revision petition are dismissed.Appeal and Revision Dismissed. *******