JUDGMENT 1. - Mrs. Noor Sahana, the wife of the deceased, Hanif has filed a criminal appeal and the State has filed a criminal leave to appeal against the judgment dated 22.06.2011 passed by the Additional District Judge (Fast Track) No.2 Hanumangarh Headquarter Nohar, whereby the learned Judge has acquitted the accused respondents for offences under Sections 147, 148, 452, 323/149, 302 302/149 IPC. 2. Briefly the facts of the case are that on 15.04.2010 around 10:15 AM Aliyas (P.W.1) lodged a written report (Ex.P.1) wherein he had claimed that on 14.04.2010 around 9:30 PM, a Pick-Up, bearing Registration No.RJ-31-CA 4137, a Santro Car, bearing No.9251 and a motorcycle, whose number is unknown, came to Hanif's house, situated at Bukarka, and number of persons entered his house. Yakub had a Gandasi in Floating Frame his hand. First of all, he struck Hanif. Thereafter, Ayub, Makbool, Nek Mohd., Yasin, Aamin, Benda, Akram, Roshan Yusuf S/o Shri Nek Mohd., the elder son of Yakub (name unknown), Jabar, Mehboob, Guddi, Gulam ali, Jabar Khan, Yusuf S/o Shri Jabar Khan and five to ten other persons entered the house carrying barchi (a sharp-edged weapon), bamboo sticks (lathis), pistol and Kulhari (axe). Initially, Yakub and his younger brother, Ayub hit Hanif on his head with barchi and lathi. Brother-in-laws of these persons also attacked. When a hue and cry was raised, Aliyas, Sabdeen, Jagmal, Ram Kumar, Salim, Samsher and Alisher rushed to Hanif's rescue. Gulam Mohd., Aliyas, Sabdeen, who had also intervened, were injured. While leaving the scene of crime, the accused persons threatened the complainant party and told them that "today the villagers have managed to save Hanif, but in future they will certainly kill him". Since Aliyas, Hanif, Sabdeen, were critically injured, they were rushed to the Government Hospital at Nohar. Due to Hanif's serious condition, he was referred to Hisar. However, Hanif expired. 3. On the basis of this written report (Ex.P.1), a formal FIR, FIR No.158/2010, was chalked out against the accused persons for offences under Sections 302, 341, 323, 452, 147, 148, 149 IPC. Due to Hanif's serious condition, he was referred to Hisar. However, Hanif expired. 3. On the basis of this written report (Ex.P.1), a formal FIR, FIR No.158/2010, was chalked out against the accused persons for offences under Sections 302, 341, 323, 452, 147, 148, 149 IPC. However, after a thorough investigation, while the charge-sheet was submitted against Makbool Khan, Nek Mohd., Jabar Khan, Yasin Khan, Gulam Nabi, Bhadar Khan, Jakir Khan, Rafiq, Yusuf Khan S/o Shri Nek Mohd., Aamin, Akram, Roshan, Yakub Ali for offences under Sections 302, 341, 323, 452, 147, 148, 149 IPC, against Benda, charge-sheet was submitted for offences under Sections 323, 341 IPC. In order to support its case, the prosecution examined thirteen witnesses and submitted forty-eight documents. In turn, the defence examined a single witness and submitted a few documents. After going through the oral and documentary evidence, vide judgment dated 22.06.2011, the learned Judge acquitted the accused-respondents. Hence, this criminal leave to appeal and criminal appeal before this court. 4. Mr. N.L. Joshi and Mr. Suresh Kumbhat, the learned counsel for the appellant, and Mr. K.R. Bishnoi, the learned Public Prosecutor, have raised the following contentions before this Court: firstly, the learned Judge has failed to appreciate the evidence in proper perspective. Secondly, although most of the eye-witnesses have turned hostile, but they have categorically stated that they had seen Roshan, Akram, and Aameen when they entered Hanif's house. According to them, these three persons had assaulted Hanif. According to Dr. Jitendra Soni (P.W.10), he had attended upon Hanif when he was brought to the Hospital at Nohar. According to him, blood was oozing out of Hanif's nose and he had vomited blood in the hospital. Therefore, he had referred him to a higher center for investigation and medical treatment. Moreover, according to Dr. R.L. Bhambu (P.W.8), he was one of the doctors of Medical Board, who had carried out Hanif's Post-Mortem. The Post4 Mortem Report (Ex.P.15) reveals that Hanif had suffered a swelling on the right temporal parietal region. Due to this injury, there was a hematoma present inside the brain. There was a fracture of the right frontal bone and parietal bone. The injury was caused by a blunt weapon. According to eyewitnesses, Hanif was hit by lathis. Thus, the testimonies of all the eye-witnesses were corroborated by the medical evidence. Due to this injury, there was a hematoma present inside the brain. There was a fracture of the right frontal bone and parietal bone. The injury was caused by a blunt weapon. According to eyewitnesses, Hanif was hit by lathis. Thus, the testimonies of all the eye-witnesses were corroborated by the medical evidence. Moreover, from Aameen a lathi was recovered, from Roshan, a wooden bat was recovered, and from Nek Mohd., a lathi was recovered. Thus, these recoveries also connect the accused Aameen, Roshan and Nek Mohd., to the alleged murder. However, despite the existence of these overwhelming evidence, the learned Judge has still acquitted all the accused persons. Therefore, the impugned judgment needs to be quashed and set aside. 5. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned Public Prosecutor for the State, perused the record and examined the impugned judgment. 6. A bare perusal of the impugned judgment clearly reveals that the learned Judge has meticulously examined and critically analysed the evidence produced by the prosecution. The learned Judge has noticed the fact that according to Aliyas (P.W.1), the occurrence had taken place at about 9:30 PM on 14.04.2010. However, the FIR was not lodged till next morning at 10:15 AM on 15.04.2010. Although the police had already reached the scene of crime, although the police had reached the hospital, although the distance between Hanif's house and the nearest police station was merely seven kilometer, still no one had lodged a report for over twelve hours. During the course of trial, no explanation has given for the inordinate delay of twelve hours. Therefore, the delay in filing of the FIR raises doubts about the veracity of the prosecution story. 7. The learned Judge has also noticed that Aliyas (P.W.1) had named nineteen people in the FIR. However, after a thorough investigation, the police did not submit a chargesheet against four persons namely Guddi, Yakub, Mehboob, and Yakub's son. Instead, the police added three more persons as culprits. Thus, the fact that innocent persons had been roped in is writ large. Moreover, no explanation has been given either by the investigating agency or by any of the witnesses as to how three more persons were added as culprits. This also casts doubt about the authenticity of the prosecution story. 8. According to Dr. Thus, the fact that innocent persons had been roped in is writ large. Moreover, no explanation has been given either by the investigating agency or by any of the witnesses as to how three more persons were added as culprits. This also casts doubt about the authenticity of the prosecution story. 8. According to Dr. Jitendra Soni (P.W.10) on 14.04.2010, he had also examined some of the accused persons as they were brought in injured condition to the hospital. According to him, Makbool had suffered four injuries, Yasin had suffered five injuries, Jakir Hussain suffered a single injury, Bhadar had suffered a single injury and Nek Mohd. had suffered two injuries. But none of the prosecution witnesses have explained the existence of these injuries on the accused persons. Thus, obviously, the prosecution has not revealed the genesis of the occurrence. Since the prosecution is hiding the genesis of the occurrence, it casts grave doubts about the prosecution story. 9. Besides noting these points, the learned Judge has also discussed the testimonies of the witnesses threadbare: Aliyas (P.W.1), the complainant, has turned hostile. Although in the FIR (Ex.P.2) lodged by him and in his statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. (Ex.P.6), he had claimed that nineteen persons had entered Hanif's house and attacked him, yet in his testimony, he has named only Roshan, Akram and Aamen. According to him, Roshan, Akram and Aamen were accompanied by other people but he does not know them. In his examination-in-chief, he claims that Aamen had hit Hanif with a lathi on his head. He further claims that Roshan and Akram assaulted the witness when he tried to rescue Hanif. According to him, Akram had hit him with a lathi on his head. He further claims that Sabdeen, his uncle, was also assaulted by Aamen, Roshan and Akram. Since these witnesses had claimed that only three persons were known to him, he was declared as a hostile witnesses by the public prosecutor. During his cross-examination by the Public Prosecutor, he has denied most of the things, such as the names and the number of persons mentioned in the FIR and in his police statement (Ex.P.6), and as to who had hit him and Hanif. 10. While analyzing his testimony, the learned Judge has clearly noticed that in the FIR (Ex.P.2) Aliyas had claimed that Yakub had hit Hanif with Gandasi. 10. While analyzing his testimony, the learned Judge has clearly noticed that in the FIR (Ex.P.2) Aliyas had claimed that Yakub had hit Hanif with Gandasi. Likewise, in his written report (Ex.P.1), he had claimed that Yakub and his younger brother Ayub had hit Hanif with barchi (a sharp-edged weapon) and with a lathi over his head. However, no charge-sheet was ever filed against Ayub. Moreover, in his testimony, he does not claim that anyone had assaulted Hanif with a barchi. Furthermore, in his statement given to the police (Ex.P.6), he had claimed that Yakub had hit Hanif from the back side of the barchi, yet in his court deposition, he claimed that Aamin had hit Hanif with a lathi on his head. Further, in his deposition, he claimed that he had fainted and was unconscious for three days. He claims that he is not too sure as to who had lodged the written report. But the fact remains that the written report (Ex.P.1) has been signed by him. Moreover, although he denies that the police had recorded his statement (Ex.P.6) day after the incident, but his statement, so recorded, bears the date of 15.04.2010. Since the complaint himself has drastically changed his stand, since he has tried to implicate Aamin in place of Ayub for having hit Hanif, since the witness has turned hostile, the learned Judge was certainly justified in concluding that the complainant was an untrustworthy witness. Hence, the learned Judge was legally justified in rejecting his testimony qua Aamin. 11. As far as Roshan and Akram are concerned, even with regard to them, Aliyas (P.W.1) has given a contradictory statement. In his police statement (Ex.P.6), he had claimed that Nek Mohd., and Jakir had hit him with a lathi over his head, and Roshan had hit him with a lathi on his left arm. However, in his testimony, he claims that it is Aamin who had hit over his head. But this fact does not find any mention either in the written report (Ex.P.1) or his police statement (Ex.P.6). Moreover, although in his statement recorded (Ex.P.6), he claims that Roshan had hit him on the left arm with a lathi, but in his examination-in-chief, he claims that both Roshan and Akram had assaulted him together. He does not claim that Roshan had hit him on his left arm. Moreover, although in his statement recorded (Ex.P.6), he claims that Roshan had hit him on the left arm with a lathi, but in his examination-in-chief, he claims that both Roshan and Akram had assaulted him together. He does not claim that Roshan had hit him on his left arm. Further, although he claims in his testimony that Roshan and Akram had hit him with a lathi, but this fact has not been mentioned in the police statement (Ex.P.6). Thus, even with regard to Roshan and Akram, the complainant keeps on changing his stand. Hence, he again proves to be an untrustworthy witness. 12. Sahbdeen (P.W.7) is another injured witness. However, he too has turned hostile. Even this witness has not been believed by the learned Judge for the following reasons: firstly, his statement was not recorded by the police for nineteen days. His silence for nineteen days is inexplicable. Secondly, in his testimony, he claims that Aliyas and other members were sitting along with him at the shop belonging to Samsher. But according to Aliyas (P.W.1), when he was going back to his house, he suddenly heard noise and the assault on Hanif began. Thus, according to Aliyas he was not at Samsher's shop. Moreover, Samsher's shop has not been shown in the site plan (Ex.P.3). Furthermore, according to some other witnesses Samsher's shop is located in another lane away from Hanif's house. Moreover, according to these witnesses, Hanif had suffered two injuries. But, according to the Post-Mortem Report (Ex.P.15), Hanif had suffered a single injury. Therefore, this witness is contradicted by the medical evidence. Thirdly and most importantly, this witness has also been declared as hostile by the prosecution. 13. Similarly, other witnesses namely, Ikbal (P.W.2), Ram Kumar (P.W.3), Jagmal (P.W.4), Samsher (P.W.5), Alisher (P.W.6), have turned hostile and have not supported the case of the prosecution. 14. Considering all these major lacuna in the prosecution case, the learned Judge was certainly justified in granting the benefit of doubt to the accused respondents. 15. In the case of Tulsiram Kanu v. State, AIR 1954 SC 1 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that "the appellate court would be justified in reversing the acquittal only when very substantial question and compelling reasons are present". 15. In the case of Tulsiram Kanu v. State, AIR 1954 SC 1 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that "the appellate court would be justified in reversing the acquittal only when very substantial question and compelling reasons are present". In the case of Tulsiram Kanu (supra), Kania, C.J. observed that "it required good and sufficiently cogent reasons to overcome such reasonable doubt before the appellate court came to a different conclusion." 16. In the case of Umedbhai Jadavbhai v. State of Gujarat, 1978 AIR 424 , The Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that " In an appeal against acquittal, the High Court would not ordinarily interfere with the trial court's conclusion unless 10 there are compelling reasons to do so, inter alia, on account of manifest errors of law or of fact resulting in miscarriage of justice." 17. Similarly, in the case of Tota Singh & Anr. v. State of Punjab, 1987 AIR 1083 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court had opined that, " The jurisdiction of the Appellate Court in dealing with an appeal against an order of acquittal is circumscribed by the limitation that no interference is to be made with the order of acquittal unless the approach made by the lower Court to the consideration of the evidence in the case is vitiated by some manifest illegality or the conclusion recorded by the Court below is such which could not have been possibly arrived at by any court acting reasonably and judiciously and is, therefore, liable to be characterised as perverse" 18. Considering the methodical appreciation of evidence, considering the logical analysis of the evidence, this Court does not find any compelling reason for over-turning the judgment of acquittal delivered by the learned Judge. 19. For the reasons stated above, this court does not find any merit in the criminal appeal filed by the appellant victim and in the criminal leave to appeal filed by the State. Therefore, both the criminal appeal and criminal leave to appeal are, hereby, dismissed.Appeal and leave to appeal dismissed. *******