JUDGMENT V.K. Sharma, Judge. The challenge herein in this appeal under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short ‘Cr.P.C’), by the appellant, who was complainant in the learned court below, is against acquittal of the respondents herein, being the accused, for the offences under Sections 451, 500, 506 Part I read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (in short ‘IPC’), vide judgment dated 31.12.2009, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Court No. (I), Amb, District Una, H.P., in complaint No. 75-I-2003/24-II-2003, titled Guldev Singh Bhandari Vs. Jaspal Singh and others. 2.In brief the case set up by the complainant is that he is an employee of Punjab and Sind Bank. On or about 30.12.2002, when the complaint was filed, he was posted in the branch of the said bank at Mubarikpur, Tehsil Amb, Distt. Una, H.P., and was under “illegal suspension”. On 27.12.2002, he was sleeping at the backside of his residential house after taking prescribed medicine, while his wife and two daughters were working inside the room. At about 2.15 PM, the accused straightway entered the room of his house without any prior information and without any permission. They came there in a hired private vehicle bearing registration No. HR-44A-3513 (approximate). His wife and children were busy in the household chores. The accused started abusing his wife and children in a filthy language. His wife resisted their entrance and directed them to leave the room. Upon this, accused No. 1 to 3 asked the gunman, who was armed with loaded double barrel gun, to take away wife of the complainant in their vehicle. On this, she raised an alarm and in the meantime some persons from the nearby house rushed towards the house of the complainant. However, in the meanwhile, the accused fled away from the spot in their vehicle. It was further alleged that while leaving they also threatened the complaint’s wife that they would again come to their house during night time and that they should be ready for dire consequences. According to the complainant, the accused defamed the complainant and his family members very badly by proclaiming that “ Himachalio Ne Hamara Bank Loot Liya Hai, Yeh Sab Chore Hai. Hum In Ko Jinda Na Chodegai”. On listening the hue and cry, the complainant also woke up, but by then the accused had fled from the spot. According to the complainant, the accused defamed the complainant and his family members very badly by proclaiming that “ Himachalio Ne Hamara Bank Loot Liya Hai, Yeh Sab Chore Hai. Hum In Ko Jinda Na Chodegai”. On listening the hue and cry, the complainant also woke up, but by then the accused had fled from the spot. It was further averred that there was danger to the life of the complainant at the hands of the accused, who forcibly entered his house to harm the reputation of the family, cause bodily injury and to cause intimidation in a pre-planned conspiracy. The matter was reported to the police telephonically as well as through written complaint on the same day, but as the accused are very influential persons, no action was taken by the police. 3.The record reveals that the complaint which was filedon 30.12.2002, was sent to the Station House Officer, Police Station Amb, for investigation under Section 202 Cr. P.C and report was called for 30.01.2003, which in fact was submitted on the appointed day, but the same absolved the accused of any criminal liability. 4.Thereafter, on 29.10.2003, the complainant led preliminary evidence in support of the allegations made in the complaint, in which he appeared as CW-1 and examined his wife CW-2 Smt. Sangita Devi and another witness CW-3 Khem Chand, on the basis of which and taking into consideration inquiry report submitted by the police, the learned trial Judge took cognizance and summoned the accused, who were served with notices of accusation. In order to prove his case, the complainant examined four witnesses including himself. Thereafter, the accused were examined by the learned trial court under Section 313 Cr.P.C, wherein, while admitting that though they had gone to the house of the complainant in connection with the departmental inquiry pending against him, yet they had not entered the house and no such incident as alleged in the complaint had ever taken place, they are innocent and have been falsely implicated in this case. In defence evidence they tendered documents Ex.R-1 to Ex.R-21. 5.After conclusion of the trial though arguments were addressed on behalf of the accused, no arguments, oral or written, were addressed on behalf of the complainant despite repeated opportunities having been granted, as observed by the learned trial Judge in the beginning of para 9 of the impugned judgment. In defence evidence they tendered documents Ex.R-1 to Ex.R-21. 5.After conclusion of the trial though arguments were addressed on behalf of the accused, no arguments, oral or written, were addressed on behalf of the complainant despite repeated opportunities having been granted, as observed by the learned trial Judge in the beginning of para 9 of the impugned judgment. Ultimately the accused were acquitted, as already noticed. 6.I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. While the judgment under challenge has been supported on behalf of the accused, the complainant has assailed the same mainly on the ground that the learned trial court has given undue importance to theminorcontradictions, improvements and embellishments in the evidence led by the complainant in support of his case and thus misdirected itself, resulting in wrong conclusions. 7. It is not in dispute that at the relevant time the complainant was an employee of Punjab and Sind Bank and was posted at Mubarikpur, Tehsil Amb, Distt. Una, H.P., and was facing departmental action, pending which, he was put under suspension. According to the complainant, the factual matrix is as stated in the complaint. However, according to the accused, since the complainant was not cooperating in the departmental inquiry and was feigning illness to avoid attending the inquiry for the past some dates of hearing, on the orders of the authorities venue of the inquiry was shifted to the place of his residence. It was against this backdrop that the accused, out of whom accused No.3 Nath Singh, was the Inquiry Officer, accused No. 1 Jaspal Singh, Presenting Officer, accused No.2 Gurmit Singh, Manager, accused No.5 N.S. Arora, Manager and accused No.6 Harbhajan, Manager, being the witnesses and accused No.4 Sarwan Kumar, gunman, had gone there in connection with the departmental inquiry. According to them, no such incident as alleged in the complaint had ever taken place and instead they had only enquired about the complainant and on finding that he was not available at his residence they had come back. 8.The entire controversy is required to be looked into in the aforesaid background. 9.Out of the four witnesses examined on behalf of the complainant, only two, namely his wife CW-2 Sangita Devi and daughter CW-4 Neha Bhandari, are stated to be eye witnesses to the alleged occurrence. 8.The entire controversy is required to be looked into in the aforesaid background. 9.Out of the four witnesses examined on behalf of the complainant, only two, namely his wife CW-2 Sangita Devi and daughter CW-4 Neha Bhandari, are stated to be eye witnesses to the alleged occurrence. However, on a combined and harmonious reading of their depositions it is manifest that the same are in stark contradiction to each other and thus cannot be safely relief upon. CW-2 Sangita Devi has stated that the accused bank officials numbering six, out of whom, one was having a gun came to her house. All of them entered the house without disclosing anything and went inside room after room. They started misbehaving and hurling abuses. They also proclaimed that you (complainant party) are thieves and have looted the bank. They asked the gunman to lift her and her daughters and put in the vehicle. In the meantime, my neighbour and some passers by, out of whom one was Khem Chand (CW-3), came to our house. On seeing them the accused fled away from the spot in the vehicle. While leaving the accused proclaimed that they would come again in the evening. Khem Chand had told her that the accused were bank officials. 10. However, CW-4 Neha Bhandari, has stated that these persons (accused) entered the house and started grappling with my mother and also hurled abuses. One of them was Hindu gentleman, who was having a gun. They started proclaiming that you are thieves and have looted the bank and started indulging in obscene acts with my mother, which I cannot relate (Meri mata ke sath gandi gandi harkatein karne lage boh main na bta sakti hun). Thereafter, my mother came out of the house and raisedalarm and we remained inside and started weeping. On hearing the noise, our neighbour Ravinder and some passers by came there. On seeing them the accused fled away from the spot in the vehicle by proclaiming that they would come again in the evening and would lift us and take away. Thereafter, my mother came out of the house and raisedalarm and we remained inside and started weeping. On hearing the noise, our neighbour Ravinder and some passers by came there. On seeing them the accused fled away from the spot in the vehicle by proclaiming that they would come again in the evening and would lift us and take away. 11.Thus, part from other dissimilarities between the statements of CW-2 Sangita Devi and CW-4 Neha Bhandari, which may not be very material, the one relating to the alleged misbehaviour by the accused with CW-2 Sangita Devi, as stated by her does not fit into the version stated by CW-4 Neha Bhandari, which on the face of it is of a very grave nature. To be explicit, whereas CW-2 Sangita Devi has simply stated that the accused started misbehaving and hurling abuses, CW-4 Neha Bhandari, has gone to the extent that apart from hurling abuses, the accused also started grappling with her mother and had thereafter indulged in obscene acts with her (mother), which she cannot relate. It is significant to note that no such narrative as stated by CW-4 Neha Bhandari, which is of very serious nature, finds mention in the complaint and as such the same clearly amounts to improvement, which cannot be lightly overlooked in the peculiar background, facts and circumstances of the case. 12.According to the complainant a report about the occurrence was lodged by him with the police telephonically and thereafter in writing on the same day. However, no such report has seen the light of the day to ascertain as to what version was stated therein. The occurrence is alleged to have taken place on 27.12.2002. The complaint was made only on 30.12.2002. The delay remains un-explained. 13.Furthermore, the inquiry report submitted by the police under Section 202 Cr.P.C also did not support the case of the complainant and instead the same was in conformity with the defence raised by the accused. The occurrence is alleged to have taken place on 27.12.2002. The complaint was made only on 30.12.2002. The delay remains un-explained. 13.Furthermore, the inquiry report submitted by the police under Section 202 Cr.P.C also did not support the case of the complainant and instead the same was in conformity with the defence raised by the accused. 14.Though, the testimonies of the complainant, CW-1 Guldev Singh and CW-3 Khem Chand, who admittedly had not witnessed the alleged occurrence, are in the nature of res gestae, yet the same are essentially mere hearsay and more so when no such serious allegations against the accused as stated by CW-4 Neha Bhandari find mention in the complaint, which also have been found in contradiction to the deposition of CW-2 Sangita Devi, as already observed and on the other CW-3 Khem Chand, who belongs to a distant place situate 8/10 K.M. from the place of occurrence, appears to be a chance witness interested in the complainant being a prior acquaintance in connection with his official bank dealings. 15.Strangely enough, neither the complainant, who was stated to be having a nap after taking medicine on the backside of the house was attracted to the alleged occurrence nor was called by his wife and daughters even when an occurrence of such magnitude had allegedly taken place inside the house and it was only after the accused had allegedly fled away from the spot scene in the vehicle that he was informed about the occurrence by his wife. It appears to be a mere make believe story and cannot be safely relied upon. 16.In view of the above, it can be safely concluded that the complainant had not been able to prove his case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt and as such no case is made out for upsetting the impugned judgment of acquittal under challenge in this appeal, which is accordingly dismissed.