JUDGMENT Per : Hon’ble Praffulla C. Pant, J. (Oral) This appeal, preferred under section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short CrPC), is directed against the judgment and order dated 23.8.2001, passed by the Ist F.T.C./Additional Sessions Judge, Dehradun in Sessions Trial No. 64/95, whereby said Court has acquitted the accused/respondent Ashok Kumar from the charge of offence punishable under Section 302 IPC. 2. Heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the lower court record. 3. Prosecution story, in brief, is that on 25.10.1993, PW1 Rameshwar Sharma along with his brother Ramanand Sharma (deceased) and Rajendra Prasad (PW3) were in their house when the accused/respondent Ashok Kumar, S/o Veer Singh, came to their house. All the four sat and had drinks together. After they got drunk, accused Ashok Kumar and Ramanand Sharma (deceased) started quarrelling with each other. It is alleged by the prosecution that after accused/respondent Ashok Kumar got hurt, he gave a blow with a DANDA on the head of Ramanand Sharma (deceased), who fell unconscious. On the next day i.e. on 26.10.1993, Ramanand Sharma was taken to Shanti Prapanna Sharma Hospital, Rishikesh from where he was referred to Medical College, Meerut, where he succumbed to the injuries. First Information Report was lodged after about three days i.e. on 28.10.1993 by PW3 Rajendra Prasad. On the basis of the FIR (Ex. A-2), Crime No. 115/93 was registered at Reporting Outpost, IDPL of Police Station Rishikesh of District Dehradun, against the accused/respondent Ashok Kumar in respect of the offence punishable under Section 304 IPC. The crime was investigated by Sub Inspector Rajveer Singh (PW9), who after getting the autopsy done on the dead body of the deceased, and interrogating the witnesses, and after inspecting the spot, submitted chargesheet (Ex. A-6) against accused/respondent Ashok Kumar for his trial in respect of the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC. 4. The Magistrate, on receipt of the chargesheet and after giving the necessary copies to the accused, as required under Section 207 CrPC, appears to have committed the case to the Court of Sessions for trial. Learned trial court, after hearing the parties on 7.6.1995, framed charge of offence punishable under Section 302 IPC against the accused/respondent Ashok Kumar, who denied the charge and claimed trial. On this, prosecution got examined PW1 Rameshwar Sharma (eyewitness), PW2 Dr. Learned trial court, after hearing the parties on 7.6.1995, framed charge of offence punishable under Section 302 IPC against the accused/respondent Ashok Kumar, who denied the charge and claimed trial. On this, prosecution got examined PW1 Rameshwar Sharma (eyewitness), PW2 Dr. Umesh Prasad Gupta (who conducted the post-mortem examination), PW3 Rajendra Prasad (informant), PW4 Gurdayal Singh (declared hostile), PW5 Devendra Singh (declared hostile), PW6 Rajendra Prasad Dobhal (declared hostile), PW7 Head Constable Hukum Singh, PW8 Gita Ram Sharma and PW9 Sub Inspector Rajveer Singh (Investigation Officer). 5. Oral and documentary evidence was put to the accused under Section 313 CrPC, in reply to which he alleged that the evidence adduced against him was false. In defence, DW1 Dr. MS Rawat was got examined. 6. After hearing the parties, the trial court found that the prosecution failed to prove the charge of offence punishable under Section 302 IPC against the accused/respondent Ashok Kumar and acquitted him accordingly. 7. Aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 23.8.2001, passed by the Ist F.T.C./Additional Sessions Judge, Dehradun in Sessions Trial No. 64/95, the State has filed this appeal, in which leave was granted. 8. Before further discussion, this Court thinks it just and proper to mention the injuries found on the person of Ramanand Sharma (deceased), when he was taken to Shanti Prapanna Sharma Hospital, Rishikesh on 26.10.1993. PW2 Dr. Umesh Prasad Gupta prepared the injury report (Ex. A-1) after examining the injured Ramanand Sharma, who was brought before him. Following injuries are mentioned in the injury report (Ex. A-1) prepared by PW2 Dr. Umesh Prasad Gupta: (1) A contused abrasion on right side of back 10 cm x 2 cm, 5 cm away (lateral) to the third limber spinous process. Colour was blackish red. (2) Abrasion on back of right elbow joint, 1 cm below right obrenum process, covered with clotted blood. (3) A defused swelling on right temporal region. Patient was uncoconscious and irritable. The Medical Officer observed that injury no. (1) and (2) were simple in nature and injure no. (3) was kept under observation. 9. Though the post-mortem report is annexed in the lower court record, but it appears that same was not proved on the record, nor it is exhibited by the trial court. As such, the same cannot be read in evidence. 10. (1) and (2) were simple in nature and injure no. (3) was kept under observation. 9. Though the post-mortem report is annexed in the lower court record, but it appears that same was not proved on the record, nor it is exhibited by the trial court. As such, the same cannot be read in evidence. 10. It is also relevant to mention here that none of the witnesses, namely, PW4 Gurdayal Singh, PW5 Devendra Singh and PW6 Rajendra Prasad Dobhal have supported the prosecution case. 11. The only two eyewitnesses, who supported the prosecution story are PW1 Rameshwar Sharma and his brother PW3 Rajendra Prasad. From their statements, it is clear that these witnesses, accused Ashok Kumar and Ramanand Sharma (deceased), all were drunk on 25.10.1993, whereafter Ashok Kumar and Ramanand Sharma quarreled. Both these witnesses have stated that accused Ashok Kumar as well as Ramanand Sharma suffered injuries. According to these witnesses, the injuries suffered by Ramanand Sharma were caused by accused Ashok Kumar. 12. It is strange that the two real brothers, who witnessed the incident, did not care to take their injured brother to the hospital on the very day, nor they bothered to lodge the First Information Report. The FIR was lodged only after three days i.e. on 28.10.1993. Trial court has rightly taken note of this fact. 13. On behalf of the accused, it is argued that it cannot be ruled out that the deceased, in a drunken state, suffered injuries by fall, and that is why no report was lodged on the day of the incident. In this connection, the attention of this Court is drawn to the statement of PW2 Dr. Umesh Prasad Gupta, who has stated at the end of his cross-examination that the injuries, which were found by the said witness on the person of Ramanand Sharma (recorded in Ex. A-1), could have been caused in a drunken state (due to fall). 14. In the above circumstances, we are of the view that the trial court has committed no illegality in appreciating the evidence on record and holding that it is not proved beyond reasonable doubt if the crime was committed by the accused Ashok Kumar. A-1), could have been caused in a drunken state (due to fall). 14. In the above circumstances, we are of the view that the trial court has committed no illegality in appreciating the evidence on record and holding that it is not proved beyond reasonable doubt if the crime was committed by the accused Ashok Kumar. No doubt, one of the possible views in this case could have been that the prosecution failed to prove the charge of offence punishable under Section 302 IPC against the accused, as even the post-mortem report was not got proved by the prosecution. 15. In the above circumstances, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the judgment and order of acquittal passed by the trial court. Therefore, appeal is dismissed. Impugned judgment and order dated 23.8.2001, passed by the Ist F.T.C./Additional Sessions Judge, Dehradun in Sessions Trial No. 64/95, is hereby affirmed. Let the lower court record be sent back.