JUDGMENT Hon’ble U.C. Dhyani, J. (Oral) A first information report was lodged by Ashok Kumar Gupta, on 26.08.1998, in P.S. Kotwali, Haridwar against the accused persons, namely, Bhupender Singh, Harender Singh, Neeraj and Surendra Singh, for the offence punishable under Section 307 of I.P.C. Thereafter, the first information report was transferred to P.S. Shyampur, District-Haridwar, who after the investigation submitted a charge sheet against the accused persons for the offence punishable under Section 307 of IPC. The case was committed to the Court of Sessions. 2. When the trial commenced and prosecution opened it’s case, charge for the offence punishable under Section 307 IPC was framed against the accused persons, who pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. PW1 Ashok Kumar Gupta (victim), PW2 Dheeraj Singh (informant), PW3 Suman Gupta (wife of the victim), PW4 Dr. S.C. Srivastava (E.N.T. Surgeon), PW5 Amarpal Singh (Sub Inspector, P.S. Jwalapur), PW6 Sanjay Jain, PW7 Dr. R.R. Verma and PW8 HC Anand Prakash were examined on behalf of the prosecution. Incriminating evidence was put to the accused persons in statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C., in which they said that they were falsely implicated in the case. No evidence was given in defence. After considering the evidence on record, learned Sessions Judge, Haridwar exonerated the accused persons of the charge leveled against them, vide judgment and order dated 10.08.2001. Aggrieved against the said judgment and order, present Government Appeal was preferred by the State. 3. The incident was alleged to have been taken place on 23.08.1998, at 11.00 p.m. The first information report was lodged on 26.08.1998, at 6:10 p.m. There was delay of three days in lodging the F.I.R. PW6 Sanjay Jain said, in his cross examination in chief that he went to hospital on 24.08.1998 at 12:00 noon along with Suman wife of Ashok Kumar Gupta. Ashok Kumar Gupta told PW6 Sanjay Jain that some unidentified assailant looted him and caused injuries to him. On 26.08.1998, when PW6 Sanjay Jain went to inquire about the well-being of Ashok Kumar Gupta, his wife narrated the story. On the basis of such narration, PW6 wrote a complaint (Ext.-K1). Ashok Kumar Gupta’s wife confronted Ashok Kumar Gupta with the version of incident, which was put forward by Ashok Kumar Gupta on 24.08.1998, that some unidentified assailant caused injuries to him. On the basis of such narration, PW6 wrote a complaint (Ext.-K1). Ashok Kumar Gupta’s wife confronted Ashok Kumar Gupta with the version of incident, which was put forward by Ashok Kumar Gupta on 24.08.1998, that some unidentified assailant caused injuries to him. Ashok Kumar Gupta maintained silence and obliquely permitted the informant to lodge the F.I.R. mentioning the name of the accused. Although Ashok Kumar Gupta (PW1) supported the prosecution story, but PW2 Dheeraj Singh and PW6 Sanjay Jain were not declared hostile by the prosecution. In this way, no reason what to talk of cogent reason came forward from the informant to explain the delay in lodging the F.I.R. Learned trial court also did not found a satisfactory explanation for delayed the lodging of F.I.R. 4. PW1 Ashok Kumar Gupta, in his cross-examination-in-chief, said that on 24.08.1998, at 1.30 p.m., when he reached the hospital accompanied by a policeman and two other persons, he was admitted. PW1 also said that S.O. Amar Pal came to him to inquire about the incident. When the said fact was confronted, with PW5 Amar Pal Singh, he denied the fact that PW1 was got admitted by the police personnel. PW5 S.I. Amar Pal Singh also denied having gone to PW1 on 24.08.1998. 5. PW1 Ashok Kumar Gupta came to depose before the trial court from the jail. In his cross-examination he admitted that he was detained in the jail in relation to a theft case. The allegation of theft was regarding a vehicle. A4 Case Crime No. 64 of 1998, at Police Station-Nangal, District-Bijnor, for the offences under Sections 420, 467 and 468 I.P.C. was also registered against him. He also admitted that the police implicated him in a case of theft of seven vehicles. He further admitted that a Case Crime No. 60 of 1998 was also registered by Police Station-Nangal District-Bijnor, under Sections 279 and 427 of I.P.C. Learned trial court did not rely upon the testimony of PW1 Ashok Kumar Gupta for no unjust reason. 6. PW2 Dheeraj Singh was a driver of the forest department. Although, he was a reliable witness, but he did not support the prosecution story. Glaring omissions were highlighted by the learned trial court between the statements of PW1 on the one hand and PW2 along with PW6 on the other hand. 7. 6. PW2 Dheeraj Singh was a driver of the forest department. Although, he was a reliable witness, but he did not support the prosecution story. Glaring omissions were highlighted by the learned trial court between the statements of PW1 on the one hand and PW2 along with PW6 on the other hand. 7. Although, injured PW1 Ashok Kumar Gupta sustained incised wound on the left side of the neck along with contusion in front of right shoulder and abraded contusion on the lateral side of left upper arm, but PW7 Dr. R.R. Verma said that he did not find any ligature mark on the neck of the victim. PW7 Dr. R.R. Verma also suspected the statement given by PW1 Ashok Kumar Gupta that the accused pulled him by a rope which was encircled around his neck. 8. Learned trial court has discussed the prosecution evidence in detail. There were various material contradictions and material discrepancies in the statement of the prosecution witnesses. The trial court, therefore, held that the prosecution story was not proved beyond reasonable doubt. There appears to be no illegality in the impugned judgment and order dated 10.08.2001 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Haridwar. The evidence tendered by the prosecution appeared to have been correctly appreciated by the Court below. This Court is unable to take a different stand from what was taken by the trial court. 9. No interference is called for. Criminal Appeal therefore, fails and is accordingly dismissed. 10. Let a copy of this Judgment along with the Lower Court Record be sent back.