JUDGMENT Mr. Inderjit Singh, J.:- State of Punjab has filed this appeal against respondent- Sukhdev Singh, against the judgment of acquittal dated 24.12.1999 passed by Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Ludhiana, vide which all accused have been acquitted of the charges framed for the offences under Sections 325, 342, 148 read with Section 149 IPC. 2. The brief facts of the prosecution case are that the accused were sent-up to face trial for the offences under Sections 325, 342, 148 and 149 IPC by the SHO of Police Station, Dehlon, District Ludhiana. FIR was registered on the written complaint of ASI Manjit Singh. As per the allegations, on the night of 21/22.5.1994 when Kulwant Singh brotherin- law of the complainant was going on his Tempo from Village Kalakh to Ludhiana, then ASI Sukhdev Singh got stopped the Tempo and gave him beatings with the help of other Police officials and also gave injuries by the butt of the gun on the right leg of Kulwant Singh which was fractured and his ear was badly damaged. It is also the case of the prosecution that on 22.5.1994, Kulwant Singh was medically examined. The complainant approached the Police but the Police did not take any action. The complainant also filed application dated 25.5.1994 before the Senior Superintendent of Police, Jagraon but no action was taken. Then on the basis of written complaint, case for the offence under Section 325 read with Section 34 IPC was registered. The investigation was taken up by ASI Manjit Singh, who inspected the place of occurrence and prepared the site plan. After necessary investigation, challan was presented. 3. On presentation of challan, the trial Court finding prima facie case against the accused framed charges for the offences under Sections 148, 325, 342 read with Section 149 IPC, to which the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 4. In support of its case, the prosecution examined PW-1 Kulwant Singh, PW-2 Hardip Singh, PW-3 SI Satwant Singh, PW-4 Balbir Singh, PW-5 ASI Manjit Singh, PW-6 Gurmail Singh, PW-7 Amarpal Singh, PW-8 R.N. Singla and PW-9 Dr. G.P. Mangla. 5. At the close of prosecution evidence, the accused were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and were confronted with the evidence of the prosecution but they denied the correctness of the evidence and pleaded themselves as innocent. In defence no evidence was led. 6. G.P. Mangla. 5. At the close of prosecution evidence, the accused were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and were confronted with the evidence of the prosecution but they denied the correctness of the evidence and pleaded themselves as innocent. In defence no evidence was led. 6. After going through the evidence and material on record, the learned trial Court vide above impugned judgment acquitted all the accused. 7. At the time of arguments, the learned Assistant Advocate General, appearing for the appellant-State mainly argued that there is cogent evidence on the record to prove the prosecution version. There is statement of injured Kulwant Singh. The complainant has also supported the prosecution version. Amarpal Singh PW-7 is eye witness and Balbir Singh PW-4, who had also gone to Police Lock-up where Kulwant Singh was lodged, have also been examined. The delay has been duly explained in the present case. The injured has been medico-legally examined and the findings of the Court are incorrect. Therefore, he argued that appeal should be accepted and accused should be convicted. 8. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent argued that there is delay in recording the FIR which was registered on 9.7.1994 on the basis of complaint made by Manjit Singh, who is not an eye witness in the present case. There is no evidence that Kulwant Singh ever informed the Police earlier. Though there is statement of Kulwant Singh that application dated 25.5.1994 had been given to the Senior Superintendent of Police, Jagraon but that application has not been produced and proved on the record. Kulwant Singh even while appearing as a witness has not stated regarding knowing of accused Sukhdev Singh. Similar is the case with Amarpal Singh, who was not knowing any of the accused before the occurrence. No identification parade had taken place. He was also not knowing other accused except Sukhdev Singh even at the time of his examination as PW-7. Learned counsel argued that there are material contradictions and improbabilities in the version of the prosecution. The occurrence took place at about 2.00 a.m. at night and Amarpal Singh eye witness states that he was going on scooter for giving bid regarding woods at night time which looks improbable. PW-4 Balbir Singh is not an eye witness to the occurrence. Learned counsel argued that there are material contradictions and improbabilities in the version of the prosecution. The occurrence took place at about 2.00 a.m. at night and Amarpal Singh eye witness states that he was going on scooter for giving bid regarding woods at night time which looks improbable. PW-4 Balbir Singh is not an eye witness to the occurrence. He argued that the learned Judicial Magistrate has given finding with correct reasoning and while properly appreciating the statements of the witnesses. The judgment is not perverse or against the law. Therefore, he argued that there being no merit in the appeal, it should be dismissed. 9. I have gone through the evidence on record minutely and carefully and have heard learned Assistant Advocate General, Punjab appearing for the appellant-State and learned counsel for the respondent/accused. 10. From the evidence on record, I find no merit in the arguments of learned counsel for the appellant-State. In the present case, occurrence took place on the intervening night of 21/22.5.1994 at about 2.00 a.m. The FIR was registered on 9.7.1994 and there is a delay of one month and 16 days in lodging the FIR. This delay in lodging the FIR has not been explained by the prosecution. It is in the statement of Kulwant Singh PW- 1 that he also gave application to Senior Superintendent of Police, Jagraon on 25.5.1994. That was the earliest version and would amount to FIR but this fact has not been proved by the prosecution that Kulwant Singh injured gave this application to Senior Superintendent of Police, Jagraon nor the record of the Senior Superintendent of Police office has been summoned to prove this application dated 25.5.1994, which also creates a reasonable doubt in the prosecution version. Further I find that the FIR was registered on the application given by Manjit Singh, who is relative of injured Kulwant Singh. Manjit Singh was not an eye witness to the occurrence. Therefore, his statement also is of no value and does not prove the occurrence. There is no cogent evidence on record as to why Kulwant Singh had not reported the matter to Police or to anybody else for registration of the FIR. As already discussed, he has not proved the fact that he filed application on 25.5.1994, though in cross-examination, he stated so. 11. There is no cogent evidence on record as to why Kulwant Singh had not reported the matter to Police or to anybody else for registration of the FIR. As already discussed, he has not proved the fact that he filed application on 25.5.1994, though in cross-examination, he stated so. 11. In the present case, except ASI Sukhdev Singh, who is named in the FIR also, the names of other Police officials have not been mentioned. Even while appearing as a witness in present case Kulwant Singh PW-1 injured has stated that one ASI and four other Police officials got down him from his Tempo and started giving beating and he was not knowing them earlier to the occurrence nor he had seen them. He identified one of the accused as ASI Sukhdev Singh in the Court. Even in examination-in-chief, he has not named any other accused. The other eye witness Amarpal Singh PW-7 has also not named the accused in the examination-in-chief except ASI Sukhdev Singh. In the examination-inchief, he stated that he only identified ASI Sukhdev Singh amongst the accused. Therefore, the prosecution has failed to prove the case against other accused and only ASI Sukhdev Singh has been named by the complainant and eye witness PW-7. 12. As regards ASI Sukhdev Singh also Kulwant Singh complainant stated that he was not knowing him earlier to the occurrence nor he has seen him. No identification parade had taken place in the present case. PW-7 also stated in cross-examination that he did not know any of the accused person before the present occurrence. He did not know the name of any of them prior to the occurrence. The Police did not arrange the identification parade for identification of accused from him. He stated in cross-examination that he has stated in his application dated 25.5.1994 that he later on came to know the name of ASI Sukhdev Singh. Therefore, even the identity of ASI Sukhdev Singh has not been established beyond doubt, which further creates doubt in the prosecution version. PW-1 further in cross-examination stated that he did not remember whether he has stated in his application dated 25.5.1994 that ASI had told his name as Sukhdev Singh. He has also stated that he had mentioned in the application dated 25.5.1994 also that Sukhdev Singh took him to Police Station, Dehlon where he gave him butt blow. PW-1 further in cross-examination stated that he did not remember whether he has stated in his application dated 25.5.1994 that ASI had told his name as Sukhdev Singh. He has also stated that he had mentioned in the application dated 25.5.1994 also that Sukhdev Singh took him to Police Station, Dehlon where he gave him butt blow. He did not remember if he had mentioned in his application that Amarpal Singh has also reached the spot. PW-1 further stated that he had told ASI Manjit Singh that he had moved an application for registration of case on 25.5.1994. He also stated that he did not lodge any report about this incident at Police Station Division No.6, Ludhiana nor he sent anybody for getting case registered in Police Station Division No.6, Ludhiana. After 25.5.1994, he did not go to the Police Station because he was not in a position to move about. The Police did not approach him before 4.8.1994. Therefore, from this cross-examination, it is clear that even after the registration of the FIR on 9.7.1994, injured PW had stated that the Police did not approach him before 4.8.1994. So, there is every apprehension of concoction of false version. Otherwise also, in examination-in-chief, PW-1 Kulwant Singh has stated that beating had been given by the Police party on the spot and also gave butt blow on his leg. But, in cross-examination, he stated that butt blow was given in the Police Station which is a material contradiction. 13. From the cross-examination of PW-1, the presence of PW-7 Amarpal Singh also looks doubtful on the spot. Otherwise also, Amarpal Singh has stated that he was going at night time on the scooter to take part in the bid of woods which also looks improbable. PW-4 Balbir Singh is not an eye witness to the occurrence. PW-7 Amarpal Singh also in crossexamination stated that he could not tell the number of injuries given to Kulwant Singh on his person. He also stated that the area in front of C.T.I. is within the jurisdiction of Police Station Division No.6, Ludhiana and he did not go to Police Station Division No.6, Ludhiana for lodging report. He also stated that he did not talk about the occurrence to anybody before making statement to Police. 14. He also stated that the area in front of C.T.I. is within the jurisdiction of Police Station Division No.6, Ludhiana and he did not go to Police Station Division No.6, Ludhiana for lodging report. He also stated that he did not talk about the occurrence to anybody before making statement to Police. 14. The learned trial Court in its judgment has discussed all these points and on the basis of reasoning has acquitted the accused-respondent as the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The reasoning given by the learned Magistrate are correct and as per law. The judgment of acquittal dated 24.12.1999 cannot be held as perverse. The evidence has been discussed in the minute detail and correctly. Therefore, the judgment is upheld. 15. Finding no merit in the appeal, the same is dismissed. ---------0.B.S.0------------ ——————————