JUDGMENT Sanjay Karol, Judge 1. Assailing the judgment dated 2.6.2007, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-II, Kangra at Dharamshala, in Sessions Trial No.9-D/VII/2002, titled as State v. Rajesh Kumar @ Bassu, whereby respondent-accused (hereinafter referred to as the accused) stands acquitted of the offence punishable under the provisions of Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. It is the case of prosecution that on 21.6.2001, Dhani Ram (PW-4), father of injured Puran Chand (PW-5), lodged a complaint at Police Station, Dharamshala, alleging that accused Rajesh Kumar had assaulted PW-5, who sustained injuries and was taken for medical treatment by the complainant to the hospital (PGI at Chandigarh). On the basis of said complaint, FIR No.116 dated 26.6.2001 (Ex. PW-11/A), under the provisions of Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code, was registered at Police Station Dharamshala, District Kangra, Himachal Pradesh. HC Kushal Kumar (PW13) took necessary action and matter was entrusted to SI Karam Singh (PW-15), who conducted the necessary investigation. Statement of the injured was recorded; blood stained clothes were recovered and sent for chemical analysis; necessary investigation on the spot was conducted and medical record of injured was taken into possession. Investigation revealed complicity of the accused and as such challan was presented in the Court for trial. 3. Accused was charged for having committed offence punishable under the provisions of Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code, to which he did not plead guilty and claimed trial. 4. In order to establish its case, in all prosecution examined as many as 17 witnesses and statement of the accused under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was also recorded, in which he pleaded false implication. 5. Based on the material, so placed on record by the prosecution, trial Court acquitted the accused of the charged offence. Hence, the present appeal filed by the State of Himachal Pradesh. 6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record, we are of the considered view that in the instant case, no ground for interference is made out. 7. Complaint (Ex. PW-4/A), on the basis of which FIR (Ex.PW-11/A) was registered, was made after a gap of five days. Significantly, police recorded statement of Smt. Nichho Devi (PW-8), after a period of 11 days. In his statement, HC Kushal Kumar (PW-13) does not explain the reason of delay in conducting the investigation. 7. Complaint (Ex. PW-4/A), on the basis of which FIR (Ex.PW-11/A) was registered, was made after a gap of five days. Significantly, police recorded statement of Smt. Nichho Devi (PW-8), after a period of 11 days. In his statement, HC Kushal Kumar (PW-13) does not explain the reason of delay in conducting the investigation. Delay in lodging the FIR, in the given facts and circumstances, we find is also fatal to the prosecution case. Crucially, father of the injured Dhani Ram (PW-4) initially did not point out finger of suspicion on any one. In fact, it is recorded that his son sustained injuries on account of fall. SI Karam Singh (PW-15) corroborates such fact. 8. We find that the manner in which police conducted the investigation speaks volumes. Injured (PW-5) was discharged from the hospital on 28.7.2001, yet his statement was recorded only on 20.8.2001 and thereafter, after one month, police effected recovery of the clothes. Why so? has not been explained. Accused was arrested on 22.9.2001, i.e. much after the occurrence of incident. Delay in the instant case, in registration of the FIR, in our considered view, has not been sufficiently explained either by the complainant or by the prosecution witnesses. Initial version, as reported to the police, is not that injured was attacked by the accused, but that he sustained injuries on account of a fall. Delay, in our considered view, in the facts and circumstances, is fatal to the prosecution case. 9. Undisputedly, prosecution case primarily hinges upon the testimony of injured (PW-5), his father Dhani Ram (PW-4) and independent witness Nichho Devi (PW-8). Now, PW-4 is not a witness to the occurrence of incident. PW-8 has not supported the prosecution in Court. She was declared hostile and from her testimony nothing fruitful could be elicited. PW-4 simply states that he was informed by “a person from village Krehri” that his son had sustained injuries. How injuries were sustained? has not been explained by him, nor was he informed the cause of such injuries. Though he states that he moved an application (Ex. PW-4/A) to the police to inquire into the cause of injuries sustained by his son, but in cross-examination disowns contents thereof, rendering the veracity of this witness to be doubtful. How injuries were sustained? has not been explained by him, nor was he informed the cause of such injuries. Though he states that he moved an application (Ex. PW-4/A) to the police to inquire into the cause of injuries sustained by his son, but in cross-examination disowns contents thereof, rendering the veracity of this witness to be doubtful. In any case, we do not find this version of his to be true for the reason that though he feigns ignorance as to who prepared the application, but admits that he had asked the police to inquire whether his son had fallen or was given beatings. He feigns ignorance about the time his son regained consciousness. He admits that he never went to Chandigarh, where his son was admitted for medical treatment. This version of his is absolutely unbelievable. It is not a normal conduct of a person, and that too a father, not to accompany/visit his son to the place where he is administered medical treatment. We find that he is not a truthful witness. This fact acquires significance, more so on account of inordinate delay in reporting the matter to the police. 10. When one comes to the testimony of injured (PW-5), one only finds that even he has not deposed with regard to complicity of the accused in the alleged crime. The witness states that on 11.6.2001, while working as a Pharmacist in the Veterinary Dispensary at Krehri, he had gone to village Rohan. On his return, he was informed by persons, who were waiting for him, that there was some emergency case, which had to be attended to. Thereafter, he walked towards his residence and from behind the accused hit him with a stone, as a result of which he fell down. He states that he saw blood oozing out from the injuries sustained by him, but does not know what happened thereafter. His version that he regained consciousness after two minutes and saw the accused drag him, to our mind, does not inspire confidence, for the simple reason that complicity of the accused was disclosed, for the first time by him at his house, after he recovered from taking treatment at different hospitals, PGI at Chandigarh and DMC Ludhiana. His version that he regained consciousness after two minutes and saw the accused drag him, to our mind, does not inspire confidence, for the simple reason that complicity of the accused was disclosed, for the first time by him at his house, after he recovered from taking treatment at different hospitals, PGI at Chandigarh and DMC Ludhiana. Version that he regained consciousness at home and could get his statement recorded thereafter, does not inspire confidence and in any event is not established by medical evidence. Be that as it may, even after reaching his home and regaining consciousness he immediately did not report the incident to the police and/or disclose the complicity of the accused to any one. He admits that police recorded his statement much after (two months) he was brought back home. 11. We also find that this witness has materially improved his version in Court, than what was so narrated by him to the police, which fact was recorded in his statement, under the provisions of Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, with which he was confronted. In his statement recorded by the police, he0020nowhere got recorded that the accused hit him with a stone from behind and also that he regained consciousness after two minutes and that the accused attacked him. He also does not record presence of witness Nichho Devi on the spot. Now significantly, on the date of incident his attendance is not recorded in the Office register. This totally knocks down the foundation of the case that the witness was present in his office on the fateful day. 12. We may also observe that Sandeep Kumar (PW-6), Sartaj Singh (PW-7) and Om Parkash (PW-9), independent witnesses, have not unfurled the prosecution case as the learned Additional Advocate General wants us to believe. These witnesses state that they were called by PW-8 to help an injured person, but none of these witnesses have categorically deposed about the presence of accused on the spot or PW-8 having disclosed to them, the manner in which, the injured sustained injuries. 13. Hence, it cannot be said that prosecution has been able to prove its case, beyond reasonable doubt, by leading clear, cogent, convincing and reliable piece of evidence so as to prove that the accused caused hurt to injured Puran Chand (PW-5), with an intent of causing his death. 14. 13. Hence, it cannot be said that prosecution has been able to prove its case, beyond reasonable doubt, by leading clear, cogent, convincing and reliable piece of evidence so as to prove that the accused caused hurt to injured Puran Chand (PW-5), with an intent of causing his death. 14. For all the aforesaid reasons, we find no reason to interfere with the well reasoned judgment passed by the trial Court. The Court has fully appreciated the evidence so placed on record by the parties. 15. The accused have had the advantage of having been acquitted by the Court below. Keeping in view the ratio of law laid down by the Apex Court in the judgments noticed earlier as also in Mohammed Ankoos and others versus Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad (2010) 1 SCC 94 , it cannot be said that the Court below has not correctly appreciated the evidence on record or that acquittal of the accused has resulted into travesty of justice. No ground for interference is called for. The present appeal is dismissed. Bail bonds, if any, furnished by the accused are discharged. Appeal stands disposed of, so also pending application(s), if any.