Judgment Sanjay Karol, J. F.I.R. No. 89 of 2000, dated 1.5.2000 (Ext. PW-16/A) was registered at Police Station West, Shimla against accused Shankar Singh, Munish, Shanti Devi, Kusum, Pratap Singh and Manoj Kumar under various provisions of Indian Penal Code. Vide judgment dated 31.8.2005 passed by Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. II, Shimla, H.P., in Criminal Case No. 168/2 of 04/2000, titled as State of Himachal Pradesh vs. Shankar Singh & others, accused Shankar Singh, Munish, Shanti Devi, Kusum and Pratap were convicted for having committed offences punishable under the provisions of Sections 147, 148, 452, 323, 324 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code. However, they were acquitted for having committed offences punishable under the provisions of Sections 427 and 506 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code. Accused Manoj Kumar was acquitted on all counts. Accused Shankar, Shanti Devi and Pratap Singh were directed to serve simple imprisonment for a period of one year each and pay fine of Rs.500/- each, for offence punishable under Section 452 IPC, simple imprisonment for a period of three months and fine of Rs.500/- for each of the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 323 IPC and simple imprisonment for a period of six months and fine of Rs.500/- for offence punishable under Section 324 IPC and in default of payment of fine to undergo simple imprisonment for 15 days on each count. Accused Munish and Kusum were granted the benefit of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958. 2. Assailing the said judgment, accused Shankar Singh, Shanti Devi and Partap Singh preferred an appeal and vide judgment dated 28.7.2006 passed by Addl. Sessions Judge, Shimla, H.P. in Criminal Appeal No. 25-S/10 of 2005, titled as Shankar Singh & others vs. State of Himachal Pradesh, they stand acquitted on all counts. 3. Complainant Sh. Tek Chand (PW-1) has assailed the said judgment of acquittal dated 28.7.2006 in the instant Revision Petition No. 125 of 2006. 4. Independently convicts Munish and Kusum assailed the judgment of conviction dated 31.8.2005 and vide judgment dated 11.3.2010, passed by Addl. Sessions Judge, Shimla, H.P. in Criminal Appeal No. 51-S/10 of 2006, titled as Munish & another vs. State of Himachal Pradesh, they stand acquitted on all counts. 5. Complainant Sh. 4. Independently convicts Munish and Kusum assailed the judgment of conviction dated 31.8.2005 and vide judgment dated 11.3.2010, passed by Addl. Sessions Judge, Shimla, H.P. in Criminal Appeal No. 51-S/10 of 2006, titled as Munish & another vs. State of Himachal Pradesh, they stand acquitted on all counts. 5. Complainant Sh. Tek Chand (PW-1) has also assailed the said judgment dated 11.3.2010 by filing an appeal along with an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, seeking condonation of delay being Cr. MP(M) No. 11063 of 2013. The delay is of 1098 days. The appeal has yet not been registered. State has not assailed this judgment dated 11.3.2010 passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge, Shimla, H.P. acquitting accused Munish and Kusum. 6. State has only filed Cr. Appeal No. 359 of 2006 assailing judgment dated 28.7.2006. 7. All these appeals/petitions are being disposed of by a common judgment as they arise out of a single incident, F.I.R., crime, identical evidence and same accused persons. 8. The moot point which arises for consideration is as to whether the lower appellate court erred in acquitting the accused on all counts and as to whether findings returned are perverse, erroneous, unreasonable and contrary to the settled position of law or not. 9. Complainant Tek Chand (PW-1) is neighbour of accused Shankar Lal and there is inter se dispute between them with regard to seepage of water. Allegedly on 1.5.2000 accused broke the water pipe of the complainant. Also accused Shankar Singh, his wife Shanti Devi, son Munish and daughter Kusum abused the complainant and his wife. This resulted into heated arguments between the two parties. Thereafter, all the accused persons formed an unlawful assembly and gave beatings to the complainant party. In particular, accused Partap Singh gave blow with a sharp edged object to complainant Sh. Tek Chand. When wife and maid of the complainant tried to intervene and cried for help, people assembled on the spot. At that accused fled away from the spot. Complainant (PW-1) was brought by his nephew Sh. Het Ram (PW-3) to police post Jutogh where report (Ext. PW-14/A) was lodged on the basis of which F.I.R. No. 89 of 2000, dated 1.5.2000 (Ext. PW 16/A) was registered at police station West, Shimla. The incident was witnessed by Sh. Jagdish Chand (PW-6) and Sh. Ajit Singh (PW-2). Complainant was got medically examined through Dr. Het Ram (PW-3) to police post Jutogh where report (Ext. PW-14/A) was lodged on the basis of which F.I.R. No. 89 of 2000, dated 1.5.2000 (Ext. PW 16/A) was registered at police station West, Shimla. The incident was witnessed by Sh. Jagdish Chand (PW-6) and Sh. Ajit Singh (PW-2). Complainant was got medically examined through Dr. D. C. Chauhan (PW-12) who issued MLC (Ext. PW-12/A). HC- Nika Ram (PW-15) completed the investigation on the spot and recovered the weapon of offence and blood stained clothes of the complainant and also other incriminating material. With the completion of investigation, challan was presented in the Court for trial. 10. All the accused were charged for having committed offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149, 452, 323, 324, 427 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 11. In order to prove its case, in all, prosecution examined seventeen witnesses and statements of the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. were also recorded, in which they pleaded false implication. No defence evidence was led by the accused. 12. As already observed, except for accused Manoj Kumar, trial Court convicted all the accused for some of the charged offences and the lower appellate Court has reversed such findings, judgment of conviction and acquitted them on all counts. 13. It is a settled position of law that acquittal confers a vested right on the accused. [See: Mookkiah & another vs. State, represented by Inspector of Police, Tamil Nadu, I (2013) 2 SCC 89 ; Govindaraju @ Govinda vs. State by Sriramapuram Police Station and another, (2012) 4 SCC 722 and State of Rajasthan vs. Televar and another, (2011) 11 SCC 666 .] But then if the findings and judgments are perverse it is also the duty of this Court to intervene and after fully appreciating the evidence and evaluating the material on record, if required, reverse such findings and judgment. 14. The fact that members of the complainant party and more specifically complainant (PW-1) received injuries stands established through the testimony of Dr. Kashmir Singh (PW-5), Dr. Usha Sharma (PW-7) and Dr. D.C. Chauhan (PW-12). 15. 14. The fact that members of the complainant party and more specifically complainant (PW-1) received injuries stands established through the testimony of Dr. Kashmir Singh (PW-5), Dr. Usha Sharma (PW-7) and Dr. D.C. Chauhan (PW-12). 15. For proving the onus that accused formed an unlawful assembly and in furtherance of their common object committed an act of rioting, armed with deadly weapon and that they voluntarily caused hurt with such weapon by committing house trespass with an intent of causing hurt and also criminally intimidated the complainant party, prosecution has relied upon the testimonies of complainant Sh. Tek Chand (PW-1), Sh. Ajit Singh (PW-2), Sh. Het Ram (PW-3), Smt. Prem Lata (PW-4), Sh. Jagdish Chand (PW-6) and Smt. Kaushlya Devi (PW-11). 16. Undisputedly, there are material contradictions, discrepancies and improvements in the evidence so led by the prosecution rendering the genesis of the prosecution story to be doubtful if not false. As per prosecution story two of the accused persons gave blows with weapon whereas others gave blows with fist and kick blows and danda. But in court it is not the case of the complainant. Noticeably, wife of the complainant has not been examined in Court. She is a nurse in a hospital. Perhaps she did not want herself to be subjected to cross examination and as such refrained from stepping into the witness box. She was a material witness, particularly when it is found that complainant’s testimony does not inspire confidence. She was a witness to the entire sequence of events. Independent witnesses are either relatives or having close relations with the complainant party. Except for Smt. Prem Lata (PW-4) no other independent witness from the neighbourhood has been associated. Some of the witnesses state that complainant was confined to a room and was only freed when police arrived on the spot, which actually is not the case of prosecution. It appears that witnesses are not clear about the manner in which the incident took place. Their testimonies cannot be said to be wholly inspiring in confidence leading to an irresistible conclusion of the guilt of the accused, beyond reasonable doubt. The witnesses have not deposed in a natural and impartial manner. No doubt, complainant (PW-1) sustained injuries as is so deposed by Dr. D.C. Chauhan (PW-12), but then this fact alone would not be a reason or circumstance sufficient enough to convict the accused. 17. The witnesses have not deposed in a natural and impartial manner. No doubt, complainant (PW-1) sustained injuries as is so deposed by Dr. D.C. Chauhan (PW-12), but then this fact alone would not be a reason or circumstance sufficient enough to convict the accused. 17. According to the complainant (PW-1), on 1.5.2000 accused quarreled with the complainant party. They broke his drain. At that time his wife was at home. Same day at about 9:15 p.m., when he returned home, his wife informed him about such fact. Suddenly accused started abusing from the lintel of their house. They also threatened to kill them. His wife went out and saw the same. Thereafter his wife came inside the room and bolted the door from inside. Immediately all the accused persons entered the room and started giving him beatings. Accused Pratap Singh gave blow with a knuckle and accused Shankar Singh gave blow with a “fatti” (wooden plank). Other accused persons gave beatings to him and his wife with fist and kick blows. Both he and his wife suffered injuries. Hearing the noise, Sh. Ajit Singh (PW-2), Sh. Nitu (not examined in court) and Sh. Jagdish Chand (PW-6) arrived on the spot. Seeing them, accused ran away by extending threats that though today they were saved, however, in future they would be killed. He reported the matter to the police. Following day i.e. on 2.5.2000, police arrived on the spot and conducted the necessary investigations. Now in cross examination this witness admits that road is not visible from his house. This is a relevant fact. As according to independent witnesses they have shops on the road side at Hira Nagar, from where they came to rescue the complainant. He also admits that at the time of occurrence of the incident his building was under construction. He admits not to be present at the time when police conducted the investigation. 18. It be only observed that testimony of this witness is not inspiring in confidence at all. He also admits that at the time of occurrence of the incident his building was under construction. He admits not to be present at the time when police conducted the investigation. 18. It be only observed that testimony of this witness is not inspiring in confidence at all. His version that Ajit Singh (PW-2) arrived on the spot does not appear to be true as according to PW-2, he does not own any house at Hira Nagar and shops usually close at 7:00 – 8:00 p.m. Now if house of accused was not visible from the road and Tek Chand had no house in Hira Nagar then his presence on the spot is absolutely unexplainable. 19. Sh. Het Ram (PW-3) has tried to corroborate the version of his uncle (PW-1). But then he could not deny as to whether the complainant party had put their dirty water pipe in the boundary of the land belonging to the accused persons. Most significantly this witness admits that there was a counter complaint against him, Ajit Singh (PW-2), Jagdish Chand (PW-6) and the complainant Tek Chand (PW-1) and in fact police had called them to the chowki. This witness admits that wife of the complainant is a nurse and posted at Ripon Hospital. Now if complainant had sustained injuries then why is it that they did not straightaway rush to the hospital for medical treatment first. Report could have been lodged there also. Wife of complainant has not been examined in Court. Why so? has not been sufficiently explained. Be that as it may, one cannot loose sight of the fact that complainant party was also called by the police in relation to the same incident on the complaint lodged by the accused party. 20. Though Het Ram suffered injuries, which is evident from the testimony of the Doctor, but then he does not ascribe any role to any of the assailants with regard to the injuries sustained by him. 21. Smt. Prem Lata (PW-4) has a totally different version to State. According to her it was she who informed the police who reached the spot at 4:00 a.m. (night intervening 1st and 2nd May, 2000) which in fact is not the case of prosecution at all, as according to the police they reached the spot after break of the day. Also complaint was lodged by the complainant. According to her it was she who informed the police who reached the spot at 4:00 a.m. (night intervening 1st and 2nd May, 2000) which in fact is not the case of prosecution at all, as according to the police they reached the spot after break of the day. Also complaint was lodged by the complainant. Her presence on the spot appears to be doubtful. She does not even know that house of the accused and the complainant are adjoining to each other. Except for her bald statement there is nothing on record to establish that she is a neighbour of the complainant. She states that “I do not know that the quarrel had already taken place between Tek Chand and accused”. She has retracted from her statement so recorded by the police with which she was confronted. She contradicts her statement on the question of her presence and presence of Het Ram. She admits not to have read over documents of recovery (Ext. PW-1/A and 1/B) on which she appended her signatures. 22. Most importantly presence of Jagdish Chand (PW-6) who allegedly witnessed the occurrence of the incident is unbelievable. He is a government employee and admits that he is working as a Beldar in the IPH Department. He states that he owns a shop at Hira Nagar, a place from where he went to the spot. But then a government employee cannot run a shop nor has he produced any prove thereof. He states that at about 9.15 p.m. he heard cries coming from the house of Tek Chand and rushed to the spot where he saw the accused give beatings. Significantly he is not a resident of the village. He admits that he was summoned by a Court of Magistrate and released on bail. For some strange reason he denies registration of F.I.R., on the incident reported by the accused, against him as also the complainant party at Police Station, Boileuganj. He had no reason to tell lies in view of categorical admission so made by Het Ram (PW-3). 23. Smt. Kaushlya Devi (PW-11) is a maid of the complainant. According to the prosecution, she witnessed the incident. Even, according to the complainant, during the day accused had broken the drain which fact was witnessed by this witness. But in Court she denies the same. 23. Smt. Kaushlya Devi (PW-11) is a maid of the complainant. According to the prosecution, she witnessed the incident. Even, according to the complainant, during the day accused had broken the drain which fact was witnessed by this witness. But in Court she denies the same. She does not remember as to which of the neighbours first arrived on the spot. She states that Smt. Lakshmi Devi w/o Sh. Tek Chand had bolted the door from inside. Now if this were so, then where is the question of accused entering the house of the complainant. It is not the case of prosecution that accused had broken open the door and thereafter entered the house. Her testimony does not inspire confidence. 24. Conjoint reading of the testimonies of these witnesses would only reveal that they have not been able to prove the prosecution case, beyond reasonable doubt. No illegality or infirmity/perversity could be found in the appreciation of the evidence or the findings in the judgment rendered by the courts below. 25. Having perused the testimony of the prosecution witnesses on record it cannot be said that prosecution has been able to prove its case, beyond reasonable doubt, to the effect that, the accused formed an unlawful assembly and in furtherance of their common object committed an act of rioting, armed with deadly weapon and that they voluntarily caused hurt with such weapon by committing house trespass with an intent of causing hurt and also criminally intimidated the complainant party, by leading clear, cogent, convincing and reliable material on record. It cannot be said that the findings returned by the courts below are not borne out from record or are perverse, illegal, erroneous or arisen out of incomplete appreciation of the prosecution evidence. 26. 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 Mohammed Ankoos and others versus Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad, (2010) 1 SCC 94 , since it cannot be said that the lower appellate Court has not correctly appreciated the evidence on record or that acquittal of the accused has resulted into travesty of justice, no interference is warranted in the instant case. 27. For all the aforesaid reasons, Criminal Revision No. 125 of 2006 as also Cr. 27. For all the aforesaid reasons, Criminal Revision No. 125 of 2006 as also Cr. Appeal No. 359 of 2006, devoid of merit, are dismissed, so also pending applications, if any. Bail bonds furnished by the accused are discharged. Cr. MP(M) No. 11063 of 2013 28. There is no sufficient cause for condoning the delay in filing the present appeal/petition. Complainant Tek Chand had been pursuing the matter before this Court and his version that he was not aware of the judgment of acquittal of accused Munish and Kusum does not appear to be true. 29. Reliance on decisions of the apex Court in Trishala vs. M.V. Sundar Raj and another, (2010) 15 SCC 714; Improvement Trust, Ludhiana vs. Ujagar Singh & others, (2010) 6 SCC 786 and K. Venkatachala Bhat & another vs. Krishna Nayak (D) by LRs & others, (2005) 4 SCC 117 , cannot be said to be of much consequence as it is a settled principle that each case has to be considered on the basis of relevant fact situation and in the instant case the facts mentioned in the application seeking condonation of delay, neither stands substantiated nor sufficiently explained. Complainant was not aggrieved of the order passed in favour of the accused/respondents Munish and Kusum giving them the benefit of probation of Offenders Act. Even otherwise entire evidence stands scrutinized, appreciated, considered and discussed in the appeals and there is no infirmity with the findings returned by the Court below. Application is accordingly dismissed. Records of the Court below be immediately sent back.