JUDGMENT : 1. The appeal has arisen out of judgment dated 26.9.1994 passed by learned Special Judge, Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Cases, Jhalawar (for short “the SC/ST Act”), in Sessions Case No.65/1994, whereby while acquitting accused Nemi Chand from all the charges levelled against him, appellants Mst Vimla and Smt. Shobha, each of them has been convicted and sentenced as follows: u/s 448 IPC Six months' Rigorous Imprisonment with fine of Rs.1000/-; in default of payment thereof, to further undergo One month's Rigorous Imprisonment. U/s 352 IPC Three months' Rigorous Imprisonment with fine of Rs.500/-; in default of payment thereof, to further undergo 15 days' Rigorous Imprisonment. U/s 3(1)(v), SC/ST, Act Six months' Rigorous Imprisonment with fine of Rs.1000/-; in default of payment thereof, to further undergo One month's Rigorous Imprisonment. All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. 2. Brief facts are that Fakir Chand (PW-3) submitted a written report (Ex.P-8) on 17.6.1991 before learned Judicial Magistrate Magistrate, Jhalawar alleging inter alia that he is holding a shop of Amolak Chand as a tenant from many years on rent of Rs.55/- per month. Earlier the same shop was with his father Peeruji on rent at the rate of Rs.15/- per month. Amolak Chand wanted to enhance the rent and otherwise asked to vacate the shop. On 1.6.1991 at about 11.00 AM when complainant was ironing the clothes, appellants Vimla and Shobha entered into the shop with an intention to beet him and forcefully get vacated the shop. They pushed the complainant out of the shop. Thereafter, they started throwing on road all the belongings of complainant lying in the shop. Amolak Chand and Nemi Chand were also there outside the shop to assist them. The complainant immediately went to police station and orally informed the SHO. What proceedings the SHO drew, he does not know. Meanwhile, Nemi Chand also reached there. He talked with the SHO–Hussain Mohammed and thereafter the SHO asked him to go back immediately to his shop otherwise people will take away all his belongings lying on the road. On this, complainant put his signatures on the papers, which were prepared by the SHO and immediately rushed to the spot and saw that Vimla, Shobha, Amolak Chand and Nemi Chand had shut the door and put their lock on the shop. On this, complainant put his signatures on the papers, which were prepared by the SHO and immediately rushed to the spot and saw that Vimla, Shobha, Amolak Chand and Nemi Chand had shut the door and put their lock on the shop. On 5.6.1991, the complainant gave an application to Superintendent of Police, Jhalawar. On being frightened, he went away from village and remained busy in attending marriage in relations and now, he is submitting the complaint. On being forwarded u/s 156(3) Cr.P.C., FIR No.80/1991 was registered at Police Station Pidawa, District Jhalawar. After due investigation, chargesheet was filed against Vimla, Shobha, Nemi Chand and Amolak Chand. During trial, Amolak Chand died. Appellants and Nemi Chand were charged by learned Trial Court for offences u/s 448, 352 IPC and section 3(1)(v) of the SC/ST Act. The accused denied the charges and claimed for trial. Prosecution examined 11 witnesses and exhibited 11 documents. Appellants were examined u/s 313 Cr.P.C. They stated that they have been wrongly implicated in the matter. The evidence produced by prosecution is false. Appellant Vimla further stated that on the date of occurrence, she was working as Post Master at village Kotari and she was not present at the place of occurrence, rather she was on her duty. Appellant Shobha stated that she was at Pali on the date of occurrence. She was at her in-law's house and was not present at the place of occurrence. Three witnesses were examined in defence and six documents were exhibited. After hearing the parties, learned trial court passed the impugned judgment, whereby it convicted and sentenced the appellants, as mentioned hereinabove. 3. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the occurrence is said to be of 1.6.1991. The complaint (Ex.P-8) presented before learned Judicial Magistrate is dated 11.6.1991, but has been presented on 17.6.1991. On the contrary, on the very day of the occurrence i.e. 1.6.1991 when complainant Fakir Chand rushed to the police station, SHO entered the incident as narrated by the complainant, in his daily diary and copy of which is Ex.D-3. As per this entry, Fakir Chand reported to the police station that at about 1.00 PM–two daughters of Amolak Chand came to him and asked to vacate the shop otherwise they would throw the clothes and other goods of complainant lying in the shop. As per this entry, Fakir Chand reported to the police station that at about 1.00 PM–two daughters of Amolak Chand came to him and asked to vacate the shop otherwise they would throw the clothes and other goods of complainant lying in the shop. The complainant requested them to grant 8 days time to search out some other shop. Meanwhile, Mahaveer Kumar Jain came there and he had a talk with two daughters of Amalok Chand and got the shop vacated and the complainant was given another shop of Amolak Chand on rent. He has apprehension that despite of that, both the girls may not throw away his clothes and other belongings from shop. Therefore, he has come to report. SHO has endorsed upon the information that the matter seems to be only of some hot talks pertaining to the shop, therefore, the complainant was advised to approach the court. 4. On the other hand, after 17 days of the occurrence, the complainant submitted the complaint containing exaggerations and false imputations. Delay in lodging FIR is fatal in the instant matter. Prosecution has not given any satisfactory explanation about it. 5. Learned counsel further submits that Balchand (PW-4), Manna Lal (PW-5), Tej Prakash (PW-6) and Dhapu Bai (PW-10) examined by prosecution are other tenants of Amolak Chand. Balchand (PW-4) is father of Tej Prakash (PW-6). They used to tease the daughters of Amolak Chand while holding his shop on rent. Amolak Chand had reported the matter to police also and had asked them to vacate the shop. Dhapu Bai (PW-10) is mother of the complainant Fakir Chand. Rai Singh (PW-8) has admitted in cross examination that he has married his daughter with brother of Tej Prakash (PW-6). He has also admitted in cross examination that there is no shop or house of him nearby the place of incident. Manna Lal (PW-5) has also admitted in cross examination that there is no house or shop of him nearby the place of incident. Thus, all the witnesses alleged to be eye witnesses are interested witnesses and they have enmity with the appellants. Noor Khan (PW-11) has also been examined as eye witness. He seems to be an independent witness. But, he does not corroborate prosecution story and turned hostile. 6. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor submits that eye witnesses have corroborated the story of prosecution as narrated by Fakir Chand (PW-03). Noor Khan (PW-11) has also been examined as eye witness. He seems to be an independent witness. But, he does not corroborate prosecution story and turned hostile. 6. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor submits that eye witnesses have corroborated the story of prosecution as narrated by Fakir Chand (PW-03). The delay in lodging FIR has very well been explained by the complainant. On the day of occurrence, the complainant was in possession of the rented shop. There is nothing on record to disbelieve the testimony of Fakir Chand (PW-3). 7. I have given thoughtful consideration to the rival submissions and gone through the material available on record. 8. Fakir Chand (PW-3) deposed that he was running a shop of ironing clothes in the house of Amolaka Chand. At 11O'clock on the day, when he was ironing the clothes, Amolak Chand, Nemi Chand, Vimla and Shobha came there. Amolak Chand and Nemi Chand asked Vimla and Shobha to throw away the belongings of Dhobida out of the shop. Vimla and Shobha entered into the shop and gave beatings by hands to him. Nemi Chand asked them to throw away all the belongings outside the shop and said that he will see whatever may come. Thereupon, Shobha and Vimla threw away his ironed clothes, money, out of the shop. The shop was on rent since his father's time. Earlier 15 rupees per month was the rent, later on, he started to pay Rs.55/- per month. Vimla and Shobha forcefully pushed him out of the shop. When he reached police station, Nemi Chand and Amolak Chand were already there at the police station. SHO, Hussain Mohammed did not lodge his report and got his signatures on blank papers. Now, the shop is with Amalok Chand. On the day of incident, all the four accused put their lock on this rented shop of the complainant and seized it. The shop is with the accused. In cross examination, he admits that on 1.6.1991, he gave oral report to the police station and police had taken his signatures on the report. He admits his signatures on daily diary (Ex.D-3) of the police station. This witness has been confronted with his earlier statement recorded u/s 161 Cr.P.C. as well as the complaint (Ex.P-8). He admitted certain facts being stated during trial, which not find any mention in his earlier statement or the complaint. 9. He admits his signatures on daily diary (Ex.D-3) of the police station. This witness has been confronted with his earlier statement recorded u/s 161 Cr.P.C. as well as the complaint (Ex.P-8). He admitted certain facts being stated during trial, which not find any mention in his earlier statement or the complaint. 9. Balchand (PW-4) has admitted in his examinaliton in chief that he has also taken a shop on rent from accused, which is just near the shop of Fakir Chand and in which his son Tej Prakash used to sit. Manna Lal (PW-5) is also a washer-man. He admits in cross examination that neither his house nor shop is nearby the place of incident. Tej Prakash (PW-6) is son of Balchand (PW-04). Rai Singh (PW-8) admits in cross examination that he has also no house or shop nearby the place of occurrence. He also admits that he has married a daughter with son of Balchand (PW-4) Dhapu Bai (PW-10) is mother of Fakir Chand (PW-3), she deposed that she reached on the spot after the incident. She is not eye witness. Noor Khan (PW-11) has also been examined as eye witness but he does not give any evidence in favour of prosecution. He has completely turned hostile. 10. On perusal of entry in daily diary (Ex.D-3) of the Police Station Pidawa, it reveals that on 1.6.1992 on the intervention of some Mahaveer Jain, the complainant himself vacated the shop in question and he was provided another shop of Amolak Chand on rent basis. He has informed the police that initially two daughters of Amolak Chand threatened him to vacate the house but later on by intervention of Mahaveer, the matter was amicably sorted out. On the contrary, the complaint (Ex.P-8) which is basis of FIR, discloses quite another story. As per this complaint, the complainant was forcefully driven out the rented shop. He was also subjected to beating and abused. It has also been stated that on that day, the accused forcefully entering into the shop, threw away all the belongings of the complainant on the road. 11. The contradictions and discrepancies in the Ex.D-3, daily diary of the police and complaint (Ex.P-8) on one hand and earlier statement recorded uk/s 161 Cr.P.C. on the other hand, cannot be ignored in the present matter. 11. The contradictions and discrepancies in the Ex.D-3, daily diary of the police and complaint (Ex.P-8) on one hand and earlier statement recorded uk/s 161 Cr.P.C. on the other hand, cannot be ignored in the present matter. When the witnesses examined by the prosecution are same how or otherwise interested in getting the appellant punished. Only independent eye witness has turned hostile, FIR has been lodged quite belatedly and the information given by the complainant as recorded by police on Ex.D-3 daily diary, does not disclose forceful dispossession - all these make the prosecution story shrouded with cloud of doubts. In absence of any reasonable explanation about the said circumstances, the prosecution story cannot be believed to be true. In absence of evidence worth of credibility and presence of circumstances generating many fold doubts, it will be against the principle of law to uphold the findings of the trial court about convicting and sentencing the appellants. 12. In the result, the appeal succeeds and is allowed. The judgment impugned dated 26.9.1994 passed by learned Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. Cases, Jhalawar regarding conviction and sentence against the appellants is set aside. The appellants are acquitted of all the charges levelled against them. 13. Keeping in view, however, the provisions of section 437-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, accused appellants Mst. Vimla D/o Shri Amolak Chand and Smt. Shobha W/o Shri Suresh Kumar Jain are directed to forthwith furnish a person bond in the sum of Rs.20,000/- each, and a surety bond in the like amount, before the Deputy Registrar (Judicial) of this Court, which shall be effective for a period of six months to the effect that in the event of filing of Special Leave Petition against this judgment or on grant of leave, the said appellant, on receipt of notice thereof, shall appear before the Supreme Court.