JUDGMENT : Vivek Singh Thakur, J. 1. State has filed this appeal against acquittal of the respondents vide judgment, dated 1st November, 2008, passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kinnaur District at Reckong Peo, in Police challan No. 1502 of 2005 in case FIR No. 33 of 2005, dated 26th September, 2005, under Sections 325 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as "IPC") read with Section 34 IPC, registered at Police Station Pooh, District Kinnaur. The prosecution story, in brief, is that on 24th September, 2005, at about 9.00 p.m., complainant PW2, Bhisham Dutt (conductor in HRTC) was present in the dhaba at Khadra, owned by PW5 Balbir Singh. He (complainant) alongwith PW1 Susheel Kumar and PW3 Narveer Singh (both drivers in HRTC) was taking meals in that dhaba as all of them had stuck there on account of flood. At that time, respondents came and attacked PW2 Bhisham Dutt, and, after beating him with cycle chain and kick and fist blows, left the place threatening him to do away with his life. PW2 Bhisham Dutt came to Reckong Peo on 25th September, 2005, in the evening and reported the matter to the police at Police Station Reckong Peo at 10.15 a.m. on 26th September, 2005, after obtaining permission from the higher officer/official of HRTC. His statement was recorded in Rapat No. 7 of daily diary at Police Station Reckong Peo Ext. PW8/A and the same was sent to Police Station Pooh through Constable Jai Bharat Singh, whereupon FIR Ext. PW11/D was registered at Police Station Pooh at 7.35 p.m. Investigation was handed over to PW11/A HC Has Raj on 27th September, 2005 and to PW11 ASI Phool Singh after 9th October, 2005. During investigation, the complainant, i.e. PW2 Bhisham Dutt, was medically examined through PW6 Dr. Raj Kumar and his MLC Ext. PW6/B was obtained. Statements of witnesses were recorded. Documents with respect to deployment of the complainant were also obtained from HRTC offices. On completion of inquiry, challan was prepared by PW9, ASI Brij Lal and was presented in the Court. On conclusion of trial, the respondents stand acquitted. Hence, the appeal. 2. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record. 3. Mr. Documents with respect to deployment of the complainant were also obtained from HRTC offices. On completion of inquiry, challan was prepared by PW9, ASI Brij Lal and was presented in the Court. On conclusion of trial, the respondents stand acquitted. Hence, the appeal. 2. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record. 3. Mr. Pankaj Negi, learned Deputy Advocate General, has contended that prosecution has successfully proved beyond reasonable doubt that on 24th September, 2005, at about 9.00 p.m., PW1 Susheel Kumar, PW2 Bhisham Dutt (complainant) and PW3 Narveer were present in the dhaba of PW5 Balbir Singh, when PW2 Bhisham Dutt was beaten by the respondents and, therefore, the impugned judgment, acquitting the respondents, warrants interference as the trial Court has not appreciated the evidence in right perspective, rather has ignored cogent, reliable and convincing evidence available on record against the respondents and has given undue weight age to the contradictions/improvements which were not affecting the genesis of the prosecution story. 4. Mr. Shashi Shirshoo, learned counsel appearing for the respondents, submits that there is delay of two days in lodging the FIR, the matter was not reported to the police personnel present at the place of incident on 24th September, 2005, and also on 25th September, 2005 immediately after reaching Reckong Peo despite the fact that the residence of PW2 Bhisham Dutt (complainant) was near the police station and the FIR was lodged on 26th September, 2005 at 7.35 p.m. It is also contended that there are material contradictions and improvements in the statements of PW1 Susheel Kumar, PW2 Bhisham Dutt (complainant) and PW3 Narveer which create doubt on the veracity of the prosecution witnesses, and moreover, the independent witness PW5 Balbir Singh has not supported the prosecution case. It is further contended that no identification parade was conducted by the police during inquiry as the time of alleged incident was 9.00 p.m. and, as admitted by the investigating officers, there was no light on the spot at that time and it was not possible for the witnesses to identify the assailants. 5. Prosecution has examined twelve witnesses. PW1 Susheel Kumar, PW2 Bhisham Dutt (complainant), PW3 Narveer and PW5 Balbir Singh have been examined as witnesses of the spot. PW6 Dr. Raj Kumar has medically examined PW2 Bhisham Dutt (complainant). 5. Prosecution has examined twelve witnesses. PW1 Susheel Kumar, PW2 Bhisham Dutt (complainant), PW3 Narveer and PW5 Balbir Singh have been examined as witnesses of the spot. PW6 Dr. Raj Kumar has medically examined PW2 Bhisham Dutt (complainant). PW10 Dhandup Chhering is the radiographer, who had conducted x-ray of PW2 Bhisham Dutt (complainant). PW7 Mangrej Singh has proved appointment of PW2 Bhisham Dutt (complainant) as a conductor on contract in HRTC. PW4 Davinder Sigh has proved photocopy of log book of bus No. HP-25-0291, dated 24th September, 2005, Ext. PW4/A, whereby it is proved on record that PW3 Narveer and PW2 Bhisham Dutt (complainant) were on duty as driver and conductor, respectively, in the aforesaid bus to be plied from Khadra to Lippa and Lippa to Khadra. PW8 Constable Puran Singh has proved recording of rapat No. 7, Ext. PW8/A, in Police Station Reckong Peo. PW9 ASI Brij Lal has prepared the challan and presented the same in the Court. PW11 ASI Phool Singh and PW11/A HC Hans Raj are the investigating officers. 6. Before adverting to other official witnesses, it would be appropriate to assess the veracity of the statements of PW2 complainant-Bhisham Dutt; PW1 Susheel Kumar and PW3 Narveer as the other spot witness, PW5 Balbir Singh had turned hostile and despite lengthy cross-examination, nothing could be extracted in his statement in favour of the prosecution case. 7. PW2 Bhisham Dutt (complainant), in his statement Ext. PW8/A, had stated that seven/eight boys including Hawaa Singh, Munna Bhai and Ajay Kumar, assaulted him with cycle chain and kick and fist blows by saying as to whether he was guard of the drivers and thereafter, they ran away from the spot by giving threatening to his life. However, in his supplementary statement recorded under Section 161 CrPC Ext. PW11/B, he clarified that he had mentioned number of assailants as seven/eight on the advice of Regional Manager whereas only four persons (respondents) had beaten him. In the Court, he had stated that respondents came to the dhaba of PW5 Balbir Singh and respondent Raj Bhadur caught him from chest and started giving beatings to him by saying as to whether he was a guard. Further stated that after freeing from clutches of the respondents, he went to the room, but the respondents chased him and threatened him to kill, but he bolted the room from inside. In the statement Ext. Further stated that after freeing from clutches of the respondents, he went to the room, but the respondents chased him and threatened him to kill, but he bolted the room from inside. In the statement Ext. PW8/A, on the basis of which FIR was registered, the complainant has not mentioned about act of respondent-Raj Bhadur and is silent about the factum of saving himself by rushing to the room and bolting it from inside. 8. Though, it is settled that FIR is not supposed to be encyclopedia of the events, but, in the present case, the FIR was not lodged immediately after the incident, but two days later, that too, with due deliberations with the higher authorities/officers including the Regional Manager of HRTC and, therefore, there was sufficient time with the complainant to mention the complete facts and names of assailants in the FIR and in the given facts and circumstances of the present case, this omission in FIR amounts to a major omission on the part of the complainant, which creates doubt about his veracity. 9. Firstly alleging that seven/eight boys attacked PW2 Bhisham Dutt (complainant) and later on saying that assailants were only four in number also creates suspicion about the case put forth by the complainant and his, so called, spot witnesses, i.e. PW1 Susheel Kumar and PW3 Narveer. 10. According to PW1 Susheel Kumar, the complainant was taken outside the shop by the assailants, whereas according to the complainant (PW2), he saved himself by taking shelter in the room and bolting it from inside. PW1 Susheel Kumar stated at the time of incident, except PW1, PW2 and PW3, none was present there whereas the complainant (PW2) stated that PW5 Balbir Singh and his one servant were also present there. 11. Version of PW3 Narveer Singh is also not reliable for the reason that firstly he stated that the respondents came on the spot, pushed the complainant and thereafter, given beatings to him, but thereafter stated that he was not knowing the respondents earlier to the incident and he did not recognize those three/four persons who had beaten the complainant. His statement is self contradictory and, therefore, cannot be relied upon. 12. PW1, in his statement before the police, had stated that there was a lamp lighted in the dhaba, but in the Court, he stated that there was a light. His statement is self contradictory and, therefore, cannot be relied upon. 12. PW1, in his statement before the police, had stated that there was a lamp lighted in the dhaba, but in the Court, he stated that there was a light. Though, he has clarified that lamp stated in the statement made before the police means the electric bulb. However, his statement is falsified from the statements of the investigating officers, i.e. PW11 and PW11/A, who categorically admitted that in those days, there was no light in the area because of flood. Therefore, recognition and identification of the respondents as assailants by PW1, PW2 and PW3 also becomes suspicious. 13. For causing delay in lodging the FIR, the complainant has explained that he reached Reckong Peo in the evening of 25th September, 2005 at about 6.007.00 p.m., but could not lodge the report in the police station, which was near by his residence for the reason that there were instructions from the department to inform the officers before lodging FIR and on 25th September, 2005, In-charge Devender had not come on duty and, therefore, report could not be lodged whereas in his cross-examination, he has admitted that at a distance of 20 feet from the dhaba/hotel at Khadra, there was a room where In-charge was present on the day of incident. There is no explanation for not bringing the incident in the knowledge of In-charge present in Khadra and lodging FIR immediately thereafter. He has also admitted that the police personnel were present at Khadra but he had not reported the incident to them. 14. At the time of lodging complaint/FIR, PW2 Bhisham Dutt has stated that he could not come to police station because of heavy rains whereas at the time of deposition in the Court, he is silent about the rain but stated that he reached at Reckong Peo in the evening of 25.09.2005 at 6.00-7.00 p.m. and he could not lodge complaint because of road blockade. He further claimed that before lodging the complaint, he had to inform his officers and In-charge Devender had not come on that day whereas no such reason has been assigned at the time of lodging the complaint. Further, in his cross examination, he stated that he remained seated throughout night because of pains till arrival of In-charge on the next day. Further, in his cross examination, he stated that he remained seated throughout night because of pains till arrival of In-charge on the next day. It also falsifies his own statement that In-charge was not available on the next day causing delay in lodging the FIR/complaint. Therefore, the explanation for delay in lodging the FIR is not satisfactory. As the complainant has failed to brought plausible reason on record for delay in lodging FIR, it is fatal to the prosecution case in present case. 15. Even if version of complainant is accepted to be true that he remained in the room till the next morning because of pain, it is not only unnatural but unbelievable that complainant did not have medical aid on 25th September, 2005 particularly when he was suffering from rib fracture and, as stated by him in Court, his room at Peo was nearby the hospital and police station. It renders prosecution story doubtful. 16. PW6 Dr. Raj Kumar has opined that probable duration of injuries on the person of the complainant Bhisham Dutt was one-three days from the time of medical examination. Medical examination was conducted on 26th September 2005 at 11.55 p.m. Therefore, possibility of these injuries having been suffered by the complainant on 25th September, 2005 also cannot be ruled out. 17. For the aforesaid contradictions and improvements, which are creating doubt on the veracity of the statements of PW1, PW2 and PW3, it cannot be said that the prosecution has been able to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. From close scrutiny of the statements of spot witnesses, it cannot be concluded that their version is reliable. Evidence on record is not enough to draw only inference as alleged by prosecution. For the reason that statements of the complainant and the eye witnesses do not inspire confidence and evidence on record is not sufficient to convict the respondents, there is no necessity to discuss and evaluate the veracity of the other evidence on record. 18. Respondents have advantage of being acquitted by the trial Court which has fortified the presumption of their innocence and prosecution has failed to point out cogent, reliable and convincing material on record warranting interference in the acquittal of the respondents. Therefore, it cannot be said that learned trial Magistrate has committed any illegality, irregularity or perversity by acquitting respondents. In view of above discussion, the appeal is dismissed. Therefore, it cannot be said that learned trial Magistrate has committed any illegality, irregularity or perversity by acquitting respondents. In view of above discussion, the appeal is dismissed. Bail bonds furnished by the respondents and their respective sureties are discharged. Record be sent back.