JUDGMENT Vivek Singh Thakur, J.(Oral) - This appeal has been preferred by State against the acquittal of respondent-Amar Nath vide judgment, dated 31st July, 2007, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Hamirpur in Sessions Trial No. 26 of 2006 in case FIR No. 109/2006, dated 27th June, 2006, registered under Section 3 (viii) (x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, at Police Station Bhoranj, District Hamirpur. 2. Investigating agency was set in motion by PW-1 Hari Ram by submitting an application Ext. PW-1/A on 27th June, 2006 in Police Station Bhoranj against respondent-Amar Nath stating therein that on 30th May, 2006, at about 6.00 p.m., while going home, he alighted from the bus at Bus Stop Patta, where respondent-Amar Nath abused him by uttering words "Madar Chod, Behan Chod, Chamar tu apne aap ko kya samjhata hai, hamne tujhe sabak sikha diya hai''. On requesting not to abuse on the basis of caste, he again said that they will kill the Chamars like 1947 and will create an upper caste society. It was further alleged that respondent-Amar Nath, intending to kill the complainant, also caught hold him from the neck and tried to beat him. At that time, PW-2 Rattan Chand and PW-3 Dev Raj rescued him from the clutches of the respondent, who threatened to kill him. It was also complained that respondent claimed his relations with highly placed persons and, therefore, he could kill the complainant at any time. In the last, it was stated in the complaint that because of his pre-occupations, complainant could not come to lodge the complaint at earlier point of time. 3. On the basis of aforesaid complaint, FIR Ext. PW-6/A was lodged and investigation was carried out. During investigation, caste certificate of complainant PW-1 Hari Ram (Ext. PW-4/B) and respondent-Amar Nath (Ext. PW-4/C) were obtained by PW-7 SI Amar Singh from the Executive Magistrate Surjan Singh, issuance of which has been proved by PW-4 Dinesh Kumar, Miscellaneous Clerk in the Tehsil Office Bhoranj. Notification of castes scheduled in Himachal Pradesh Ext. PW-4/D was also obtained from the concerned authority. Respondent-Amar Nath was serving as a fire watcher in the Forest Department. Muster roll Ext. PW-5/A, proving his presence on duty till 5.00 p.m. on 30th May, 2006, was also collected by the investigating officer. Spot map Ext. PW-8/A was prepared after recording statements of witnesses. PW-4/D was also obtained from the concerned authority. Respondent-Amar Nath was serving as a fire watcher in the Forest Department. Muster roll Ext. PW-5/A, proving his presence on duty till 5.00 p.m. on 30th May, 2006, was also collected by the investigating officer. Spot map Ext. PW-8/A was prepared after recording statements of witnesses. On completion of investigation, challan was presented in the Court. 4. Prosecution has examined seven witnesses to prove its case. After recording evidence and statement under section 313 CrPC, 1973 respondent has also examined three witnesses in defence so as to prove his presence somewhere else on duty discharging his duty as a fire watcher in a forest alongwith DW-1 Milkhi Ram under the supervision of Forest Guard DW-3 Sandeep Kumar. Certain documents including copy of order/resolution passed by Gram Panchayat Ext DA, news items Ext. DB to DF and application filed by some persons including respondent-Amar Nath were also put to PW-1 Hari Ram, which were admitted by him. 5. On conclusion of trial, respondent-Amar Nath stands acquitted. Hence, the appeal. 6. I have heard learned Additional Advocate General appearing for appellant-State and learned counsel for the respondent and have also perused the documents placed on record. 7. In the complaint filed by complainant-Hari Ram (PW-1), PW-2 Rattan Chand and PW-3 Dev Raj have been cited as spot witnesses. Therefore, veracity of the statements of PW-1 Hari Ram (complainant), PW-2 Rattan and PW-3 Dev Raj has to be assessed at the first instance. It is only after the version of these witnesses is found to be reliable, the statements of other witnesses is to be scrutinized. 8. PW-2 Rattan Chand, for not supporting prosecution case in his examination-in-chief, was declared hostile and was subjected to cross-examination by learned Public Prosecutor. During cross-examination by learned Public Prosecutor, he admitted the case of prosecution. However, during cross-examination by the learned defence counsel, he admitted that he had sworn the affidavit in favour of complainant PW-1 Hari Ram on 2nd or 3rd June 2006. 9. During cross-examination by learned Public Prosecutor, he admitted the case of prosecution. However, during cross-examination by the learned defence counsel, he admitted that he had sworn the affidavit in favour of complainant PW-1 Hari Ram on 2nd or 3rd June 2006. 9. Testimony of PW-2 Rattan Chand cannot be said to be reliable for the reason that he sworn the affidavit in favour of the complainant on a date when there was no complaint pending with the police or in any other Court and despite swearing the said affidavit, he did not support case of the prosecution in his examination-in-chief and in crossexamination, he admitted all suggestions put to him. Therefore, his version is not trustworthy. 10. Testimony of PW-3 cannot be disbelieved or discarded solely on plea of respondent that PW-3 belongs to the caste of complainant. However, version of this witness is not reliable for different reason. As per site plan Ext. PW-8/A, it was ''Raju Misthan Bhandaar'' where PW-2 and PW-3 were claimed to have been sitting for having tea at the time of alleged incident. PW-3 Dev Raj, though, has supported version of the complainant but his statement is also not reliable for the reason that he admitted that at the time of incident, he was sitting inside a tea stall and had noticed the alleged incident from inside the shop, whereas PW-8 K.G. Kapoor Investigating Officer has categorically admitted that place of occurrence shown at point ''A'' was not visible to a person sitting and having tea inside the shop ''Raju Misthan Bhandaar'' at point ''G'' in the site plan Ext. PW-8/A, which renders testimony of PW-3 unreliable. 11. Complaint, in the present case, was lodged after about one month, i.e. on 27th June, 2006, with respect to the incident which took place on 30th May, 2006. Delay in lodging FIR always is not fatal. In present case, complainant PW-1 Hari Ram, at the time of submitting the application in the police station, had assigned his pre-occupations during the intervening period as the reason for delay. However, in the Court, he had deposed in his examination-in-chief that on 27th June, 2006, at about 6.00 p.m., respondent again met him, humiliated him by calling him by his caste and, therefore, he lodged the complaint against the respondent. PW-7 Dy. However, in the Court, he had deposed in his examination-in-chief that on 27th June, 2006, at about 6.00 p.m., respondent again met him, humiliated him by calling him by his caste and, therefore, he lodged the complaint against the respondent. PW-7 Dy. SP K.G. Kapoor, the Investigating Officer, in his cross-examination, had stated that complainant had told him that he was not inclined to lodge any report against respondent as it was a village matter, but since the respondent had again insulted and humiliated him on 27th June, 2006, he was forced to lodge the complaint against respondent. Complainant, in the application submitted by him to the police or in his deposition in the Court, is completely silent about the reason explained by the Investigating Officer that being a village matter, he was not inclined to lodge any report. 12. The reason stated in the application by the complainant that because of his preoccupations, he could not have reported the matter to the police is also unbelievable for the reason that complainant PW-1 Hari Ram has unequivocally admitted in his crossexamination that Police Station is situated near the Tehsil office at Bhoranj and during the period from 30th May, 2006 to 27th June, 2006 he had visited the Tehsil Office for about eight-ten times. Therefore, reason assigned for delay in lodging the complaint renders the version of complainant doubtful. 13. It is also an explanation given for delay in filing complaint by PW-1 Hari Ram that he was not interested in lodging the complaint for the incident occurred on 30th May, 2006, but it was only for re-occurrence of the incident on 27th June, 2006, he lodged the complaint. Had it been true, there was no occasion for PW-1 to have affidavit of PW-2 Rattan Chand in his favour on 2nd /3rd June, 2006. 14. Therefore, the reasons assigned by the complainant for causing delay in filing the complaint/FIR are not satisfactory, but are fatal to the prosecution case in the present case. 15. Respondent-Amar Nath has examined DW-1 Milkhi Ram and DW-3 Sandeep Kumar, Forest Guard, to prove his presence on duty in a jungle at the time and date of alleged incident. 14. Therefore, the reasons assigned by the complainant for causing delay in filing the complaint/FIR are not satisfactory, but are fatal to the prosecution case in the present case. 15. Respondent-Amar Nath has examined DW-1 Milkhi Ram and DW-3 Sandeep Kumar, Forest Guard, to prove his presence on duty in a jungle at the time and date of alleged incident. Learned Additional Advocate General has rightly pointed out that no such plea of alibi has been put to prosecution witnesses including PW-1, PW-2 and PW-3 except a suggestion put to Investigating Officer PW-8 K.G. Kapoor that on the day of alleged incident, respondent had left the forest guard hut accompanying Milkhi Ram. However, even if the plea of alibi taken by respondent is not taken into consideration, then also for want of reliable and convincing testimony of the prosecution witnesses, it cannot be said that prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. 16. To prove previous enmity, learned counsel for the respondent has referred news items Ext. DB, dated 4th July, 2006; Ext. DC, dated 12th May, 2006, Ext. DE (undated) and Ext. DF, dated 26th July, 2006 published in news papers against PW-1 Hari Ram, who happened to be Pradhan of the Gram Panchayat. Perusal of these news items does disclose that the same have been published at the instance of some of the residents of the Panchayat including the respondent-Amar Nath. According to complainant PW-1, as explained by him during cross-examination on putting these news items to him, these news items and other complaints against him by respondent were counter blast to his complaint lodged against respondent. The complaint was lodged by PW-1 on 27th June, 2006. Though, some of the news items were published after the alleged incident, but the news cutting Ext. DC is dated 12th May, 2006, which is prior in time to that of the alleged incident and also lodging of the complaint by PW-1 Hari Ram. 17. The complaint was lodged by PW-1 on 27th June, 2006. Though, some of the news items were published after the alleged incident, but the news cutting Ext. DC is dated 12th May, 2006, which is prior in time to that of the alleged incident and also lodging of the complaint by PW-1 Hari Ram. 17. In order to rebut explanation of complainant that respondent had started to complain after filing complaint by him, attention of the Court has also been drawn towards complaints dated 3rd June, 2004 (Mark D-1), 8th June, 2006 (Mark D-2 and D-10), 31st May, 2006 (Mark D-3 and D-6), 10th May, 2006 (Mark D-9) and undated complaint regarding embezzlement (Mark-D-12), which were filed before various authorities prior to alleged lodging of the complaint and some of which were filed even before alleged incident. But these documents have not been proved on record in accordance with law, hence, cannot be taken into consideration. However, perusal of these admitted documents disclose that action of respondent against complainant was not the counter blast to the complaint, but respondent alongwith others had been pointing out the irregularities committed by complainant PW-1 in his working as Pradhan of the Gram Panchyat, that too, much prior to the date of the alleged incident. Further, civil litigation between the complainant and respondent is an admitted fact. It is also evident from the documents on record that the respondent was raising voice against the working of the complainant as Pradhan of the Panchayat. Therefore, possibility of implicating the respondent for raising voice against the complainant cannot be ruled out. 18. On close scrutiny of the statements of the spot witnesses, the version PW-1, PW-2 and PW-3 cannot be said to be reliable. Thus, it cannot be said that the prosecution has been able to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. As the statements of the complainant and the spot witnesses do not inspire confidence, there is no necessity to discuss and evaluate the veracity of the other evidence on record. 19. Respondent has advantage of being acquitted by the trial Court fortifying the presumption of innocence in his favour which stands unrebutted for want of pointing out any cogent, reliable, convincing and trustworthy evidence against the respondent. 19. Respondent has advantage of being acquitted by the trial Court fortifying the presumption of innocence in his favour which stands unrebutted for want of pointing out any cogent, reliable, convincing and trustworthy evidence against the respondent. The trial Court has appreciated the evidence on record completely and correctly and it cannot be said that acquittal of respondent has resulted into travesty of justice or has caused miscarriage of justice. Therefore, no case for interference is made out. 20. In view of above discussion, the appeal is dismissed. Bail bonds furnished by the respondent and his surety are discharged. Record be sent back to the learned trial Court.