JUDGMENT Vijay Kumar Vyas, J. - By this writ petition, the petitioner has assailed judgment dated 21.05.2002 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate No.1, Behror (Alwar) in regular Criminal Case No.129/2001, whereby private respondent Om Prakash has been acquitted from charges of offences punishable under Sections 337 and 304-A IPC. 2. In brief, facts of the case are that petitioner Vijay Singh (PW-2) submitted a written report (Exhibit P-5) on 30.10.1997 to the SHO Police Station, Behror stating inter alia that a 10 days camp of NSS commenced form 13.10.1997 at Government Senior Secondary School, Behror. Respondent Om Prakash Sharma, Lecturer and Pratap Naraian Sharma, Lecturer were in-charge and assistant in-charge respectively of the camp. They used to visit the camp only for sometime during the day. Headmaster Hari Ram Mahawar also used to visit the camp for a very short period. Respondent Om Prakash had made an arrangement of electricity by laying down naked electricity wires from a nearby well to the place of camp. The complainant tried to stop him from doing this thing but he neglectfully made this arrangement. On 19.10.1997 there was a heavy rain and thunderstorm due to which the naked wire of electricity got fell down on earth at about 3.00 p.m. His younger brother was going to market by a cycle, in the way, his brother got entangled into the naked wire, lying on earth got electrocuted and died. When neighbour Mamchand Yadav (PW-4) came to rescue him he also got injured by the current of the electricity. At this information, formal FIR No.474/1997 (Ex-P6) was registered. After due investigation, a charge-sheet was preferred against respondent Om Prakash and another person Hari Ram. As per charge-sheet, prior to lodging of the present FIR, an inquest report under Section 174 Cr.P.C., 1973 was registered and inquiry was initiated since the day of the incident i.e. 19.10.1997, however, the FIR was registered only on 30.10.1997. Proceedings against another person Hari Ram were quashed in compliance of order dated 25.08.1999 passed by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court in S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No.1378/1998. 3. Learned Trial Court read over and explained charges of offence punishable under Section 337 and 304-A IPC to the respondent Om Prakash. On his denial, prosecution examined 10 witnesses and exhibited seven documents. 3. Learned Trial Court read over and explained charges of offence punishable under Section 337 and 304-A IPC to the respondent Om Prakash. On his denial, prosecution examined 10 witnesses and exhibited seven documents. Respondent Om Prakash was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., 1973 He stated that the evidence adduced by the prosecution are wrong, he was holding camp by order of the State Government. Accident occurred with regard to electrocution, has no relation with the NSS camp. Deceased Bhagirth and Mamchand have falsely implicated him just to raise false claim for compensation. In the defence, three witnesses were examined and six documents exhibited. Learned Trial Court after hearing the arguments passed the impugned judgment, whereby, observing that there is unexplained delay in lodging FIR, material contradictions in the statements rendered by the witnesses and infirmities in investigation, deemed it fit to extend the benefit of doubt to the respondent and acquitted him from all charges. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that statement of Vijay Singh (PW-2) to the effect that an electricity connection was established by respondent Om Prakash through naked wires from nearby well of Bhagwat Sahai, is corroborated from the evidence rendered by Bhagwat Sahai (PW-6). Though Bhagwat Sahai has been declared hostile but he has corroborated this fact that the naked electricity connection was established at the NSS camp through wire from his well. 5. Learned Trial Court has not considered this corroboration and unnecessarily given importance to ordinary contradictions appeared in the statements of witnesses examined by the prosecution. Delay in lodging FIR has been explained by Vijay Singh (PW-2) who stated that due to the incident they were in shock and could not lodge the FIR timely. Incident of electrocution on 19.10.1997 and consequential death of Bhagirath is very much established from the documents prepared in the course of proceedings under Section 174 Cr.P.C., 1973 by local police. Site Inspection Note (Ex-P1), Inquest Report of the Deceased (Ex-P2), Seizure Memo of Electrical Wire (Ex-P3), Site Plan (Ex-P5) all these documents were prepared on 19.10.1997 or on the next day. By perusal of these documents it is established that Bhagirath was died due to electrocution from naked electrical wires which was lying on earth, connecting the school from nearby well of Bhagwat Sahai. Benefit of latches and infirmities in investigation cannot be given to the culprit. By perusal of these documents it is established that Bhagirath was died due to electrocution from naked electrical wires which was lying on earth, connecting the school from nearby well of Bhagwat Sahai. Benefit of latches and infirmities in investigation cannot be given to the culprit. Finding of the Trial Court is perverse and it was not a fit case for extending benefit of doubt to the respondent. 6. Learned Public Prosecutor, assisted by learned counsel for respondent submitted that FIR was lodged almost after 11 days but even then in this written report (Ex-P5), it has not been mentioned that Ramesh Devi (PW-9) and Mamchand (PW-4) were witnessing the establishing of electric connection by respondent Om Prakash. Explanation given by Vijay Singh (PW-2) is quite unsatisfactory. When police was conducting proceedings under Section 174 Cr.P.C., 1973 the complainant could easily submit his complaint against the respondent but he filed the FIR after lapse of 11 days. Just to raise false claim, they have implicated respondent. There are major contradictions in the statement of eye-witnesses with regard to establishing electric connection by laying down naked electricity wire by respondent. Learned Trial Court has rightly doubted on the veracity of prosecution story, more particularly in view of evidence rendered by the respondent in defence. Learned counsel further submitted that claim submitted by Mamchand and kith and kins of deceased Bhagirath have already been rejected by concerned courts. 7. I have given thoughtful consideration to the rival submissions and gone through the material available on record. 8. Despite of delay in lodging FIR, the fact that on 19.10.1997, Bhagirath died due to electrocution while he was going towards market, by touch of a naked electricity wire, lying on earth and while rescuing him Mamchand (PW-4) also got injured, are established in view of documents Inquest Report (Ex- P2), Seizure Memo of Electricity Wire (Ex-P3) and Site Plan (Ex- P5) and Site Inspection Note (Ex-P1) which were prepared on 19.10.1997/20.10.1997 by police during the proceedings carried out under Section 174 Cr.P.C., 1973 The only point remains to be proved by prosecution is as to whether respondent laid down the naked electricity wire negligently, eyewitnesses saw it and tried to stop but he established the connection. 9. Vijay Singh (PW-2) has stated that he was witnessing the laying down of electricity line by respondent. 9. Vijay Singh (PW-2) has stated that he was witnessing the laying down of electricity line by respondent. He tried to stop him but the respondent did not care. Vijay Singh (PW-2) has nowhere stated in his examination-in-chief that at that time Mamchand and Ramesh Devi were present, however, in cross-examination he has stated their presence. On the contrary, Mamchand (PW-4) has stated that he saw the electricity connection established between place of camp and well of Bhagwat Sahai but he does not say that this electricity line was established in his presence. On the contray he stated that people were saying that this connection has been established by respondent Om Prakash. Ramesh Devi (PW-9) has corroborated statement of Vijay Singh (PW-2) but her statement on this point cannot be believed as she is wife of the deceased and her name as witness of this particular aspect has not been mentioned in written report (Ex-P1) submitted by the petitioner. 10. Learned Trial Court has examined the evidence rendered by these three witnesses at length and thereafter rightly found them incredible on this particular aspect. Learned Trial Court has also based its finding on defence evidence. The explanation submitted by Vijay Singh (PW-2) about delay in lodging FIR is not satisfactory. When police authorities were regularly in touch and contact with the family members of deceased during the course of proceedings under Section 174 Cr.P.C., 1973 the Complaint against respondent could easily be lodged with police. Learned Trial Court has rightly held that delay in lodging FIR could not be explained satisfactorily and the same is fatal for the prosecution. 11. The material discrepancies and contradictions in statements of prosecution witnesses and delay in lodging FIR have led learned Trial Court to suspect the truthfulness of prosecution story. I do not find the judgment of learned Trial Court as perverse or perfunctory. 12. There is no any reason or ground to interfere in the findings given by learned Trial Court and as such the revision petition fails and is dismissed.