JUDGMENT : PRAKASH CHANDRA JAISWAL, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned APP for the State on this Criminal Appeal. 2. This criminal appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 08.02.2013 passed by learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge (P.O.A.) Act, SC/ST, Saran at Chapra in Sessions Trial no. 111 of 2008 arising out of Kopa P.S. Case No. 41 of 2007 whereby the learned trial court convicted the accused, Rameshwar Yadav for the offence punishable under Sections 323 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3(1)(x) of SC/ST Act and sentenced him to undergo S.I. for four months under Section 323 of I.P.C. and further sentenced to undergo R.I. for one year under Section 3(1)(x) SC/ST Act. Both the sentences were directed to run concurrently. 3. The factual matrix of the case is that Kopa P.S. Case No. 41 of 2007 was instituted under Sections 341, 323, 504 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3(1-X) of SC/ST Act against accused Rameshwar Yadav on the basis of fardbeyan of Dasrath Ram S/o Kishun Ram recorded by S.I. L.K. Jha of P.S. Bhagwan Bazar on 09.06.2007 at 12:15 PM at Sadar Hospital, Chapra with the allegation, in succinct that on 08.06.2007 at around 02:00 PM, his wife, namely, Sona Devi as usual had gone to tie her she-buffalo in the bamboo clump located towards North of his house and in the course of tying her she-buffalo, Rameshwar Yadav started slating her and forbade her not to tie her she-buffalo in the bamboo clump. On protest made by his wife, said accused slating her in the name of her caste indiscriminately assaulted her by means of lathi. Sustaining injury, she fell down, then the locals rushed there and the accused made good his escape to his house. Villagers organized Panchayati regarding the occurrence, but the accused refused to oblige the verdict of Punches. 4. The aforesaid case was investigated by the police and on conclusion of the investigation, I.O. submitted charge-sheet under Sections 341, 323 and 504 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3(1) (X) of SC/ST Act against the aforesaid accused. 5. Villagers organized Panchayati regarding the occurrence, but the accused refused to oblige the verdict of Punches. 4. The aforesaid case was investigated by the police and on conclusion of the investigation, I.O. submitted charge-sheet under Sections 341, 323 and 504 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3(1) (X) of SC/ST Act against the aforesaid accused. 5. On receiving the charge-sheet and the case diary and perusing the same, the learned Magistrate took cognizance of the offence and committed the case to the court of sessions and after commitment and on transfer finally the case came in seisin of the learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge (P.O.A.), SC/ST, Act Saran at Chapra for trial. 6. Charge against the aforesaid accused was framed under Sections 341, 323 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3(1) (X) of SC/ST Act. Charge was read over and explained to the accused by the court to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 7. To substantiate its case, in ocular evidence, the prosecution has examined altogether ten prosecution witnesses namely, Jagdish Ram as PW-1, Dwarika Sah Gaur as PW-2, Malti Devi as PW-3, Shivaji Rai as PW-4, Chhatu Rai as PW-5, Sanjay Kumar Prasad as PW-6, Ram Bahadur Rai as PW-7, Dev Chandra Rai as PW-8, victim Sona Devi as PW-9 and informant Dasrath Ram as PW-10. Out of the aforesaid witnesses, PW-1, PW-2, PW-4 and PW-6 turned hostile. The prosecution has not adduced any documentary evidence in buttress of its case. 8. The statement of the accused was recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal procedure. The case of the defence is complete denial of the occurrence claiming him-self to be falsely implicated in this case. The accused has neither adduced any ocular nor documentary evidence in buttress of his case. 9. After hearing the parties and perusing the record, the learned trial court passed the impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence as detailed in the earlier paragraph. 10. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the aforesaid judgment and order of conviction and sentence, the convict has preferred the present Criminal Appeal. 11. The point for consideration in this case is, as to whether the prosecution has been able to bring home the charges levelled against the appellant beyond all reasonable doubts or not. 12. 10. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the aforesaid judgment and order of conviction and sentence, the convict has preferred the present Criminal Appeal. 11. The point for consideration in this case is, as to whether the prosecution has been able to bring home the charges levelled against the appellant beyond all reasonable doubts or not. 12. It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that PW-3, PW-5, PW-7, PW-8 and PW-10 have unanimously stated in their deposition that the bamboo clump is hailing to the appellant and the victim was tying her shebuffalo in the bamboo clump of the appellant unauthorisedly and she herself happens to be agressor. It is further submitted that barring the victim, other witnesses do not happen to be eye witness of the occurrence and there is a vital contradiction between the prosecution case and account of other witnesses and the statement of the victim regarding the manner of occurrence and assailant. It is also submitted that as per the prosecution case and witnesses account, the victim was indiscriminately assaulted by the appellant by means of lathi and he was rushed to the Sadar Hospital, Chapra, where she was treated, but, neither any injury report has been brought on record nor its author has been examined by the prosecution. Thus, the aforesaid inconsistent and contradictory ocular evidence also does not stand corroborated by the medical evidence. It is further submitted that there is inordinate delay of around 10 days in lodging the FIR and the prosecution has also not assigned any plausible and convincing explanation for the aforesaid delay which creates serious doubt about the prosecution case. Thus, the prosecution has utterly and miserably failed to substantiate the prosecution case against the appellant beyond all reasonable doubt by adducing convincing, trustworthy and reliable evidence. Hence, the impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed against the appellant by the learned trail court is liable to be set aside and appellant is entitled to be acquitted. 13. Thus, the prosecution has utterly and miserably failed to substantiate the prosecution case against the appellant beyond all reasonable doubt by adducing convincing, trustworthy and reliable evidence. Hence, the impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed against the appellant by the learned trail court is liable to be set aside and appellant is entitled to be acquitted. 13. On the other hand, learned APP advocating the correctness and validity of the impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence submitted that the victim has supported the occurrence in toto and other witnesses, who happen to be eye witness of the case, have also corroborated the aforesaid occurrence and learned trial court correctly appreciating the facts and evidence on record has rightly passed the impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence which is liable to be upheld and this appeal is shorn of merit and is liable to be dismissed. 14. From perusal of record it appears that to substantiate its case the prosecution has examined ten material witnesses of the case. Out of them, PW-1 Jagdish Ram, PW-2 Dwarika Sah Gaur, PW-4 Shivaji Rai and PW-6 Sanjay Kumar Prasad have turned hostile PW-9 Sona Devi happens to be victim while PW-10 Dasrath Ram is the informant. Though, PW-3 Malti Devi, PW-5 Chhatu Rai, PW-7 Ram Bahadur Rai and PW-8 Dev Chandra Rai have made an abortive bid to support the prosecution case by stating in their respective examination-in-chief in consonance to the prosecution case that in the course of tying she-buffalo in the bamboo clump, the appellant slated the victim Sona Devi in the name of her caste and also assaulted her by means of lathi, but the aforesaid witnesses do not appear to be eye witness of the case as PW-5 Chhatu Rai has stated in paragraphs 3 and 4 of his cross-examination that the witnesses, namely, Ram Bahadur Rai PW-7, Malti Devi PW-3, Dwarika Sah PW-2, Shivaji Rai PW-4, Jagdish Rai PW-1 and Dev Chandra Rai PW-8 had arrived at the place of occurrence after culmination of the occurrence and on their arrival, Rameshwar Rai left the scene. The aforesaid statement of the said witnesses indicates that the aforesaid witnesses, namely, PWs- 3, 7 and 8 had arrived at the place of occurrence after culmination of the occurrence and on their arrival, the accused had left the scene which means that the accused had not made any overtact against the victim before the aforesaid witnesses and it completely rules out the aforesaid witnesses to be eye witness of the occurrence. PW-10 Dasrath Ram has stated in paragraph 1 of his examination-in-chief that on refusal to remove she-buffalo by his wife, the accused started assaulting her by means of lathi slating in the name of her caste and when the villagers arrived there, the accused made good his escape and hid himself. The aforesaid statement of the informant also rules out witnessing of the occurrence by the aforesaid witnesses, namely, PW-3, PW-5, PW-7 and PW-8. As per the account of the informant, the accused had made good his escape on arrival of the aforesaid witnesses and had not committed any overtact against the victim before the aforesaid witnesses. Moreover, PW-3 Malti Devi has stated in her cross-examination that she had witnessed the occurrence from 1-1/2 bigha while as per the statement of PW-3 herself as given by her in her cross-examination that there is a house of Rameshwar Rai towards North, house of Shivji Rai towards South, house of Dita Par Sah towards East and house of Jag Lal Chaudhary towards West of the place of occurrence which means the place of occurrence is surrounded by the houses and is not visible from such a long distance of 1 bigha as claimed by PW-3 Malti Devi and said aspect of the case goes to rule her out to be eye witness of the occurrence. PW-7 Ram Bahadur Rai has stated in paragraph 3 of his cross-examination that 20-25 persons had congregated at the place of occurrence. There was hurling of abuse, but he could not properly listen as to what abuse was given. Likewise PW-8 Dev Chandra Rai has stated in paragraph 2 of his cross-examination that at the time of occurrence, he was near the tree and could not clearly listen as to who uttered what. The aforesaid statement of said witnesses also rules them out to be eye witness of the occurrence and listening of slating the victim in the name of her caste by the appellant. The aforesaid statement of said witnesses also rules them out to be eye witness of the occurrence and listening of slating the victim in the name of her caste by the appellant. 15. Pw-10 Dasrath Rai, who happens to be husband of the victim and informant of the case has also made an abortive bid to support the prosecution case by stating in his examination-in-chief in consonance to the prosecution case, but he also does not appear to be eye witness of the occurrence as in paragraph 4 of his cross-examination, he has candidly stated that he arrived at the place of occurrence 10 minutes later to the occurrence and rushed his wife to the hospital and his wife had also not divulged anything to him as she was senseless. 16. Now, the only witness left to be examined is the victim Sona Devi PW-9. As per the prosecution case and witnesses account, only appellant Rameshwar Yadav had slated the victim and assaulted her by means of lathi in the course of tying she-buffalo in the bamboo clump. But, in quite contradiction to the aforesaid case and witnesses account, PW-9 Sona Devi has stated in paragraph 1 of his examination-in-chief that while she was proceeding to the bamboo clump for tying her she-buffalo, Bahadur, Dev Chandra, Malti and 4-5 other persons arrived there and started assaulting her. Ramashankar assaulted her by means of lathi. They slated her in the name of her caste. The aforesaid testimony of the victim in vital contradiction to the prosecution case and account of other witnesses regarding manner of occurrence and assailant is not worth reliable and it does not inspire my confidence to hold the conviction of the appellant relying upon the said statement of the victim. Moreover, PW-7 Ram Bahadur Rai has stated in paragraph 2 of his cross-examination that Kameshwar Rai is handicapped by the hand. The aforesaid statement of PW-7 also goes to rule out the occurrence of assaulting the victim by means of lathi by the appellant. 17. Pw-5 Chhatu Rai in paragraph 2 of his crossexamination, PW-7 Ram Bahadur Rai in paragraph 2 of his cross-examination, PW-8 Dev Chandra Rai in paragraph 2 of his cross-examination and informant (PW-10) in paragraph 2 of his cross-examination have unanimously stated that the aforesaid bamboo clump is hailing to the appellant. 17. Pw-5 Chhatu Rai in paragraph 2 of his crossexamination, PW-7 Ram Bahadur Rai in paragraph 2 of his cross-examination, PW-8 Dev Chandra Rai in paragraph 2 of his cross-examination and informant (PW-10) in paragraph 2 of his cross-examination have unanimously stated that the aforesaid bamboo clump is hailing to the appellant. The wife of the informant i.e., victim had arrived at the bamboo clump of the appellant to tie her she-buffalo there, which was protested by the appellant. The aforesaid act of the victim happens to be unwanted and unauthorized and the victim herself happens to be aggressor. 18. Pw-3 Malti Devi has stated in paragraph 1 of her examination-in-chief that she rushed Sona Devi to the hospital after the occurrence. In her cross-examination, she has further stated that Sona Devi fell senseless sustaining injury and regained sense on arrival at Chapra. She regressed to her house from hospital two days later and PW-10 Dasrath Ram has stated in paragraph 1 of his examination-in-chief that after departure of the accused from the place of occurrence, he rushed his wife to Chapra hospital to accord her treatment and in paragraph 4 of his cross-examination, he has further stated that when he arrived at the place of occurrence 10 minutes later to the occurrence, he rushed his wife to the Chapra hospital. She was senseless and she regained sense in the hospital. The aforesaid statement of the said witnesses indicates that on sustaining injury, victim had fallen senseless and she had regained sense at Chapra hospital, where she underwent treatment and regressed to her house remaining in the hospital two days. But, neither any injury report has been brought on record nor its author has been examined by the prosecution. Thus, the aforesaid inconsistent and contradictory ocular evidence also does not stand corroborated by the medical evidence. 19. From perusal of record, it appears that the occurrence is of 08.06.2007 at around 02:00 PM and fardbeyan of the informant was recorded by the SI of P.S. Bhagwan Bazar on 09.06.2007 at 12:15 PM, but the aforesaid fardbeyan was endorsed by the O/c P.S. Kopa on 18.06.2007 and was received in the said P.S. on 18.06.2007 at 04:00 PM i.e. after inordinate and abnormal delay of nine days of recording the fardbeyan. Though, to explain the aforesaid delay in lodging the FIR, the informant has stated in his fardbeyan that his villagers organized Panchayati regarding the occurrence, but the accused refused to oblige the verdict of Punches, but none of the witnesses examined by the prosecution including the victim and the informant and even PW-3 Malti Devi, who happens to be Punch at the time of her deposition before the court has stated about organizing any Panchayati by the villagers regarding the occurrence and refusal of the verdict of the Punches by the appellant. Thus, the prosecution has utterly and miserably failed to assign any plausible and convincing reason to explain the aforesaid abnormal delay in sending the FIR to the P.S. and lodging of the FIR which creates serious doubt about the prosecution case. 20. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, I find and hold that the prosecution has utterly and miserably failed to bring home the charges levelled against the appellant beyond all reasonable doubts by adducing convincing, cogent, consistent and worth credence evidence. Hence, the impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by learned trial court against the appellant is set aside and the appellant is acquitted of all the charges levelled against him. As the appellant is on bail, he is discharged from the liability of the bail bonds. Accordingly, this Criminal Appeal is allowed.