ORDER : This Criminal Appeal has been preferred against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 17.5.2003 passed by the Additional Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi in connection with S.T. Case No. 639 of 99 whereby and whereunder the learned Court below convicted the appellants under Sections 314/511, 323, 341 read with 34, IPC and sentenced the appellants to undergo R.I. for 3 years, 1 year and one month under Sections 314/511, 323, 341 read with Section 34, IPC respectively and all the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. 2. The case of the prosecution in brief is that the informant Sunita Devi filed a complaint in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate on 21.8.1996 against the above named accused persons alleging that on 27.7.1996 at about 10 a.m. she was in grocery shop which is known as Gita Bhandar. This shop is just adjacent to the shop of accused persons in Upper Bazar, P.S. Kotwall, Distt. Ranchi. It is alleged therein that the accused persons Vikash Kumar Gupta, Rajesh Kumar Gupta and Bindu Devi forcibly entered her shop and started abusing and assaulting her. The complainant requested them not to abuse but the accused Bindu Devi assaulted her with fist and kicks. This complainant had claimed to be pregnant by three months. It is also alleged that Bindu Devi caused hurt in the abdomen of the complainant due to which death of baby in womb was caused. It is further claimed that the complainant went to the Doctor for her treatment but the doctor declared her unborn child dead and thus abortion was done in the Sadar Hospital Ranchi. It has been said in the complaint petition that the parties had inimical term from before the date of occurrence and there had been title Suit No. 155 of 91 pending between them in the Court of Additional Munsif, Ranchi for the said shop. Thereafter, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate sent the complaint petition to the Sukhdeo Nagar P.S. under Section 156(iii), CrPC for registration and investigation. Thus, this case was registered as Kotwali P.S. case No. 423 of 96. 3. After investigation police submitted charge-sheet under Sections 313/314/316/341 and 323, IPC. Accordingly, the learned CJM took cognizance of the offence and committed the case to the Court of Sessions. 4. The charges were framed against the accused persons to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 3. After investigation police submitted charge-sheet under Sections 313/314/316/341 and 323, IPC. Accordingly, the learned CJM took cognizance of the offence and committed the case to the Court of Sessions. 4. The charges were framed against the accused persons to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 5. Prosecution has examined altogether seven witnesses and at the conclusion of the trial the appellants were convicted and sentenced as aforesaid. Hence, this appeal. 6. PW 4 Sunita Devi who is informant of this case has stated that on 27.7.1996 at 10:30 a.m. she had gone in her shop along with her mother where her husband sits. At that time, her husband and father-in-law were there. She had gone there to bring rice from the shop. Further she had stated that there had been injunction by the Court of Munsif on this shop. She stated that Bindu Devi and her two sons came in her shop and they started abusing her. Further she has stated that these accused persons assaulted her and also caused hurt on her stomach. At that time she had been pregnant by three months. They also pressed her neck due to which she sustained Injury and abortion was caused. She has also stated that the child in womb died due to the said assault. 7. PW1 N.K. Sahu (Nand Kishore Sahu) has supported the date of occurrence as 27.7.1996 and the place of occurrence as the shop of Arjun Sahu. He reached there hearing hulla and saw that the accused persons were hurling abuses. He has also stated that the accused persons namely Rajesh and Vikash Kumar Gupta assaulted the complainant, due to which Sunita Devi sustained miscarriage of her pregnancy. He has also stated that due to said assault bleeding started. Then he brought Sunita Devi to hospital for treatment, but he was told that abortion was caused. 8. PW 2, Arjun Sao is the husband of complainant Sunita Devi. He has deposed that this occurrence took place on 27.7.1996 at 10 a.m. At that time he was in his shop. His wife had come there to take rice. In the mean time, the accused persons Bindu Devi, Rajesh Kumar Gupta and Vikash Kumar Gupta, whose shop is situated adjacent to his shop came there and started abusing his wife. He has deposed that this occurrence took place on 27.7.1996 at 10 a.m. At that time he was in his shop. His wife had come there to take rice. In the mean time, the accused persons Bindu Devi, Rajesh Kumar Gupta and Vikash Kumar Gupta, whose shop is situated adjacent to his shop came there and started abusing his wife. Then he went to rescue, but all the three accused persons assaulted his pregnant wife in her stomach. Then he rushed to the Sadar Hospital, Ranchi with his wife and got treatment there. But the child in the womb died due to the said assault. 9. PW 3 Deepak Sahu has not supported the prosecution case and deposed that he does not know anything about the occurrence of 27.7.1996 and the PW 5 Sunil Kumar Sahu has been tendered for cross-examination. He has stated therein that he does not know regarding the occurrence between Bindu Devi and Sunita Devi. 10. PW 6 Dr. Kamini Bamwal has stated that on 27.7.1996 she had been posted in Sadar Hospital, Ranchi. On that day she was on duty in outdoor. She has also deposed that she treated Sunita Devi but after examination she was admitted or not, can be said only after examining the admission register. She further deposed that this case may be a case of threatened abortion. Bleeding can be caused by hurt. She has proved the entry of the register made in Sl.No. 34-35/26 which is in her pen and signature and also observed by her, which is marked as Ext.1. 11. PW 7 Anil Kumar Pandey is the Investigating Officer of the case. He has stated that he took charge of the investigation of this case after joining in Kotwali P.S. on 20.8.1997. Before him the I.O. A.K. Singh, A.S.I. and Karmpal Oraon S.I. had made investigation in this case. This witness has stated that this case was registered as Kotwall P.S. case No. 423 of 96 on the basis of complaint petition filed in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate. He has proved the formal FIR of this case marked as Ext. 2. Further he has stated that he took statement of Dr. Barnwal, who had provided treatment to the complainant and on the basis of material available in the case diary he submitted charge-sheet under Sections 341/323/313 and 314 IPC. He has proved the formal FIR of this case marked as Ext. 2. Further he has stated that he took statement of Dr. Barnwal, who had provided treatment to the complainant and on the basis of material available in the case diary he submitted charge-sheet under Sections 341/323/313 and 314 IPC. In the cross-examination this witness has clearly stated that entire investigation was almost complete before his joining. Therefore, he did not make inspection of the P.O. He has also not taken statement of the complainant. 12. ARGUMENT CANVASSED BY COUNSEL FOR THE APPELLANTS : Learned counsel for the appellants has argued that in the background of this case there is a family dispute which was as been going on for long, and the complainant side in fact has earlier also filed cases against the opposite side, in which they have earlier been acquitted. The present case is another round of litigation maliciously and falsely imposed on the appellants. He has referred to Title Suit No. 155 of 1991 and Case No. C 82/93, C 68/96 and G.R. 1225 of 93 in which the accused persons have been acquitted by the Courts. Counsel then argued that the date of occurrence is on the 27.7.1996, but the complaint was only filed on 21.8.1996, and that there is no explanation for the delay. He has also submitted that the visit to the doctor by PW 4 Sunita Devi was also on the 27.7.1996. But the complaint was lodged after almost 25 days and there is no explanation for it. Counsel then says that the injury and loss of child was caused due to other reasons, and given the background of enmity, the loss or tragedy has been then used against the appellants, hence, the delay in lodging the complaint was to manufacture the same. In this regard he has referred a case reported in 2012 (2) East Cr C 129 (SC) : (2012) 2 Cr R 287 (SC), Jai Prakash Singh v. State of Bihar and another, Para 12 thereof reads as under: “12. The FIR in criminal case is a vital and valuable piece of evidence though may not be substantive piece of evidence. The FIR in criminal case is a vital and valuable piece of evidence though may not be substantive piece of evidence. The object of insisting upon prompt lodging of the FIR in respect of the commission of an offence is to obtain early information regarding the circumstances in which the crime was committed, the names of actual culprits and the part played by them as well as the names of eyewitnesses present at the scene of occurrence. If there is a delay in lodging the FIR, it looses the advantage of spontaneity, danger creeps in of the introduction of coloured version, exaggerated account or concocted story as a result of large number of consultations / deliberations.....” Learned counsel further said that the ingredient of intention to cause miscarriage has also not been proved as none of the witnesses including the complainant has stated that the assault was done intending miscarriage and that a foetus is admitted to be of 90 days and it cannot be termed as a child in the womb and as such there is no question of allegation of death of child in the womb. The treatment was said to be done in Sadar Hospital. Ranchi but except for some reference by doctor no document to that extent was produced as exhibit. He has further submits that the learned trial Court failed to appreciate the contradictory statement of the complainant and her husband on one hand the complainant deposed that accused No. 1 assaulted her in her abdomen whereas her husband was stated that all the three accused have assaulted the victim. That in spite of absence of evidence of any independent witness the learned trial Court convicted the appellants for the offence not committed by them. Also, this is a case in which the Investigating Officer, or PW 7 has himself not done the investigation and merely submitted on the findings of his predecessors. He even did not go and inspect the place of occurrence and he has not taken restatement of the complainant. Does this conduct of the Investigating Officer not suggest that there was no such serious assault or offence and the case is a concocted one. 13. ARGUMENTS CANVASSED BY COUNSEL FOR THE STATE. He even did not go and inspect the place of occurrence and he has not taken restatement of the complainant. Does this conduct of the Investigating Officer not suggest that there was no such serious assault or offence and the case is a concocted one. 13. ARGUMENTS CANVASSED BY COUNSEL FOR THE STATE. Learned A.P.P. on the other hand argued that the delay is explained because it has come in the evidence of the complainant that she had initially approached the police, but they failed to take action, and then she was compelled to lodge a complaint case. Learned APP has then argued that the victim. Sunita Devi has been consistent in her accusation, and she has fully supported the complaint case in her deposition. Learned APP has further argued that from the evidence of the doctor, it only confirms that Sunita Devi had visited the hospital the reason being, bleeding, which the doctor held as threatened abortion. There is no reason why anyone particularly the victim, would make a false statement particularly about her pregnancy and the loss of her child in the womb. FINDINGS: 14. I have heard both counsels and gone through the records of the case. One of the important aspect is that there is long standing dispute between the parties, and relations seem to have broken down between them. There is a Title Suit for the property against them. The most significant is the fact that the complainant side had lodged three other cases, Case No. C.82 of 93, C.68 of 96 and Case No. G.R. 1225 of 93 and in all these cases the opposite party have been acquitted. In this background, there does seem to be some doubt about the lodging of the current case, particularly that other aspects of this case also add to the doubt. There is also a delay in lodging of the case. Of course, the complainant has said that the police had refused to act on her complaint, but the date or dates and time when they had approached the police was not mentioned, so the delay aspect, given the history of litigation, between them is also doubted. There is also a delay in lodging of the case. Of course, the complainant has said that the police had refused to act on her complaint, but the date or dates and time when they had approached the police was not mentioned, so the delay aspect, given the history of litigation, between them is also doubted. Regarding the alleged injury, the words or phrases used is that “bleeding” had taken place or it was a case of “threatened abortion”, but it has not been categorically stated by the doctor that the loss of the child or the abortion that followed is attributed or is linked to the assault made by appellants. Another important fact is that serious allegations are made and there is a history of litigations behind this case where the appellants have been acquitted, then surely more independent witnesses would be more trustworthy and reliable. Moreover, PW 5 Sunil Kumar Sahu, who has a shop at a distance of 25-30 yards has been tendered. He has categorically stated that on 27.7.1996, no fight had occurred between Bindu Devi and Sunita Devi in his presence. Finally, the original Investigating Officer has not been examined who could have thrown much light on the case and PW 7 or the I.O. did not even visit the place of occurrence, nor did he take statement of the complainant, which suggests a very formal approach on the part of the I.O., or the case itself was not serious or grievous enough. For all the aforesaid reasonings much doubt is raised about the allegations made. Thus, having heard both counsels, gone through the records of the case and in the facts and circumstances the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 17.5.2003 passed by the Additional Judicial Commissioner, VII Ranchi in S.T. Case No. 639 of 1999 is set-aside. Accordingly, the appeal is hereby allowed. The bailors are discharged of the obligation of bail bonds. Appeal allowed.