ORDER : (Brij Raj Singh, J.) 1. Heard on admission. 2. The present Appeal has been filed by the complainant against the judgment and order dated 06.07.2011 passed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ist Auraiya in Sessions Trial No. 500 of 2000 (State Vs. Umesh and others) arising out of Case Crime No. 328 A/1998, under Sections 323/34, 324/34, 325/34, 504, 506, 307/34 I.P.C., Police Station - Bidhuna, District - Auraiya. 3. Sri Mahendra Pratap Singh filed an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. on 9.10.1998 before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Etawah with a complaint that he was coming from his field on 5.10.1998 at 5.00 p.m. Sri Umesh Singh and Shiv Mangal Singh sons of Varnam Singh armed with knife, Aniruddha Singh son of Varnam Singh armed with Lathi and Indrabhan Singh son of Varnam Singh armed with country made pistol came in front of his house. Indrabhan exhorted that he should be killed today as he is contesting many cases. Indrabhan Singh who was armed with country made pistol fired at him and he escaped. In the meantime, Umesh Singh, Shiv Mangal Singh and Aniruddha Singh who were armed with knife and Lathi started assaulting the Mahendra Pratap Singh due to which he received serious injuries. On hearing the noise, father of applicant Raghunandan Singh, brother Satya Narayan Singh, Gyan Singh son of Mahendra Pratap Singh and others reached to the spot and saw the incident. The accused ran away from the spot by threatening the applicant to kill him. The applicant could not go to the police station, however, he had informed the Superintendent of Police through telegram on 6.10.1998. He got himself examined by the Doctor and x-ray was done at Sadar Hospital, Etawah. No action was taken against the accused, therefore, he filed the application before the Court for necessary action. The case was registered at police station Kotwali Bidhuna vide chik F.I.R. The case was investigated by the Investigating Officer who prepared the site plan and thereafter he filed the charge sheet against the accused. 4. On the basis of charge sheet filed against the accused persons they were summoned by the concerned Court under Sections 323/34, 324/34, 325/34, 504, 506, 307/34 I.P.C. Accused persons denied the charges. The trial was conducted by adducing the evidence i.e. P.W.-1 Mahendra Pratap Singh, P.W.-2 Raghunandan Singh, P.W.-3 Nahar Singh, P.W.-4 Parmanand Kaler, P.W.-5 Dr. 4. On the basis of charge sheet filed against the accused persons they were summoned by the concerned Court under Sections 323/34, 324/34, 325/34, 504, 506, 307/34 I.P.C. Accused persons denied the charges. The trial was conducted by adducing the evidence i.e. P.W.-1 Mahendra Pratap Singh, P.W.-2 Raghunandan Singh, P.W.-3 Nahar Singh, P.W.-4 Parmanand Kaler, P.W.-5 Dr. P.C. Pandey and P.W.-6 Tarak Nath. 5. The accused were afforded opportunity under Section 313 Cr.P.C. Accused persons denied all the charges and the incident. The accused also said that the false and fabricated doctor's report has been obtained and due to enmity the accused persons have been implicated. It is further pleaded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. that due to cross case lodged in Case Crime No. 328 of 1998 against the complainant he has implicated the accused. The trial court after adducing the evidence on record and affording opportunity of hearing to accused as well as prosecution side recorded the finding in the following manner: 6. P.W.-1 Mahendra Pratap Singh had submitted in his chief examination that he was coming to his house from the field on 5.10.1998 at 5.00 p.m. Sri Umesh Singh, Shiv Mangal Singh, Aniruddha and Nawab and Indrabhan Singh came in front of his house, Shiv Mangal Singh and Umesh Singh were armed with knife, Aniruddha Singh armed with Lathi, Indrabhan Singh armed with country made pistol. Indrabhan Singh exhorted and said that Mahendra Pratap Singh is contesting many cases, therefore, he should be killed and he fired upon him but he got narrow escape. Shiv Mangal Singh and Aniruddha Singh armed with knife and Lathi assaulted on him. Mahendra Pratap Singh got injury and who shouted loudly, therefore, his father and brother came to the spot. The accused ran away from the place by threatening to kill him. The complainant could not lodge the F.I.R. due to threat and fear. Complainant did telegram on 6.10.1998 to Superintendent of Police, Auraiya. He has further stated in his chief examination that there is no other person in the name of Mahendra Pratap Singh who residing in his village. He further stated that he got himself examined by the doctor in Sadar Hospital, Etawah on 6.10.1998 and x-ray was also conducted on 8.10.1998. Complainant did telegram on 6.10.1998 to Superintendent of Police, Auraiya. He has further stated in his chief examination that there is no other person in the name of Mahendra Pratap Singh who residing in his village. He further stated that he got himself examined by the doctor in Sadar Hospital, Etawah on 6.10.1998 and x-ray was also conducted on 8.10.1998. Since, no action was taken by the police, therefore, he filed an application before the A.C.J.M. - IInd, Etawah to lodge the F.I.R. The Investigating Officer taken his statement. The civil litigation is going on with the accused that's why the incident took place. 7. P.W.-2 Raghunandan Singh was also examined and he stated that the said incident took place on 5.10.1998 at 5.00 p.m. in the evening. He heard the noise of his son Mahendra Pratap Singh. After hearing the noise, P.W.-2 Raghunandan Singh and Gyan Singh reached to the house of Satya Narayan and he saw that accused, Indrabhan Singh, Shiv Mangal Singh, Umesh Singh and Aniruddha Singh were armed with certain weapons. Shiv Mangal Singh, Umesh Singh, Aniruddha Singh were armed with knife, Indrabhan Singh was armed with country made pistol and they assaulted the Mahendra Pratap Singh. Indrabhan Singh fired at Mahendra Pratap Singh, but he escaped narrowly. Umesh Singh, Shiv Mangal assaulted with knife, Aniruddha Singh assaulted with Lathi due to which Mahendra Pratap Singh received injuries. Gyan Singh, Satya Narayan Singh, Shiv Prakash Singh and the other witnesses of the village came to the spot who saw the incident and they also saved Mahendra Pratap Singh. They could not lodge the F.I.R. due to fear and threat of the accused. The medical was conducted in Etawah. 8. Umesh Singh had also filed F.I.R. (Exhibit No. 197 Kha/2) in Case Crime No. 328 of 1998, under Sections 323, 324, 506, 307 I.P.C., Police Station Bidhuna. In the said report, the incident took place on 5.10.1998 at 5.00 p.m. due to this reason the present case was treated in cross case. 9. The site plan was also prepared by the Investigating Officer. The Investigating Officer had not given any evidence of disputed land. 10. P.W.-5 Dr. In the said report, the incident took place on 5.10.1998 at 5.00 p.m. due to this reason the present case was treated in cross case. 9. The site plan was also prepared by the Investigating Officer. The Investigating Officer had not given any evidence of disputed land. 10. P.W.-5 Dr. P.C. Pandey, who conducted the medical report, was examined as Exhibit No. 4 and the following injuries were found on the body of Mahendra Pratap Singh:- (i) Incised wound 1 cm X 0.2 cm skin-deep, 07 cm from the nipple on the left side of chest, in the shape of 1.00 o'clock; margins were swollen. (ii) Incised wound 1.5 cm X 0.2 cm skin-deep, on the right side of abdomen; 13 cm away. (iii) Bruise of deep blue colour, 8 X 2 cm on the left pakka? (iv) Swollen injury 6 X 5 cm on the right side of back, 8 cm below pakkhe? (v) Blue contusion 6 X 1 cm in the mid of the outer part of the right arm. (vi) Complaint of pain in the back and in the right wrist. 11. In the examination, Dr. P.C. Pandey stated that he has not prepared supplementary injury report Exhibit-4. All the injuries are simple in nature. The Doctor further stated that the x-ray was not placed before him, therefore, he could not tell what type of injury was received by the injured. It is relevant to mention here that no witness was produced regarding the x-ray report by the prosecution side and Dr. P.C. Pandey did not certified the x-ray report legally. The Court opined that there is no serious injury found on the basis of the medical report available on record. 12. The trial court had given the reasons for acquittal which is worth to be mentioned here. The F.I.R. was lodged in pursuance to the direction under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. As per the said F.I.R., the application was given on 9.10.1998 and no reason for delay is mentioned. The cross case being Case Crime No. 328 of 1998 was lodged prior to the present date of incident i.e. prior to 2.40 hours. The distance of place of incident from the place of police station is 8 kilo meters. The cross case being Case Crime No. 328 of 1998 was lodged prior to the present date of incident i.e. prior to 2.40 hours. The distance of place of incident from the place of police station is 8 kilo meters. Sri Raghunandan P.W.-2 has accepted in his cross examination that he had gone to lodge the report in police station after the incident and he had no idea whether the accused were in the village or had gone somewhere else. He has further stated that he had gone to the police station just after the incident. When he reached the police station, the Inspector asked him to call his son Mahendra Pratap Singh. He has further mentioned that he had reached the police station at 7.00 to 8.00 p.m. on the date of incident. He has further mentioned that Umesh Singh has not reached the police station. When his son Mahendra Pratap Singh did not reach the police station, he came back to the house from the police station. The same witness has accepted in his oral examination that he was present in the police station till 8.00 p.m. the timing of the cross case was 7.40 p.m. i.e. the said cross case was lodged against Mahendra Pratap Singh and Raghunandan Singh. Had he been present in the police station, he would have been arrested by the police for commission of the offence in the cross case. As per his version, he was present in the police station till 8 o'clock, whereas, the cross F.I.R. was lodged at 7.40 p.m. Thus, the trial court had disbelieved the testimony of P.W.-2, Raghunandan Singh. 13. The trial court has given conclusion while acquitting the accused in the last part of the judgment mentioning that the F.I.R. was not lodged promptly and after four days from the date of incident the application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. was filed. Lastly, the Court was of the opinion that the complainant side were the aggressor and the accused assaulted in self-defence. The accused are safeguarded under Section 101 I.P.C. The accused have been acquitted under Sections 323/34, 324/34, 325/34, 504, 506, 307/34 I.P.C. 14. Heard learned A.G.A. at length and perused the lower court record with the assistance of the learned counsel. 15. The accused are safeguarded under Section 101 I.P.C. The accused have been acquitted under Sections 323/34, 324/34, 325/34, 504, 506, 307/34 I.P.C. 14. Heard learned A.G.A. at length and perused the lower court record with the assistance of the learned counsel. 15. Raghunandan Singh, P.W.-2 has accepted in his cross-examination that he had gone to lodge the F.I.R. in the police station after the incident and he had no idea whether the accused were in the village or they had gone elsewhere. He has further stated that he had gone to the police station just after the incident and police Inspector asked him to call his son Mahendra Pratap Singh. He had further mentioned that he had reached police station between 7.00 p.m. to 8.00 p.m. on the date of incident. He mentioned that Umesh Singh accused had not reached the police station. When his son did not reach to the police station he came back to the house from the police station. The same witness has accepted in his oral examination that he was present in the police station till 8.00 p.m. The timing of lodging the cross F.I.R. was 7.40 p.m. The said F.I.R. was lodged against Mahendra Pratap Singh and Raghunandan Singh while Raghunandan Singh was already present in the police station as per his version. The testimony of Raghunandan Singh is discarded. 16. We have also perused the record of Dr. P.C. Pandey who has said that he has not prepared the supplementary report (Exhibit No. 4). All the injuries are simple in nature. The doctor further stated that the x-ray was not placed before him, therefore, he could not state what type of injuries were received by the injured. It is relevant to mention here that no witness was produced. The x-ray report prepared by the prosecution side. Dr. P.C. Pandey was not certified the x-ray report. There are no serious injuries on the basis of medical report. 17. Mahendra Pratap Singh was medically examined belatedly on the next date of the incident i.e. about 4.10 p.m. In the cross case accused Umesh Singh was medically examined on the same date of the incident. 18. As per site plan, the place of incident is near to the house of Umesh Singh and the house of the complainant is not mentioned. 18. As per site plan, the place of incident is near to the house of Umesh Singh and the house of the complainant is not mentioned. It implies that the accused were present in their house and there is no evidence to indicate that they had reached to the place of incident. 19. The complainant stated that the incident took place at 8.00 p.m. and he had gone to lodge the F.I.R., is in contradiction to the cross case being already lodged by the accused at 7.40 p.m. against the complainant. Thus, the presence of the complainant in the police station at 8.00 p.m. is highly doubtful. 20. Considering the circumstances, evidence and material, trial court has drawn conclusion of acquitting the respondent. The view taken by the court below is one of the possible view and it cannot be said to be perverse. 21. While considering the scope of interference in an appeal or revision against acquittal, it has been held by the Supreme Court that if two views of the evidence are reasonable possible, one supporting the acquittal and other indicating conviction, the High Court should not, in such a situation, reverse the order of acquittal recorded by the trial Court. In the matter of State of Karnataka vs. K. Gopalkrishna reported in (2005) 9 SCC 291 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court, while dealing with an appeal against acquittal, observed as under: "In such an appeal the Appellate Court does not lightly disturb the findings of fact recorded by the Court below. If on the basis of the same evidence, two views are reasonably possible, and the view favouring the accused is accepted by the Court below, that is sufficient for upholding the order of acquittal. However, if the Appellate Court comes to the conclusion that the findings of the Court below are wholly unreasonable or perverse and not based on the evidence on record, or suffers from serious illegality including ignorance or misreading of evidence on record, the Appellate Court will be justified in setting aside such an order of acquittal." 22. In Sudershan Kumar v. State of Himachal reported in (2014) 15 SCC 666 the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed thus;- "31. It has been stated and restated that a cardinal principle in criminal jurisprudence that presumption of innocence of the accused is reinforced by an order of the acquittal. In Sudershan Kumar v. State of Himachal reported in (2014) 15 SCC 666 the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed thus;- "31. It has been stated and restated that a cardinal principle in criminal jurisprudence that presumption of innocence of the accused is reinforced by an order of the acquittal. The appellate court, in such a case, would interfere only for very substantial and compelling reason. There is plethora of case laws on this proposition and we need not burden this judgment by referring to those decisions. Our purpose would be served by referring to one reasoned pronouncement entitled Dhanapal v. State which is the judgment where most of the earlier decisions laying down the aforesaid principle are referred to. In para 37, propositions laid down in an earlier case are taken note of as under:- "37. In Chandrappa v. State of Karnataka, this Court held: (SCC p. 432 para 42), (1) An appellate court has full power to review, reappreciate and reconsider the evidence upon which the order of acquittal is founded. (2) The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 puts no limitation, restriction or condition on exercise of such power and an appellate court on the evidence before it may reach its own conclusion, both on questions of fact and of law. (3) Various expressions, such as, "substantial and compelling reasons", "good and sufficient grounds", "very strong circumstances", "distorted conclusions", "glaring mistakes", etc. are not intended to curtail extensive powers of an appellate court in an appeal against acquittal. Such phraseologies are more in the nature of "flourishes of language" to emphasise the reluctance of an appellate court to interfere with acquittal than to curtail the power of the court to review the evidence and to come to its own conclusion. (4) An appellate court, however, must bear in mind that in case of acquittal, there is double presumption in favour of the accused. Firstly, the presumption of innocence is available to him under the fundamental principle of criminal jurisprudence that every person shall be presumed to be innocent unless he is proved guilty by a competent court of law. Secondly, the accused having secured his acquittal, the presumption of his innocence is further reinforced, reaffirmed and strengthened by the trial court. Firstly, the presumption of innocence is available to him under the fundamental principle of criminal jurisprudence that every person shall be presumed to be innocent unless he is proved guilty by a competent court of law. Secondly, the accused having secured his acquittal, the presumption of his innocence is further reinforced, reaffirmed and strengthened by the trial court. (5) If two reasonable conclusions are possible on the basis of the evidence on record, the appellate court should not disturb the finding of acquittal recorded by the trial court." 32. Thereafter, in para 39, the Court curled out five principles and we would like to reproduce the said para hereunder: "39. The following principles emerge from the cases above: 1. The accused is presumed to be innocent until proven guilty. The accused possessed this presumption when he was before the trial court. The trial court's acquittal bolsters the presumption that he is innocent. 2. The power of reviewing evidence is wide and the appellate court can re- appreciate the entire evidence on record. It can review the trial court's conclusion with respect to both facts and law, but the Appellate Court must give due weight and consideration to the decision of the trial court. 3. The appellate court should always keep in mind that the trial court had the distinct advantage of watching the demeanour of the witnesses. The trial court is in a better position to evaluate the credibility of the witnesses. 4. The appellate court may only overrule or otherwise disturb the trial court's acquittal if it has "very substantial and compelling reasons" for doing so. 5. If two reasonable or possible views can be reached - one that leads to acquittal, the other to conviction - the High Courts/appellate courts must rule in favour of the accused." 23. In Dilawar Singh v. State of Haryana, (2015) 1 SCC 737 , the Supreme Court reiterated the same in paragraphs 36 and 37 as under: "36. The court of appeal would not ordinarily interfere with the order of acquittal unless the approach is vitiated by manifest illegality. In an appeal against acquittal, this Court will not interfere with an order of acquittal merely because on the evaluation of the evidence, a different plausible view may arise and views taken by the courts below is not correct. The court of appeal would not ordinarily interfere with the order of acquittal unless the approach is vitiated by manifest illegality. In an appeal against acquittal, this Court will not interfere with an order of acquittal merely because on the evaluation of the evidence, a different plausible view may arise and views taken by the courts below is not correct. In other words, this Court must come to the conclusion that the views taken by the learned courts below, while acquitting, cannot be the views of a reasonable person on the material on record. 36. In Chandrappa v. State of Karnataka, the scope of power of appellate court dealing with an appeal against acquittal has been considered and this Court held as under: (SCC p. 432 para 42) "42....(4) An appellate court, however, must bear in mind that in case of acquittal, there is double presumption in favour of the accused. Firstly, the presumption of innocence is available to him under the fundamental principle of criminal jurisprudence that every person shall be presumed to be innocent unless he is proved guilty by a competent court of law. Secondly, the accused having secured his acquittal, the presumption of his innocence is further reinforced, reaffirmed and strengthened by the trial court. (5) If two reasonable conclusions are possible on the basis of the evidence on record, the appellate court should not disturb the finding of acquittal recorded by the trial court." Unless there are substantial and compelling reasons, the order of acquittal is not required to be reversed in appeal. It has been so stated in State of Rajasthan v. Shera Ram." 24. Considering the above legal position and the factual aspects of the case, we are of the view that the trial Court was fully justified in acquitting the respondent. 25. Taking all the circumstances and after perusing the evidence on record, we are of the considered opinion that trial court judgment needs no interference. Thus, the appeal is dismissed at the admission stage itself.