1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 01/111 2004 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Canacona in Criminal Case No.30/P/1996 acquitting the respondent Nos.1 and 2 for the offences punishable under sections 447. 323. 504 and 506(11) of Indian Penal Code. The complaint was filed by the appellant against the respondent Nos.1 and 2. The parties shall hereinafter be referred to as per their status before the Magistrate.

2. Briefly, the facts leading to filing of the present appeal are as under:

On 12.3.1996, the complainant accompanied by his friend Sudesh Tari, bailiff Shri. Raghunath Tamankar and Photographer Shri. Socorro Moraes went to the house of the accused for effecting service on the accused as well as wife of accused No.2 and another son. As per direction through Civil Court, photographer took photos and bailiff effected service of summons on accused No.1 and sat near the house of the accused to effect service on the wife of accused No.1, who was expected to come soon. The complainant along with photographer and his friend went to his house situated at a distance about 100 metres for having tea. Meanwhile, the accused No.1 armed with stick came running to the house of complainant, abused his parents and entered the verandah of the house and assaulted the complainant and his parents with sticks and threatened to kill them. On the same day, the complainant lodged report at Canacona Police Station which was registered as N.C. Case No.126/1996. Since the police did not investigate the offences, the complainant filed a private criminal case against the accused on 14.5.1996. The learned Magistrate issued process against the accused under section 448, 323, 504 and 506(II) of Indian Penal Code. The complainant examined seven witnesses in support of his case. They are P.W.1, the complainant, P.W.2 Balaji Porob Bhagwant Konkar, P.W.3 Sudesh Tari, P.W.4 Dr. A. Dessai, P.W.5 Shrikant Naik, Head Constable, P.W.6 Raghunath Tamankar, the bailiff and P.W.7 Socorro Moraes, the photographer. P.W.2 Balaji died during the pendency of the case and as such he could not be crossexamined after framing of charge. The learned Magistrate upon appreciation of the materials, held that the prosecution was not successful in proving the offences beyond reasonable doubt against the accused and consequently acquitted the accused. The Magistrate recorded the acquittal mainly on the following grounds:

(i) There was delay in filing the complaint.

(ii) There were material contradictions and omissions in the testimonies of the witnesses.

(iii) P.W.1, P.W.2 and P.W.3 were interested witnesses and, therefore, their testimonies did not inspire confidence.

(iv) The mother of the complainant was not examined and as such adverse inference was liable to be drawn against the complainant.

(v) P.W.6 Raghunath Tamankar, who is independent witness, did not fully support the case of the complainant.

3. Mr. Dessai, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant/complainant submitted that the reasons given by the Magistrate for acquitting the accused are unsustainable in law. The learned Counsel submitted that since N.C. was lodged by the complainant on the day of the incident, there was no delay on the part of the complainant in filing the complaint which has been filed within the period of limitation prescribed under the Code of Criminal Procedure. He further submitted that there are no material contradictions and omissions in the test imbnies of the prosecution witnesses and, therefore, the Magistrate ought to have been accepted the evidence of the prosecution with esses. He further submitted that P.W.1 Gopal and P.W.2 Balaji were injured witnesses, therefore, their testimonies had to be accepted by the Trial Court more particularly having regard to the fact that the version of the complainant was corroborated by medical evidence tendered through P.W.4 Dr. Dessai. According to the learned Counsel, the Magistrate has not even d