Unexplained delay in lodging the FIR is fatal for the prosecution. The prosecution must establish the place of occurrence and the identity of the accused. Contradictions in the evidence should not dislodge the credibility of the witnesses.

JUDGMENT

Bibek Chaudhuri, J. - This is an appeal against the judgment and order of acquittal passed by the learned additional Sessions Judge, 1st Court at Contai in Criminal appeal No.2 of 2016 reversing the judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Court at Contai in GR (E) Case No.79 of 2004 under Sections 148/323/34 of the Indian Penal Code.

2. The defacto complainant of G.R (E) Case No.79 of 2004 is the appellant before this Court.

3. The defacto complainant, namely, Surajit Bhunia lodged a complaint before the learned Sub-divisional Judicial Magistrate at Contai on 25th February, 2004 against six accused persons/private respondents stating, inter alia, that he was a member of the managing committee of Mokrampur Nilkanta Siksha Sadan during the year 2004. Sometimes in the last quarter of 2003, Test Examination of the students of Class-X to qualify for the Madhyamik Examination of 2004 was conducted by the school and as per the result, five students failed in the said test examination. as they were not qualified to appear in Madhyamik Examination of 2004, the said students filed an application under article 226 of the Constitution. Over the said issue a meeting of the Managing Committee was convened on 13th February, 2004 in the evening. In the said meeting the defacto complainant and accused No.5 being the teacher representative of the managing committee were present along with other members. The accused No.6 brought accused No.1-5 who assembled on the varanda of the school at the time of commencement of the meeting. In course of the meeting the accused No.6 made some derogatory remarks. Over the said issue he was asked to tender his apology. at this the accused No.6 demanded that no meeting would be held as per the resolution of the President and the Secretary of the Managing Committee. When the informant protested against such unruly act and behaviour of accused No.6 he asked the informant to leave the meeting. The informant and witness No.2 came out of the meeting room to ask accused No.6 the date when he intended to hold the said meeting. at this the accused No.6 became excited and pushed him holding his neck. He also ordered the other accused persons to kill the informant. Then accused No.3 assaulted the informant with the help of a lathi on his head causing bleeding injury on the back side of his head. The defacto complainant immediately sat down on the ground holding his injured head by his hands. Immediately thereafter accused No.6 kicked him on his chest. The informant had Rs.6000/- in the pocket of his shirt. The accused persons also assaulted him with the help of fists, blows and kicks. When his brother came to save the informant, the accused No.1 assaulted him with the help of a lathi on the left side of his head. accused No.2 also assaulted him with the help of iron rod on his back. Other accused persons also assaulted the brother of the informant by fists, blows and kicks. The witnesses who were present there saved the informant and his brother from the hands of the accused persons. They were admitted to the hospital for medical treatment and subsequently referred to Contai Sub-divisional Hospital for better treatment.

4. The said complaint was lodged on 25th February, 2004. The learned Sub-divisional Judicial Magistrate, Contai sent the said complaint to the concerned P.S under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure as a direction to treat the same as FIR against the accused persons.

5. On the basis of the said complaint police registered Potashpur P.S Case No.11 of 2004 dated 22nd March, 2004 under Sections 147/148/323/325/307/379/34 of the Indian Penal Code against the accused persons. The investigation culminated in filing charge-sheet against the accused persons/private respondents.

6. The learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Court at Contai conducted trial of the case and on conclusion of trial held the accused persons guilty for committing offence unde