The presumption of innocence is strengthened by acquittal, and appellate courts can only interfere if the trial court's view is unreasonable or if guilt is established beyond a reasonable doubt.

JUDGMENT :

Manoj Kumar Garg, J.

1. The appellant complainant has filed the present Criminal Appeal under Section 372 Cr.P.C against the judgment dated 31.07.2023 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Jalore in Sessions Case NO. 82/2023 whereby the accused respondents No. 2 & 3 have been acquitted from the offences under Section 341, 323/34 IPC.

2. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant complainant filed a written report before the SHO, P.S. Sayla stating therein that on 25.07.2017, in the evening, his father and younger brother were at the field where a tree had fallen. They saw accused respondents cutting the tree by axe. On protesting, the accused respondents became annoyed and accused Khim Singh attacked his father with iron rod and then beaten him with fists and blows, causing injuries.

3. On this report a FIR No. 100/2017 was registered against the respondents for offence under Sections 447, 323 read with 34 IPC and investigation commenced. After investigation, challan was presented against the respondents No. 2 & 3.

4. The trial Court framed charge against the accused respondents for offence under Sections 341, 323/34 IPC. The accused respondents denied the charge and claimed to be tried.

5. The prosecution in support of its case recorded statements of twelve witnesses and exhibited documents. The statement of accused respondents under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded who produced witness smt. Moriya Kanwar in defence. After hearing arguments of both the sides, the trial Court acquitted the accused respondents for the offences charged on the ground that prosecution has not been able to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt.

6. The learned counsel for the appellant argued that the Court below without going through the entire record and evidence wrongly acquitted the accused respondents for the offence charged against them. The court below while passing the impugned order did not consider the statements of witnesses in correct perspective. It is argued that there were direct evidence as well as circumstantial evidence which proved the guilt of the accused respondents. The evidence of appellant Surendra Singh, Vag Singh and Devi Singh duly support the prosecution story. The learned trial court has acquitted the respondents on the ground of delay in lodging the FIR without considering the fact that due to heavy rain in the area, the complainant could not lodged the FIR. Thus the judgment of the Court below is liable to be set aside and the accused respondents should be convicted for the offence charged against him.

7. I have heard the counsels for the parties and gone through the entire record.

8. From the evidence on record so also finding arrived by the learned trial court, it appears that the learned trial court has acquitted the accused respondents on the basis of material contradictions in the statement of the independent witnesses, cross-cases registered against complainant so also the delay in lodging the FIR. No plausible explanation has been given with regard to delay in lodging the complaint. The learned Trial court came to the conclusion that the prosecution has failed to prove that the accused respondents had wrongly restrained the complainant party and caused injuries to them, more so when the investigating officer PW/12 Bhagwana Ram has categorically stated that he had investigated the cross case filed against Vag Singh by the respondents and it was found that in both the cases, Vag Singh was the aggressor party. Thus, the prosecution failed to prove offences under Section 341 & 323 IPC against the accused respondents beyond reasonable doubt. In the opinion of this Court, the findings given by the trial Court are perfectly justified and there is no illegality in the judgment of acquittal by the trial Court.

9. In the case of 'Mrinal Das & others v. The State of Tripura, : 2011 (9) SCC 479,' decided on September 5, 2011, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, after looking into many earlier judgments, has laid down parameters, i