Appellate interference in acquittal justified only if perverse or unreasonable; unexplained FIR delay, absent test identification parade, omnibus allegations, and dubious night identification uphold trial acquittal.

JUDGMENT :

RAKESH KAINTHLA, J.

1. The present appeal is directed against the judgment dated 17.01.2013, passed by learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Court No. IV, Shimla, District Shimla, H.P. (learned Trial Court), vide which the respondents (accused before the learned Trial Court) were acquitted of the commission of offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 323, and 325 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). (Parties shall hereinafter be referred to in the same manner as they were arrayed before the learned Trial Court for convenience.)

2. Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to the present appeal are that the police presented a challan against the accused for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 323 and 325 read with Section 149 of the IPC. It was asserted that the informant, Babu Ram (PW1), had gone to Village Paneya to attend a marriage on 10.11.2009. He saw that Lekh Raj was being beaten by Rinku, Sanju, Rajesh, and Daleep without any reason. The informant enquired from the assailants as to why they were beating Lekh Raj. The assailants gave the informant beatings with sticks. He sustained injuries to his nose, eye, back, legs, and ribs. Jagdish (PW2), Deep Ram (PW4), and Vinay Kumar (PW6) rescued the informant from the assailants. The assailants threatened to kill the informant in case the matter was reported to the police. The informant made a complaint (Ext.PW1/A) to the police. FIR (Ext. PW11/B) was registered. Dr Anita Negi (PW8) examined the victim and found that he had sustained injuries that could have been caused within 72 hours of examination. She advised an ultrasound of the abdomen and an X-ray of the chest. Dr Neeti Aggarwal (PW7) went through the X-ray and the report of the ultrasound. She found that there was no fracture. She issued the report (Ext.PW7/A). Dr Anita issued a final opinion stating that the nature of the injury was simple. She issued the MLC (Ext.PW8/A). ASI Kushal Kumar (PW11) investigated the matter. He visited the spot and prepared the site plan (Ext.PW11/A). He seized the sticks (Ext.P1 to Ext.P3) vide memo (Ext.PW3/A). Jagdish Kumar (PW2) had also sustained injuries. Dr Manjula Gupta (PW9) examined him and found that he had sustained injury on his left index finger. She advised X-rays. Dr Shikha Sood (PW10) went through the X-rays and found that there was a fracture of the proximal phalanx of the index finger of the left hand. She issued the report (Ext.PW10/B). Dr Manjula Gupta (PW9) found that the nature of the injury was grievous, which could have been caused by beating the victim with a stick. She issued the MLC (Ext.PW9/A). The statements of witnesses were recorded as per their version and after the completion of the investigation, the challan was prepared and presented before the learned Trial Court.

3. The learned Trial Court found sufficient reasons to summon the accused. When the accused appeared, they were charged with the commission of offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 323 and 325 read with Section 149 of the IPC, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

4. The prosecution examined eleven witnesses to prove its case. Babu Ram (PW1) is