Appellate reversal of acquittal unsustainable unless trial judgment perverse, ignores evidence, or no reasonable acquittal view possible; unexplained FIR delay, witness contradictions justify caution.

JUDGMENT :
Rakesh Kainthla, Judge

The present revision is directed against the judgment of conviction dated 12.04.2013 and order of sentence dated 16.04.2013 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Shimla (learned Appellate Court) vide which the judgment dated 18.12.2008 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Court No.1, Shimla, District Shimla (learned Trial Court) was set aside. (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 leading to the present revision are that the police filed a challan against the accused for committing the offences punishable under Sections 353 and 506 of the Indian Penal (IPC). It was asserted that informant Deepak Bhardwaj (PW-1) was working in his office on 1st April, 2006, when the accused G.N. Verma, DTO Headquarters, entered his room, caught hold of his Jacket, threatened and abused him. The other officials came to the room after hearing the commotion and rescued the informant. The informant made a complaint (Ext.PW-1/A) to the police. The police registered the F.I.R. (Ext.PW5/A). HC Rajinder Singh (PW-6) investigated the matter. He visited the spot and prepared the site plan (Ext.PW6/A). He seized the appointment and posting orders (Ext.PW3/A and Ext. PW3/B) vide memo (Ext.PW-2/A). He recorded the statements of witnesses as per their version. The challan was prepared and presented before the Court after the completion of the investigation.

3. Learned Trial Court found sufficient reasons to summon the accused. When the accused appeared, a notice of accusation was put to him for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 353 and 506 of the IPC, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

4. The prosecution examined six witnesses to prove its case. Deepak Bhardwaj (PW-1) is the informant. Jagdish Sharma (PW-2) and Roop Singh (PW-4) are the eyewitnesses. Hari Nand (PW-3) witnessed the recovery. ASI Yodha Ram (PW-5) signed the F.I.R. HC Rajinder Singh (PW-6) investigated the matter.

5. The accused, in his statement recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., denied the prosecution's case in its entirety. He claimed that a false case was made against him due to enmity. He did not produce any evidence in defence.

6. Learned Trial Court held that the prosecution's case was full of discrepancies. The incident occurred at 11:45 a.m., but was reported to the police at 4:30 pm or 5:00 p.m.The Police post at Kasumpti was located near the place of the incident. There was no explanation for the delay. The witnesses R.D. Sharma and Jagdish Sharma were subordinates of the informant. Therefore, they were likely to support him. The witnesses materially improved upon their previous versions. Investigating Officer admitted that he had examined the witnesses produced by the informant and did not examine any independent person. The dispute between the parties was a private dispute and not related to the office being held by the informant. The prosecution failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt. Hence, the accused was acquitted of the commission of offences punishable under