Delay in lodging FIR undermines the credibility of the prosecution's case, particularly when evidence is inconsistent and insufficient to support the charges against the accused.

JUDGMENT :

Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.

1. Heard, Md. Faruque Ansari, learned counsel for the appellants and Mr. Rajesh Kumar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State.

2. The present appeal has been preferred by the appellants challenging the judgment of conviction dated 19th January, 2008 and order of sentence dated 22nd January, 2008 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Tract Court No.I, Palamau, Daltonganj in S.T. No.111 of 2006, whereby and whereunder, the appellants have been held guilty for the offences under sections 147, 323/149, 364/149 and 387/149 of Indian Penal Code and sentenced them to undergo R.I. for 5 years along with fine of Rs.3,000/- for the offences under sections 364/149 of IPC, R.I. for 3 years along with fine of Rs.3,000/- for the offence under sections 387/149 of IPC and R.I. of one year each sections 323 and 147 of IPC. All sentences have been directed to run concurrently.

FACTUAL MATRIX

3. Factual matrix giving rise to this appeal is that on 17.09.2004, the informant Prem Nath Bishwakarma lodged an FIR stating inter alia that there is land dispute with the co-villagers namely Ukhamjee Yadav, Lalan Yadav, Yogendra Yadav, Ramlal Yadav and Nakku Yadav, which was settled with the intervention of the police station on 17.08.2004. It is further alleged that the accused persons are not abiding the terms and conditions of the settlement and have called one miscreant Mulayam Singh Yadav and on their instigation Mulayam Singh Yadav along with others abducted the brother of the informant namely Ram Raj Vishwakarma on 06.09.2004 at about 9 AM and took him away towards Lama Pahari while assaulting with lathi with intention to kill him. It is further alleged that Mulayam Singh Yadav and others threatened the informant’s brother to quit the alleged land and remove the trees from the disputed land, otherwise, he will be killed. They also threatened his brother not to lodge any case, otherwise your house will be demolished and also demanded Rs.1 lakh as extortion from the informant through his brother, otherwise, they will also kill the informant along with his son.

4. After registration of FIR for the offence under sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 341, 364 and 387 of IPC, the investigation was conducted and present appellants were charge-sheeted in the case for the aforesaid offences. The case was committed to the court of Sessions, whereby the appellants faced trial and have been held guilty and sentenced as stated above.

5. Learned counsel for the appellants assailing the impugned judgment and order has vehemently argued that none of the offences charged against the appellants are constituted. It is out and out a false case due to previous dispute between the parties regarding land. The occurrence is manipulated to have happened on 06.09.2004 but the FIR was lodged on 17.09.2004 without offering any reasonable cause for such an inordinate delay. The story of demand of extortion money and abduction of the informant’s brother is purportedly false and no such event ever took place. It is further stated that the trial court has miserably failed to properly appreciate the evidence of the informant and his brother allegedly abducted in the case and arrived at wrong conclusion. The investigating Officer of the case was also not examined. The doctor (P.W.5), who has medically examined the injured, has specifically admitted that, he has examined the patient on 08.09.2004 at about 9:20 PM as outdoor patient, wherein the patient had also not disclosed any medico legal case or injury suffered in any criminal activities. It is furth