The principle of adopting the view that favors the accused when two views are possible.

ARVIND SINGH SANGWAN, J.

1. Petitioner-complainant-Hari Chand has filed the present petition under Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (‘Cr.P.C.’ for short) challenging judgment dated 9.10.2015 passed by the trial Court, whereby all the accused were acquitted of the charges under Sections 326,324,323 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’ for short) , in FIR No. 2 dated 22.7.2010 registered at Police Station Lakhewali, as well as the judgment dated 28.4.2016 passed by the appellate Court dismissing the appeal filed by the petitioner-complainant.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that both the Courts below have wrongly acquitted the respondents-accused as the prosecution has led sufficient evidence to prove the guilt of the respondents.

3. Prosecution case set up in the FIR is that on 19.7.2010, on receiving an information, the Investigating Officer, Assistant Sub Inspector Nirbhay Singh, reached Civil Hospital Muktsar who was informed by the injured that a compromise talk is going on between the parties and they do not want to get their statement recorded. On 20.7.2010 and 21.7.2010, he again visited the hospital and injured persons again reiterated their earlier stand regarding the compromise talk is going on. On 22.7.2010, injured persons got their statement recorded narrating the incident that on 18.7.2010, at about 8.00 p.m, the accused persons caused injuries to them on account of cleaning the water course of their land. The police, after completing the investigation. submitted the report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. and, there after, charges under Sections 326, 323, 324 read with Section 34 IPC were framed against the petitioners and they faced the trial. Prosecution examined PW1 Amarjit Singh, son of complainant, PW3 Mandeep Singh, PW4 Sarabjit Kaur, PW5 Sub Inspector Nirbhai Singh (retired), PW6 Dr. Hari Narain Singh SMO, PW7 Head Constable Sukhwinder Singh, PW8 Dr. Ranju Singla, Medical Officer, PW9 MHC Baljeet Raj and PW10 Hari Chand, complainant-injured.

4. After closing the evidence of the prosecution, statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded and in support of their defence, the accused examined DW1 Jagpal Singh, Panchayat Secretary, DW2 Dalwinder Singh, DW3 Kabal Singh, Ex-sarpanch, DW4 Sukhpal Singh and DW5 Inspector Jeet Singh along with certain documents.

5. Learned trial Court vide judgment dated 9.10.2015 framed points for determination as to whether on 18.7.2017, the accused persons caused injuries to the complainant and committed offence punishable under Section 326 read with Section 34 IPC; 324 read with Section 34 IPC and 323 read with Section 34 IPC, and decided all the points against the prosecution. Feeling aggrieved the complainant filed the appeal before the appellate Court and the appellate Court also dismissed the appeal vide judgment dated 28.4.2016.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that from the statement of the injured-complainant, supported by the other injured witnesses, the petitioners have proved the guilt of the accused and the same is duly corroborated by the medical evidence in the shape of statements of PW6 Dr. Hari Narain Singh and PW8 Dr. Ranju Singla and, there fore, the Courts below have wrongly acquitted the respondents-accused.

7. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner, I find no substance in the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner.

8. Both the Courts below have concurrently held that the statements of the prosecution witnesses do not inspire confidence, firstly, there is no explanation of delay as the alleged occurrence took place on 18.7.2010, whereas, the FIR was registered on 22.7.2010. It is mentioned in the FIR itself that during the intervening period talks of compromise were going on between the parties ,therefore, no statement was got recorded by them. This fact itself shows that the complainant party was not interested in lodging the FIR and only after four days, they have