The delay in lodging the FIR and the credibility of witnesses, especially close relatives, can significantly impact the outcome of a criminal case.

1. This appeal against acquittal preferred under proviso to Section 372 of CrPC is directed against judgment and order of acquittal dated 02.02.2013 passed by learned Sessions Judge, North Tripura, Kailashahar in Criminal Appeal No.30(4)/2012, whereunder the learned Sessions Judge set aside the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 19.10.2012 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, North Tripura, Kailashahar in Case No.G.R.495/2010.

2. Prosecution case, in short, is that on 16.12.2010, at about 1.30 AM of the night, the informant, Abdul Chhalam(PW2) was sleeping in his residential hut at village Fulbari Kandi under Kailashahar P.S. and he woke up hearing sound of breaking the locking system of almirah of his room and on being woke up he found accused, Dilder Hussain alias Dulu and Sahajahan Hussain alias Saju in the room by the light of CFL bulb lighting his room and at that time accused, Dilder Hussain was trying to assault him with a sharp cutting weapon and to save himself he covered his body in the quilt and he cried for help. Hearing his cries, his wife, daughter, brother and sister-in-law, etc. came out of their hut and in the meantime the accused persons left his house with clothes, a C.D. machine, some C.D. cassettes, and Rs. 2,000/- in cash. It is also the case of the prosecution that the wife, daughter, brother and sister-in-law of the informant also identified the accused persons while they were going away from the house of the informant.

2.1. Narrating the fact PW2, the informant, Abdul Chhalam lodged FIR on 27.12.2010 before O/C Kailashahar P.S., and accordingly, Kailashahar P.S. Case No.228 of 2010 under Sections 457 and 380 of IPC was registered and after investigation police submitted charge sheet against both the accused petitioners for commission of offence punishable under Sections 457 and 380 read with Section 34 of IPC.

2.2. Cognizance was taken on the basis of the police report and in course of trial learned Chief Judicial Magistrate framed charges against the accused persons for commission of offence punishable under Section 457 read with Section 34 of IPC and also under Section 380 read with Section 34 of IPC to which both the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

2.3. In course of trial prosecution examined eight witnesses. Defence cross-examined the prosecution witnesses but in their turn accused persons adduced no defence evidence. Defence case is that of a denial of the prosecution case. It is suggested that the informant has got enmity with accused on the issue of a plot of land and out of that enmity they have been falsely implicated in the case.

2.4. Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate by impugned judgment dated 19.10.2012 found both the accused persons guilty of the offence charged against them and sentenced them to suffer RI for four years under Section 457 read with Section 34 of IPC and also sentenced them to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/-, in default of payment to suffer SI for five months. Again for commission of offence punishable under Section 380 of IPC, learned Chief Judicial Magistrate sentenced the accused persons to suffer RI for four years and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/-, in default of payment to suffer SI for five months. Both the sentences were directed to run concurrently.

3. Aggrieved, the accused-respondents preferred Criminal Appeal No.30(4) of 2012 before the learned Sessions Judge, Kailashahar, North Tripura and learned Sessions Judge by judgment and order dated 02.02.2013 allowed the appeal and set aside the judgment and order of conviction and sentence. Hence, the present appeal is filed by the informant(PW2) Abdul Chhalam challenging the judgment and order of acquittal under proviso to Section 372 of CrPC.

4. Heard learned counsel, Mr. H.K. Bhowmik for the appellant, Mr. A. Pal for accused-respondent Nos.1 and 2 and learned Addl. P.P., Mr. R.C. Debnath for the State respondent No.3.

5. It is argued by learned counsel, Mr. Bhowmik that the eviden