STATE OF M P Vs. SATYAPRASAD SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The respondents were prosecuted for offence punishable under sections 325/34, Indian Penal Code for causing grievous hurt to Anoop Singh (P. W. 1) on 1/10/1979 at about 11 a m. It was alleged that the said Anoop Singh had gone to Mandaria where the respondents assaulted him with lathis because of previous enmity. Anoop Singh is said to have suffered dislocation of left ankle joint. A Sanha report (Ex.P-1) was recorded at Police Station, Sidhi on 1/10/1979 at 9.30 a.m. It appears that after the aforesaid report Anoop Singh was sent for medical examination and was X-rayed on 6.10.1979. Based on the X-ray reported F.I.R. (Ex P-2) was recorded on 18/11/1979 The learned trial Magistrate found that report of the incident was lodged after undue delay for which there was no explanation. In the context of admitted previous enmity between the parties this delay was held to fatal to the prosecution case. Medical opinion given by Dr. Mishra (P.W. 6) was not found sufficient to connect the dislocation with the act of the respondent. Evidence of witnesses was also found unreliable, because of their interestedness. That is how the respondents were acquitted.

(2.) A perusal of the record indicates that incident had taken place at about 11 a.m. The place of incident was only 3 Kilometers away from the Police Station as would be clear from Ex. P-2. The First Information Report was lodged on 3.10.1979 at P-30 a.m. Clearly, therefore, the report was lodged after about 2 days and was delayed. Anoop Singh (P.W. 1) in his evidence asserted that he lodged the report on the date of incident itself. According to him, be lodged the report at 5 p.m. (Para 8). This evidence does not appear to be correct in view of Sanha report (Ex. P-i) and evidence of Tejbali Singh (P.W. 5). Under the circumstances it will have to be concluded that there is no explanation for delay in lodging the report. It cannot be seriously disputed that an explained delay in lodging the report of the incident makes the evidence in the Court unreliable for want of necessary corroboration and the very purpose of lodging the F.I.R. remains frustrated because of the delay.

(3.) Anoop Singh (P.W. i) in Para 3 of his statement has deposed that he was medically examined on the date he lodged the report but the doctor who examined him has not been produced as a witness. There is also no injury report about this witness. It is true that Dr. Mishra (P.W. 6) had taken X-ray of this witness and had given his report (Ex. P-3). Dr. Mishra, in his cross-examination was asked to give his opinion about the duration of the dislocation found by him. He declined to state any duration. Considering the fact that the incident had taken place on i.i0.1979 the report was lodged on 3.10.i979 and dislocation discovered on 6.10.i979 it was necessary for the prosecution to prove the age of the dislocation so as to connect it with the incident in question. In the absence of any evidence in this regard it is not possible to connect the evidence of Dr. Mishra with the alleged actions of the respondents. Admittedly, there is previous enmity between the respondents and Anoop Singh. In the context of delayed F.I.R. and creptic medical report, it is sufficient to uphold the acquittal of the respondents. The law on the point is rather settled. The court would not substitute its own view if the view of the trial court is a possible view on the evidence. The conclusion reached by the trial court is fully supported by the material on record and is the possible conclusion.