JUDGMENT : Rakesh Kainthla, J. The present appeal is directed against the judgment dated 23.12.2013 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Baijnath, Distt. Kangra, HP (learned Trial Court) vide which, the respondents (accused before the learned Trial Court) were acquitted of the commission of offences punishable under Sections 323 and 325 read with Section  34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). (The 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 giving rise to the present appeal are that the police presented a challan against the accused before the learned Trial Court for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 323 and 325, read with Section 34 of the IPC. It was asserted that the informant, Radha Krishan (PW-4), was present in his home on 07.09.2011. The accused Mani Ram and Chanderbhan came to his house at about 8:00 pm and started abusing him without any reason. The informant enquired from the accused the reason for the abuse. The accused, Mani Ram and Chanderbhan, gave him beatings with fist and a stick. The informant and Inderjeet Singh (PW-5) sustained injuries in the incident. The matter was reported to the police, and an entry (Ex.PW4/A) was recorded in the daily diary. An application (Ex.PW8/A) was filed for the medical examination of the injured. Dr Ashwani Sharma (PW-1) examined Inderjeet and found that he had sustained simple injuries, which could have been caused within 4 to 6 hours of examination. He issued the MLC (Ex. PW1/A). Dr Ashwani Sharma (PW-1) also examined the informant, Radha Krishan, and found that he had sustained multiple injuries. He referred the informant to a dental surgeon for expert opinion. Dr Sukriti Awasthi (PW-3) examined the informant and found that he had suffered a fracture of the tooth. She issued the report (Ex. PW3/A). Dr Ashwani Sharma (PW-1) issued the final opinion (Ex. PW1/B) stating that the injuries were grievous and could have been caused within 4 to 6 hours of the examination. An FIR (Ex.PA) was registered. ASI Prithi Singh (PW-9) investigated the matter. He visited the spot and prepared a site plan (Ex. PW9/A). He recorded the statements of the witnesses as per their version. After the completion of the investigation, the challan was prepared and presented before the Court. 3. An FIR (Ex.PA) was registered. ASI Prithi Singh (PW-9) investigated the matter. He visited the spot and prepared a site plan (Ex. PW9/A). He recorded the statements of the witnesses as per their version. After the completion of the investigation, the challan was prepared and presented before the Court. 3. Learned Trial Court found sufficient reasons to frame charges against the accused for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 323 and 325, read with Section 34 of the IPC, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 4. The prosecution examined nine witnesses to prove its case. Dr Ashwani Sharma (PW-1) examined the injured. Soni Kumar (PW-2) and Vinod Kumar (PW-6) are the eyewitnesses. Dr  Sukriti  Awasthi  (PW-3)  is  the  dental surgeon who examined the informant. Radha Krishan (PW-4) is the informant. Inderjeet Singh (PW-5) is the victim. MHC Anil Kumar (PW-7) proved entries in the daily diaries. HC Munshi Ram (PW-8) applied for medical examination of the injured. ASI Prithi Singh (PW-9) investigated the matter. 5. The accused, in their statements recorded under Section 313 of Cr.PC denied the prosecution's case in its entirety. They stated that they had also reported the matter to the police. They claimed that they were falsely implicated because they had not voted in favour of the brother of Inderjeet, who had contested the elections for the post of Pradhan. They claimed that they were innocent, and witnesses deposed falsely against them. They examined Ashok Kumar (DW-1) to prove their defence. 6. Learned Trial Court held that the matter was reported to the police after a gap of more than 1½ days. No explanation was provided for the delay, which would make the prosecution's case highly suspect. The contradictions in the statements of the eyewitnesses made it difficult to rely upon them. No recovery of the stick was effected. The informant party was the aggressor. The accused had also reported the matter to the police. The prosecution had failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt. Hence, the accused were acquitted of the commission of offences punishable under Sections 323 and 325, read with Section 34 of the IPC. 7. No recovery of the stick was effected. The informant party was the aggressor. The accused had also reported the matter to the police. The prosecution had failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt. Hence, the accused were acquitted of the commission of offences punishable under Sections 323 and 325, read with Section 34 of the IPC. 7. Being aggrieved by the judgment passed by the learned Trial Court, the State has filed the present appeal asserting that the learned Trial Court appreciated the evidence in a slipshod and perfunctory manner and acquitted the accused on flimsy grounds. The prosecution's case was duly proved by the testimonies of the witnesses, which were discarded without any cogent reason. Soni Kumar (PW-2) proved that the accused had given beatings to the informant and Inderjeet Singh. The informant and Inderjeet Singh also supported the prosecution's case. Their testimonies were corroborated by the statements of Vinod Kumar (PW-6), Dr Ashwani Kumar (PW-1), and Dr Sukriti Awasthi (PW-3). Learned Trial Court failed to properly appreciate their testimonies. Hence, it was prayed that the present appeal be allowed and the judgment passed by the learned Trial Court be set aside. 8. I  have  heard  Mr  Ajit  Sharma,  learned  Deputy Advocate General for the appellant/State and Mr Surender Sharma, learned Counsel for the respondent/accused. 9. Mr Ajit Sharma, learned Deputy Advocate General for the appellant/State, submitted that the matter was reported to the police on the same day, and learned Trial Court erred in holding that there was a delay in reporting the matter to the police. Minor contradictions were blown out of proportion to acquit the accused. The statements of the informant and the injured were corroborated by the statements of witnesses and the medical evidence. Learned Trial Court had taken a view, which could not have been taken by a reasonable person. Hence, he prayed that the present appeal be allowed and the judgment passed by the learned Trial Court be set aside. 10. Mr. Surender  Sharma,  learned  counsel  for  the respondent/accused, submitted that the prosecution had changed the initial version projected in the FIR, which made the prosecution's case highly suspect. No recovery was effected in the present case, and the witnesses introduced a grip as the weapon of offence, which was never mentioned in the FIR. 10. Mr. Surender  Sharma,  learned  counsel  for  the respondent/accused, submitted that the prosecution had changed the initial version projected in the FIR, which made the prosecution's case highly suspect. No recovery was effected in the present case, and the witnesses introduced a grip as the weapon of offence, which was never mentioned in the FIR. Learned Trial Court had taken a reasonable view while  acquitting  the  accused,  and  this  Court  should  not interfere with the reasonable view of the learned Trial Court while deciding the appeal against the acquittal. Hence, he prayed that the present appeal be dismissed. 11. I have given considerable thought to the submissions made at the bar and have gone through the records carefully. 12. The present appeal has been filed against a judgment of acquittal. It was laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Surendra Singh v. State of Uttarakhand, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 176: (2025) 5 SCC 433 that the Court can interfere with a judgment of acquittal if it is patently perverse, is based on misreading/omission to consider the material evidence and reached at a conclusion which no reasonable person could have reached. It was observed at page 440: “12. It could thus be seen that it is a settled legal position that the interference with the finding of acquittal recorded by the learned trial judge would be warranted by the High Court only if the judgment of acquittal suffers from patent perversity; that the same is based on a misreading/omission to consider material evidence on record; and that no two reasonable views are possible and only the view consistent with the guilt of the accused is possible from the evidence available on record.” 13. This position was reiterated in P. Somaraju v. State of A.P., 2025 SCC OnLine SC 2291, wherein it was observed: “12. To summarise, an Appellate Court undoubtedly has full power to review and reappreciate evidence in an appeal against acquittal under Sections 378 and 386 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973. However, due to the reinforced or ‘double’ presumption of innocence after acquittal, interference must be limited. If two reasonable views are possible on the basis of the record, the acquittal should not be disturbed. Judicial intervention is only warranted where the Trial Court's view is perverse, based on misreading or ignoring material evidence, or results in a manifest miscarriage of justice. If two reasonable views are possible on the basis of the record, the acquittal should not be disturbed. Judicial intervention is only warranted where the Trial Court's view is perverse, based on misreading or ignoring material evidence, or results in a manifest miscarriage of justice. Moreover, the Appellate Court must address the reasons given by the Trial Court for acquittal before reversing it and assigning its own. A catena of the recent judgments of this Court has more firmly entrenched this position, including, inter alia, Mallappa v. State of Karnataka 2024 INSC 104 , Ballu @ Balram @ Balmukund v. The State of Madhya Pradesh 2024 INSC 258 , Babu Sahebagouda Rudragoudar v. State of Karnataka 2024 INSC 320 , and Constable 907 Surendra Singh v. State of Uttarakhand 2025 INSC 114 .” 14. The present appeal has to be decided as per the parameters laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. 15. The initial report (Ex. PW4/A) was recorded on 08.09.2011 at about 00:30 am. The medical examination was conducted at 1:10 am. Therefore, the learned Trial Court erred in holding that the matter was reported to the police on 09.09.2011 at 2:45 pm. Learned Trial Court noticed the time mentioned in the FIR and did not notice the time mentioned in the entry in the daily diary. The incident had occurred on 07.09.2011 at about 8:00 pm. The distance between the Police Station and the spot is shown to be 30km in the FIR. Reporting the matter within 4½ hours of the incident cannot be said to be unreasonable, and the findings recorded by the learned Trial Court that there was a delay in reporting the matter to the police cannot be sustained. 16. Entry in the daily diary (Ex. PW4/A) mentioned Mani Ram and Chanderbhan as the assailants, who had inflicted injuries by means of a fist and a stick. The charge sheet was filed against Mani Ram, Chanderbhan and Naro Devi. Radha Krishan (PW-4) stated that Chanderbhan, Mani Ram, etc., were arguing with Inderjeet Singh. Inderjeet Singh (PW-5) stated that all the accused present in the Court attacked him. Naro Devi was armed with a stick. Chanderbhan had a pointed object. Thus, the informant and the victim added Naro Devi, who was not mentioned in the FIR. 17. Radha Krishan (PW-4) stated that Chanderbhan, Mani Ram, etc., were arguing with Inderjeet Singh. Inderjeet Singh (PW-5) stated that all the accused present in the Court attacked him. Naro Devi was armed with a stick. Chanderbhan had a pointed object. Thus, the informant and the victim added Naro Devi, who was not mentioned in the FIR. 17. Soni Kumar (PW-2) stated that he heard some noise and saw Mani Ram and Chanderbhan armed with a stick beating Radha Krishan and Inderjeet. He has not mentioned the name of Naro Devi as an assailant. Vinod Kumar (PW-6) stated that Mani Ram and his family members came to the spot. Radha Krishan and Inderjeet had sustained injuries. Therefore, there is contradictory evidence regarding the presence of Naro Devi. Her name was not mentioned in the FIR, and Soni Kumar (PW-2) did not mention her name as an assailant; therefore, her presence on the spot is highly suspected. 18. It is undisputed that the FIR was lodged by the accused regarding the same incident. ASI Prithi  Singh (PW-9) stated in his cross-examination that the FIR No. 96/2011 was registered at the instance of the accused regarding the incident. He admitted that Radha Krishan and Vinod Kumar had given beatings to the accused. He admitted that Naro Devi and her husband had sustained multiple injuries. No explanation was provided regarding the injuries sustained by Naro Devi and her husband. Radha Krishan (PW-4) denied in his cross-examination that he had given beatings to Hoshiar Singh and Naro Devi. He stated that he was not aware that Naro Devi and Hoshiar Singh had sustained injuries. Inder Jeet Singh (PW-5) denied in his cross-examination that he, his brother Happy, Vinod Kumar and Radha Krishan had given beatings to Naro Devi and her husband. He denied that they had sustained injuries in the beating. Soni Kumar (PW-2) denied in his cross-examination that Radha Krishan and Inderjeet had given a beating to the accused, in which Hoshiar Singh and Naro Devi had sustained injuries. Vinod Kumar (PW-6) denied in his cross- examination that he, Happy and other persons had given beatings to Naro Devi with sticks. He denied that they had sustained injuries in the incident. Therefore, it is apparent that none of the prosecution witnesses has explained the injuries sustained by the accused Naro Devi and her husband. 19. Vinod Kumar (PW-6) denied in his cross- examination that he, Happy and other persons had given beatings to Naro Devi with sticks. He denied that they had sustained injuries in the incident. Therefore, it is apparent that none of the prosecution witnesses has explained the injuries sustained by the accused Naro Devi and her husband. 19. It was laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Parshuram v. State of M.P., 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1416, that the non-explanation of the injuries to the accused assumes significance when the evidence consists of interested or inimical witnesses and the defence version competes in probability with the prosecution case. It was observed:- “31. We do not find the said observation of the trial court correct. The injuries sustained by Ramrup @ Roopa are from a sharp weapon. It will be trite to refer to the following observations of this Court in the case of Lakshmi Singh v. State of Bihar (1976) 4 SCC 394 : 12 It seems to us that in a murder case, the non-explanation of the injuries sustained by the accused at about the time of the occurrence or in the course of the altercation is a very important circumstance from which the court can draw the following inferences: “(1) that the prosecution has suppressed the genesis and the origin of the occurrence and has thus not presented the true version; (2) that the witnesses who have denied the presence of the injuries on the person of the accused are lying on the most material point, and therefore their evidence is unreliable; (3) that in case there is a defence version which explains the injuries on the person of the accused, it is rendered probable to throw doubt on the prosecution’s case.” The omission on the part of the prosecution to explain the injuries to the person of the accused assumes much greater importance where the evidence consists of interested or inimical witnesses or where the defence gives a version which competes in probability with that of the prosecution. In the instant case, when it is held, as it must be, that the appellant Dasrath Singh received serious injuries which have not been explained by the prosecution, then it will be difficult for the court to rely on the evidence of PWs 1 to 4 and 6, more particularly, when some of these witnesses have lied by stating that they did not see any injuries on the person of the accused. Thus, neither the Sessions Judge nor the High Court appears to have given due consideration to this important lacuna or infirmity appearing in the prosecution's case. We must hasten to add that, as held by this Court in State of Gujarat v. Bai Fatima (1975) 2 SCC 7 : 1975 SCC (Cri) 384, there may be cases where the non-explanation   of   the   injuries   by   the prosecution may not affect the prosecution's case. This principle would obviously apply to cases where the injuries sustained by the accused are minor and superficial or where the evidence is so clear and cogent, so independent and disinterested, so probable, consistent and creditworthy, that it far outweighs the effect of the omission on the part of the prosecution to explain the injuries. The present, however, is certainly not such a case, and the High Court was, therefore, in error in brushing aside this serious infirmity in the prosecution case on unconvincing premises.” 32. A similar view with regard to non-explanation of injuries has been taken by this Court in the cases of State of Rajasthan v. Madho 1991 Supp (2) SCC 396, State of M.P. v. Mishrilal (Dead) (2003) 9 SCC 426 , Nagarathinam v. State Represented by Inspector of Police (2006) 9 SCC 57 and recently in the case of Nand Lal v. State of Chhattisgarh 2023 SCC OnLine SC 262 33. Undisputedly, in the present case also, the witnesses are interested. The injuries sustained by the three accused persons are not at all explained. The trial court and the High Court have not considered this aspect of the matter. 34. Non-explanation of injuries on the persons of the accused would create doubt as to whether the prosecution has brought on record the real genesis of the incident or not. Undisputedly, as observed hereinabove, a cross-case was also registered against the complainant party for the injuries sustained by the accused persons.” 20. 34. Non-explanation of injuries on the persons of the accused would create doubt as to whether the prosecution has brought on record the real genesis of the incident or not. Undisputedly, as observed hereinabove, a cross-case was also registered against the complainant party for the injuries sustained by the accused persons.” 20. Therefore, the prosecution's case would become suspect because of the non-explanation of the injuries sustained by the accused. 21. Dr Ashwani Sharma (PW-1) examined the informant and Inderjeet Singh. He found injuries, which could have been caused by a stick. He has not found any punctured wounds on their person. The absence of the punctured wound would assume significance because Soni Kumar (PW-2) stated that the accused was armed with the grip. Inderjeet Singh (PW-5) stated that Chanderbhan was armed with some pointed object, with which he had inflicted injuries. Therefore, as per the witnesses, not only was the pointed object with the accused, but they had also used it to inflict injuries to the informant party. Thus, the absence of the punctured wound assumes significance and will make the prosecution's case suspect. 22. The FIR mentions that the informant was present in his home, and the accused came to the house, where Mani Ram and Chanderbhan gave beatings to the informant and Inderjeet Singh. This version was changed in the Court. Radha Krishan (PW-4) stated that he was returning from his duty, and he saw Chanderbhan, Mani Ram, etc., arguing with Inderjeet. He tried to intervene, but the accused gave him beatings. Inderjeet Singh (PW-5), on the other hand, stated that the accused had abused Vinod Kumar in his shop. He went to the accused to inquire about the reason of abusing, where he was attacked by the accused. Thus, both of the witnesses have shifted the place of the incident. The informant stated that the incident occurred in the home, and he was coming from duty, whereas Inderjeet stated that the incident occurred near the shop when he had made inquiries about the abuse hurled by the accused. 23. Vinod Kumar (PW-6) stated that the branch of the tree was cut. He was present in the shop at about 6:30 pm, where Hoshiar Singh and his wife, Naro Devi, came and inquired about the reason for cutting the branch. Mani Ram and his family members came to the spot. 23. Vinod Kumar (PW-6) stated that the branch of the tree was cut. He was present in the shop at about 6:30 pm, where Hoshiar Singh and his wife, Naro Devi, came and inquired about the reason for cutting the branch. Mani Ram and his family members came to the spot. His younger brother came at 8:00 pm and inquired about the reason for the abuse. He went to inquire about the abuse and saw that the accused had left the spot. 24. The statement of this witness show that the prosecution has not disclosed the complete facts to the Court. The version of the accused that the incident started over cutting the branch of the tree has been made probable by the testimony of this witness. Therefore, the submission that these two incidents are separate and were wrongly mixed by the learned Trial Court cannot be accepted. 25. Thus, the prosecution had not succeeded in establishing the case projected by it in the FIR, and the learned Trial Court was justified in doubting it. This was a reasonable view that could have been taken based on the material on record, and no interference is required with the reasonable view of the learned Trial Court while deciding an appeal against the acquittal. 26. No other point was urged. 27. In view of the above, the present appeal fails, and it is dismissed. 28. In view of the provisions of Section 437-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Section 481 of Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023) the respondents are directed to furnish bail bonds in the sum of Rs.50,000/- each with one surety each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Registrar (Judicial) of this Court/learned Trial Court which shall be effective for six months with a stipulation that in the event of a Special Leave Petition being filed against this judgment or on grant of the leave, the respondents on receipt of notice thereof shall appear before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. 29. A copy of the judgment, along with the record of the learned Trial Court, be sent back forthwith.