Secondly, the date and time of occurrence is 14.06.11 of 02:00 pm but the Complaint is filed in the Court on 28.06.11 i.e, after a delay of 14 days from the date of occurrence and the reason for delay is not mentioned in the complaint-petition and the same has been sought to be explained in evidence only as PW-1 has said that her husband was ill and undergoing treatment at Kanpur under sick leave for two months and here it is notable that the husband of the PW-1 has not been examined. It is an admitted fact that on 14.06.11 itself that accused has launched a Criminal Prosecution against her and her husband vide Lalpania PS Case No. 36/11 dt. 14.06.11 in which charge-sheet was also submitted against them and upon trial both PW-1 and her husband were held guilty and sentenced to undergo SI 3-Years u/s. 324 IPC, SI One Year u/s. 323 IPC and SI one month u/s. 341 IPC vide Judgment of Conviction & Order of sentence dt. 29.11.17 Exh. D and it appears that in Appeal vide Crl. Appeal No. 134/17 heard by the Ld. Sessions Judge, Bokaro they did not challenge the merits of the Judgment and confined to the quantum of sentence and they were extended a benefit of section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 vide Judgment Exh. D/1. The Judgment Exh. D which mentions about Injury report Exh. 2 therein records (1). Incised wound in right shoulder 1mm x 0-2mm, (2). Four incised wounds in the right side of the back 0.5 mm x 0.5 mm, (3). Cut in the back of left shoulder 1mm x 0.5 mm, (4). Two cut injuries incised wound on left Temporal region 1mm x 0.5 mm and (5) Two wounds in the Oxipital region 1mm x 0.5 mm and (6). Teeth bite on right upper arm above the wrist joint and all the injuries were caused by sharp weapon cause perhaps by screw driver. In the background of the case Exh. A of the accused, the delay as sought to be explained by PW-1 Prosecutrix does not appear plausible and also unrealistic and in absence of any injury report of the Prosecutrix, and since she and her husband have been convicted, there is no option but to hold the present Prosecutrix PW-1 and her husband are the 'agressors'. The story as contained in the Complaint or in her testimony militates with each other and appears completely divorced from reality and none of the two stories reflect any element of truth and none can be relied upon and consequently, I find force in the suggestion given by the defence to the Prosecutrix (in the last page of her testimony) that she has filed a counter case to save her skin, from the case of the accused vide FIR Exh. A. Further the denial of the suggestion of defense by
