After hearing counsel for the appellant and perusing the paperbook, I do not find any force in the contentions raised by the counsel for the appellant. Firstly, in the after charge evidence of the complainant, the eyewitness, Harvinder Singh Brar – PW2 did not turn up to face the cross-examination and as such, in view of the settled principle of law that the statement of an eyewitness who has not been cross-examined cannot be read into evidence, therefore, this evidence has no evidentiary value on the face of it. Secondly, it has also come on record that, in fact, the accused namely Iqbal Singh has also registered an FIR No.609 dated 04.12.2000 under Sections 294, 509, 506 read with Section 34 IPC against the complainant and the said FIR was registered as the appellant along with some other persons were found creating nuisance in a drunkard condition and, therefore, the version given by the appellant is contrary to the version given by the accused persons in FIR No.609 that the appellant while running from the spot had fallen down from the porch on a hard surface, hit the iron gate and sustained injuries. It is also a matter of record that the appellant – Chatwinder Singh and Parmatma Bhai Patel were arrested at the spot in FIR No.609 dated 04.12.2000 and at that time, the police did not find any weapon like stick, etc. from the spot to show that they were ever beaten up by the accused persons. Thirdly, the complainant has failed to explain the delay in lodging the FIR and filing the protest petition and he has not disclosed about causing of the injuries to the police officials
