JUDGMENT 1. - This is an appeal filed by the State of Rajasthan with the leave of this Court against the judgment of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chittorgarh, dated December 16, 1978, by which he acquitted Subhash Deo Dangi respondent of the offences punishable under sections 448 and 332, IPC. 2. The prosecution case against Subhash Deo Dangi, respondent, may be briefly stated as tollows: Some dues of the Mining Department were outstanding against Abhey Singh, one of the co-accused, who has been discharged by the trial court. On March 17, 1964, Shri Mohan Lal Najib Tehsildar and Shri Karan Singh Foreman of the Mining Department went to the factory of Shri Abhey Singh for recovery of dues and for attachment of the properties if Abhey Sihgh failed to pay of the amount due from him. Abhey Singh's son Prakram Singh Dangi caused obstruction in the process of attachment and picked up a quarrel. Mohan Lal one of the employees of the Mining Department. rushed to the police station, Rhilwara, for lodging a first information report against Prakaram Singh. After a short while Prakram Singh and his companions also reached the police station for making a first information report against the Niab Telisildar Shri Mohan Lal and his companions with the allegation that those people had beaten Prakaram Singh and caused injuries to his person. The Station House Officer Avtar Singh heard about incident from Prakram Singh and directed Nand Kishore, Head Constable, to record a first information report regarding non-cognizable offence. After a short while Subhash Deo Dangi and his companions came inside the police station asked Avtar Singh, Station House Officer, about the recording of the first information report. The Station House Officer replied that the incident disclosed an offence under section 323, I.P.C. only and so he had directed Nand Kishore, Head Constable to record the first information report relating to a on-cognizable offence. Subhash Deo Dangi resented the reply given by the Station House Officer and became enraged He threatened Avtar Singh, Station House Officer, with dire conquences and misbehaved with him Thereupon. Avtar. Singh, Station House Officer, asked Subhash Deo Dangi to go out of the office and to control his tongue but the latter, all of a sudden, slapped Avtar Singh on his face. Thereafter, the companions of Sabash Deo Dangi made an attack on the Station House Officer. Avtar. Singh, Station House Officer, asked Subhash Deo Dangi to go out of the office and to control his tongue but the latter, all of a sudden, slapped Avtar Singh on his face. Thereafter, the companions of Sabash Deo Dangi made an attack on the Station House Officer. The police force stationed at the police station, and the Additional Superintendent of Police Shri Balwant Singh, Deputy Superintendent of Police Shri Nathi Lal, Naib-Tehsildar of the Mining Department and others, who were present inside the police station came to the rescue of the Station House Officer from being further beaten with shoes, kicks and fists. As a result of the beating, Constables Raju Singh, Modu and Head Constable Madan Singh also received injuries on their persons. After great difficulty, the situation was brought under control by the police and Subhash Deo Dangi and his companions were arrested and detained in police lock-up. A criminal case under sections 332, 147 and 452, IPC was registered against Subhash Deo Dangi and his seven companions on the basi of the first information report made on March 17, 1964. After necessary investigation by the police a challan was filed in the court of the District Magistrate, Bhilwara, against the respondent and his associates to April 22, 1964. As the cross-case filed by Subhash Deo Dangi was pending in the court of the Civil Judge-cum-Magistrate First Class, Bhilwara, the District Magistrate transferred this case also to the said court. The learned Magistrate upon conducting an inquiry before the charge, came to a conclnsion that no offence was made out against Subhash Deo Dangi and the co-accused. Consequently, he discharged all the accused persons of all the offence alleged to have been committed by them. 3. Aggrieved by the order of discharge, the State Government filed a revision petition in the court of the Sessions Judge, Bhilwara, who, on February 22, 1966 partially accepted revision-petition and while confirming the order of discharge of the other co-accused, directed he learned Magistrate to make a further inquiry against Subhash Deo Dangi, respondent, under sections 448 and 332, I.P.C. Suhash Deo Dangi filed a revision petition in the High Court against the order of the Sessions Judge, Bhilwara, but his revision petition was dismissed on August 3, 1966. Thereafter, the Civil Judge and the Magistrate First Class Bhilwara, charge-sheeted Subhash Deo Dangi under sections 448 and 332, I.P.C. and tried him for these offences. The prosecution examined 17 witnesses and exhibited 16 documents and thereafter the statement of Subhash Deo Dangi was recorded under sections 342, old Cr. P.C., and the evidence of the witnesses produced by him in his defence was also recorded. The respondent exhibited 15 documents also and pleaded in his defence that he went to the police station at the instance of Sohan Lal, driver, who disclosed to him that police was not recording the first information report of Prakram Singh relating to cognizable offence punishable under section 147, I.P.C. Upon reaching the police station he asked the Station House Officer to register a case of rioting as the number of accused who induldged in beating Prakram Singh and his companions was more than 5. The Station House Officer, thereupon, became angry and administered a beating to him and his companions and detained him and his associates in the police lock-up where from they were released at the instance of the City Magistrate and other officers and were medically examined in compliance with the order of the District Magistrate. Subhash Deo Dangi further alleged in his statement that a first information report about this incident was got written by him then and there by Yashwant Singh Nahar and produced before the City Magistrate. According to his plea, the police implicated him in a false case to save their skin. The Chief Judicial Magistrate, to whom this case was transferred upon coming into force of the new Code of Criminal Procedure, concluded the trial and acquitted the respondent of the charges framed against him under sections 448 and 332, I.P.C. Hence, this appeal by the State. 4. I have carefully perused the record and heard Mr. S.R. Singhi, appearing on behalf of the State appellant, and Mr. M C. Bhandari, learned counsel for Suhhash Deo Dangi, respondent. It has been contended on behalf of the appellant that the trial court went wrong in acquitting Subhash Deo Dangi, respondent of the offences with which he was charged at the trial. It was further urged that from the evidence of PW 1 Nand Kishore, PW 2 Ruju Singh, PW 3 Moda Ram, PW 7 Maddan Singh, and PW 16 Avtar Singh. It was further urged that from the evidence of PW 1 Nand Kishore, PW 2 Ruju Singh, PW 3 Moda Ram, PW 7 Maddan Singh, and PW 16 Avtar Singh. It was made out that the Station Honse Officer Avtar Singh asked the respondent to go out of the Kotwali and to keep control on his tongue but the respondent contumaciously remained there and slapped the Station House Officer and thereby committed offences under sections 448 and 332, I.P.C. According to the submission of the learned counsel for the State appellant the trial court gave too much importance to the minor discrepancies in the statements of the prosecution witnesses and overlooked the important principle that minor discrepancies are bound to appear in the evidence of truthful witnesses. 5. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent, on the other hand, argued that the judgment of acquittal passed by the trial court does not suffer from and infirmity and cannot reasonably be called a perverse judgment, because the trial court has carefully scanned and assessed the prosecution evidence and, thereafter, has come to a conclusion that he prosecution failed to prove its case against Subhash Deo Dangi beyond reasonable doubt. It was further urged by the learned counsel for the respondent that the contradictions and discrepancies pointed out by the trial court in its judgmen. are not minor one but they cut at the root of the prosecution case, as they are on material particulars 6. If have given my earnest consideration to the rival contentions mentioned above. At the outset, I may observe that the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, upon close analysis of the evidence held that the prosecution could not succeed in proving its case beyond reasonable doubt against the respondent He, accordingly, concluded that the prosecution eye-witnesses did not inspire confidence on account of material discrepancies and contradictions appearing in their evidence on material particulars. On these findings the Chief Judicial Magistrate felt no hesitation in declaring that the respondent was not guilty of the offences under section 448 and 332, I.P.C. 7. On these findings the Chief Judicial Magistrate felt no hesitation in declaring that the respondent was not guilty of the offences under section 448 and 332, I.P.C. 7. I would like to observe here that in an appeal against acquittal the power of the High Court to review the evidence is undoubtedly unrestricted, but in exercising this power the High Count should always give due weight to the views of the trial court regarding credibillity of the witnesses to the presumption of innocence in favour of the accused, which is further fortified by his acquittal at trial, to the right of the accused to the benefit of any reasonable doubt and the slowness of the appellate court in upsetting the findings of facts arrived at by the trial court which had the opportunity to see and hear the witnesses and to mark their demeanour. In the present case the oral evidence of eye witnesses on facts in issue is considerably conflicting and discrepant and can safely or reasonably be regarded as justifying the conclusion arrived at by the trial court as indicated below. Avtar Singh in his deposition at the trial stated that he read the report lodged by Prakram Singh and saw the medical certificate. These documents disclosed commission of an offence under section 323, I.P C. So he asked the Head Morir to register that report also. Thereupon, Subhash Deo Dangi, respondent, told the Station House Officer that the case was of rioting under section 147, I.P.C. and it was not a simple case of hurt under section 323. I P C. The Station House Officer replied that on the basis of the report and the medical certificate an offence under section 323, I.P.C had been disclosed and that no case of riot bad been revealed. The respondent, thereupon, in a fit of rage told the Station House Officer that the latter would have to register a case of rioting other wise he would be seen then & there. Avtar Singh further stated that the respondent gave him a verbal threat in the following words: " cyos dk ugha cukvksxs rks rqEgkjh Fkkusnkjh djuk can dj nqaxkA " Curiously enough, these facts were not stated by Avtar Singh in the first information report and in his statement Ex. D. 15 before the police. Avtar Singh further stated that the respondent gave him a verbal threat in the following words: " cyos dk ugha cukvksxs rks rqEgkjh Fkkusnkjh djuk can dj nqaxkA " Curiously enough, these facts were not stated by Avtar Singh in the first information report and in his statement Ex. D. 15 before the police. Likewise Nand Kishore PW 1 stated in his deposition at the trial that Subhash Deo Dangi told the Station House Officer that a case under section 147, IPC was made cut and it should be registered. The Station House Officer replied that no case under section 147, I P.C. had been made out. Thereupon, Subhash Deo Dangi became angry. In cross-examination Nand Kishore further stated that Subhash Deo Dangi told the Station House Officer that there had been a 'Marpeet' and so a case should be registered. According to him no further talks took place between Subhash Deo Dangi and the respondent. The evidence of this witness thus does not find corroboration from the testimony of Avtar Singh Station House Officer and other witnesses on this point. Madan Singh, PW. 7, on the other hand, stated that the Station House Officer told Subhash Den Dangi that a case under section 323, I.P.C. only had been made out. Thereupon, Subhash Deo Dangi Vakil became angry and began to speak in a filthy language. The Station House Officer then asked Subhash Deo Dangi to go out. Thereupon, Subhash Deo Dangi uttered the following words to The Station House Officer: " Fkkusnkj ls T;knk dkuwu tkurs gSA " Then the Station House Officer stood up and asked Subhash Deo Dangi to go out Madan Singh further stated that Subhash Deo Dangi spoke the following words:- " nk<+h m[kkM+ nwaxk Fkkusnkjh djuk Hkwyk nwaxkA " The aforesaid version given out by the witness in the trial court does not find place in his statement Ex. D 9, which he gave before the police, because the witness made the following admission: " nk<+h m[kkM+us o Fkkusnkjh djuk Hkwyk nwaxk] ;s 'kCn Fkkusnkj lkgc dks dguk ntZ ugha gSaA " Raju Singh, P.W. 2, gave an altogether different version on this point. According to him, Subhash Deo Dangi told the Station House Officer that a case under section 147, I.P.C. had been made out. According to him, Subhash Deo Dangi told the Station House Officer that a case under section 147, I.P.C. had been made out. The Station House Officer, on the other hand, told Subhash Deo Dangi that a case of simple hurt under section 323, I.P.C. was made out. Thereupon, Subhash Deo Dangi became enraged and began to hurl abuses at the Station House Officer. In his cross-examination he further stated that the abuses were: " xkyh xyksp esa ;gh dgk Fkk iqfyl okys cbZeku gksrs gS dksrokyh dSls djksaxs eSa ns[k ywxkaA " This witness, when confronted with his statement Ex. D, 2, which he gave before the police and wherein the words stated by him were missing, could not afford any reasonable explanation for the said omission, but merely stated that be told the Deputy Superintendent of Police, but he could not say whether he wrote them or not Nadu Ram, P.W. 3, frankly admitted in his statement as follows: " vkeh lkeh xkyh xyksp gqbZA xkyh xyksp esa D;k dgk] eSa vc ugha crk ldrk Ex.D.5 lquk vkSj dgk fd blesa vc xkyh;ksa ds 'kCn ugha gSaA " Sujan Singh, P W. 9, gave a version different from that of the other witnesses. According to him, the Station house Officer told Subhash Deo Dangi that he shall take action upon his complaint also and that he should have patience. But, later on, all began uttering abuses and amongst those who were using filthy language were 4 or 5 constables also. In this manner, the evidence relating to the origin of the quarrel is exaggerated and contradictory to each other and does not inspire confidence. 8. Another material particular which could not be proved by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt is whether Subhash Deo Dangi slapped Avtar Singh, Station House Officer, on his cheek. To prove this fact, the prosecution has examined the so called eye-witnesses Nand Kishore, Raju Singh, Modu Ram, Godu, Madan Singh, Avtar Singh and Baldeo. Upon careful review of their evidence, I am of the view that it is highly discrerant. To prove this fact, the prosecution has examined the so called eye-witnesses Nand Kishore, Raju Singh, Modu Ram, Godu, Madan Singh, Avtar Singh and Baldeo. Upon careful review of their evidence, I am of the view that it is highly discrerant. Avtar Singh Station House Officer, P.W. 16, stated that he was slappeding the verendah while witnesses Raju Singh, Moda Ram, Madan Singh, Godu and Baldeo gave an altogether different version by stating that the Station House Officer was slapped by the respondent in the room, itself Avtar Singh further stated that when he was slapped by the respondent, Ganpat and Baldeo witnesses were standing in the courtyard and no other witness was present in the verandah except the respondent and his associates. Ganpat was not examined by the prosecution at the trial. Baldeo, on the other hand, stated that he and Ganpat only were in the verendah when the Station House Officer was slapped. He further stated that no other person except them had seen the respondent slapping the Station House Officer. Avtarsingh, Station House Officer, further stated that except Subhash Deo Dangi his other companions bad entered the room, but Nand Kishore PW I stated that Subhash Deo Dangi and Abbey Singh PW 4 only had entered the room where the Station House Officer was sitting. Raju Singh, Moda Rani, Godu, Kishan Gopal, Sujan Singh and Baldeo give an altogether different version by stating that all the companions had entered the room along with Subhash Deo Dangi. According to Madan Singh, P.W.7, Mohan Lal, Prakram Singh and Subhash Deo Dangi had gone into the room. 9. Modu Ram PW 3 further stated that Raju Singh and other public servants were present in the courtyard and did not go in the verendah while Raju Singh deposed that he, Modu Ram & Ikram only were in the verandah and there was none else exceat them. Modu Ram claimed to have seen marks of fingers on the check of the Station House Officer on account of having been slapped. This fact does not find corroboration from the evidence of the Station House Officer and other witnesses In this manner, the incident of slapping the Station House Officer by the respondent has not been proved by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt. 10. This fact does not find corroboration from the evidence of the Station House Officer and other witnesses In this manner, the incident of slapping the Station House Officer by the respondent has not been proved by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt. 10. The other set of prosecution witnesses is P W 4 Balwant Singh, P.W. 6 Mohan Lal, P W. 8 Shri Krishna Gopal, P.W. 13, Kan Mal P.W. 14, Karan Singh and P.W. 15 Nathi Lal, who all were in another room near the place of incident and who, upon hearing the cries of Avtar Singh, Station House Officer, claimed to have come outside and rescued him and rounded the respondent and his companions and confined them in the police lock-up. These witnesses bad not seen Subhash Deo Dangi slapping Avtar Singh, Station House Officer, on the letter's cheek. They merely professed to have heard Avtar Singh, Station House Officer telling the respondent that he would have to face the consequences of slapping the former. Hence from their evidence it is not proved that Avtar Singh was in fact slapped by Subhash Deo Dangi respondent in the verendah or in the room. They were confronted with and contradicted by their previous statement before the police, wherein they did not state the facts in the manner stated by them at the trial. 11. Likewise, the evidence led by the prosecution regarding injuries found on the person of the respondent is highly contradictory. Balwant Singh Additional Superintendent of Police, stated that when Subhash Deo Dangi and his companions were being rounded up, they put up resistance and Subhash Deo fell on the floor once or twice and it might be that he received injuries as a result of the fall. This version does not find place in his statement Ex. D.14, which he gave before the police and with which the was confronted. Similarly, P.W.6 Mohan Lal stated that when the police personnel were taking the respondents and his companions to the police lock-up, the letter resisted and he saw them putting up resistance But this fact was not admittely stated by him in his police statement. D.14, which he gave before the police and with which the was confronted. Similarly, P.W.6 Mohan Lal stated that when the police personnel were taking the respondents and his companions to the police lock-up, the letter resisted and he saw them putting up resistance But this fact was not admittely stated by him in his police statement. Kishan Gopal, P.W. 8, also stated in the following words: " idM+rs oDr cjkens esa ;g ilj t:j x;s Fks eqtfye gh iljk vkSj dksbZ ugha iljk FkkA fdruh ejrck iljk ugha crk ldrkA iljus esa buds pksV vkbZ ;k ugha irk ugha iqfyl c;ku Ex.D.10 esa eqyfte dk iljuk ntkZ djk;k gqvk ugha gSA " Likewise, Natbi Lal P.W. 15 admitted in his statement before the police that Subhash Deo had not fallen twice on the ground. His admissions on this point are as follows: " rQrh'k ds c;ku esa lqHkk"knsoth dk nks ejrck fxjuk eSaus ugha crk;k&& eqyfte dk nks ejrck ogka Q'kZ ij fxjuk dc o fdldks crk;k ;kn ugha gSA vc ls ifgys crk;k Hkh ;k ugha ;g Hkh /;ku ughaA " Avtar Singh, Station House Officer, P.W. 16, also admitted in his cross-examination that at the time of incident he was not doing any work. 12. On the basis of the discrepancies in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses shown above, I may say that the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the respondent to the hilt and the trial court committed no error in acquitting him. A few circumstances that may be taken into account in holding that the guilt of the respondent could not be established by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt are that the prosecution witnesses had been examined in this case by the investigating Officer after a considerable length of time. The first information report was said to have been lodged by Avtar Singh Station House Officer on March 17, 1964 at 7.15 p m., but no witness was examinee by the police in the course of investigation before April 8, 1964 although the witnesses could have been examined earlier. The first information report was said to have been lodged by Avtar Singh Station House Officer on March 17, 1964 at 7.15 p m., but no witness was examinee by the police in the course of investigation before April 8, 1964 although the witnesses could have been examined earlier. view of the authority of the Supreme Court Atmatuddin v. State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1974 S.C. 1901 , this factor has to be considered in arriving at a conclusion whether the evidence of the prosecution witnesses can be acted upon Another factor which cannot be overlooked is that the first information report lodged by the Station House Officer, Avtar Singh was not sent to the concerned Magistrate forthwith as it was received by the Magistrate after 2 days of the incident. This delay throws a considerable doubt on the spontaneity of the version given in it and does not altogather rule out the possibility of introduction of coloured version therein. It will not be out of place to mention that Medical Officer, who examined the injured in his case, stated in his cross-examination that the injuries found on their person could be self-inflicted. Keeping all these facts in view. I find no substantial ground for interference with the order of acquittal of the respondent passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate. Neither the judgment of acquittal is perverse, nor unreasonable nor has led to miscarriage of justice in this case. 13. The result is that the appeal filed by the State has no force and is hereby dismissed.Appeal dismissed. *******