S. S. SHARMA. J. ( 1 ) THE applicant was tried on charges under Sections 302 and 506 (2) of the Indian Penal Code, before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Seoni in Criminal Case No. 1818 of 1980. The Chief Judicial Magistrate, by his judgment dated 17-1-1983 acquitted the applicant of the charge under Section 506 (2) Indian Penal Code, but convicted him under Section 332 Indian Penal Code. For that offence, be sentenced him to R. I. for one year. Applicants Criminal Appeal No. 11 of 1983 against that conviction and sentence was dismissed by Sessions Judge, Seoni, vide judgment dated 18-4-1983. Aggrieved thereby the present revision has been filed. ( 2 ) ACCORDING to the prosecution, Sub-Inspector Ravi Atroliya (P. W. 5) who was then posted at police station, Seoni along with Sub-Inspector B. P. Upadhyay (P. W. 4), Tirath Singh, home guard sainik (P. W. 2) and other. , on the hasis of an informant's information, on 30- 7-1980 raided the house of the applicant in ward Gauliganj, as the applicant was said to the absconding in crime No. 344 of 1980, under Section 307 Indian Penal Code. The applicant is then said to have assaulted Tirath Singh (P. W. 2 ). The applicant was, however, taken in custody. This incident allegedly took place at about 3. 00 P. M. Tirath Singh lodged the first information report Ex. P. 2 on the same night at 11. 30 P. M. ( 3 ) DR. B. K. Kshirsagar (P. W. 1) examined Tirath Singh on the same night. He found three contusions of different dimensions. Two of these contusions were one over the other on the elbow, while the third was on the right shoulder. They were simple in nature. Ex. P. 1 is the report with regard to that examination. ( 4 ) THE applicant in his examination denied the prosecution case and examined one Sunderlal (D. W. 1) in defence. This Sunderlal is a neighbourers of the applicant. His version is that the police on reaching the house of the applicant had taken him away in custody. He also stated that no quarrel or marpit took place. There is no cross-examination of this witness by the prosecutor. The other witness examined was Daduram (D. W. 2) who lives as a tenant in the house of the applicant. His version is that the police on reaching the house of the applicant had taken him away in custody. He also stated that no quarrel or marpit took place. There is no cross-examination of this witness by the prosecutor. The other witness examined was Daduram (D. W. 2) who lives as a tenant in the house of the applicant. He also has made a similar statement, as has been made by Sunderlal. There was no cross- exam ination even on this witness by thet prosecutor. ( 5 ) TIRATH Singh (P. W. 2) in his evidence stated thatvfllk;qdr Hkkx jgk Fkk vksj esa mis idm jgk Fkk rks vhkh;qdr us eq> s gkfk esa ykbh ekj fn;ka In cross-examination, he stated that the house of the applicant had been surrounded. At that time the applicant was sleeping inside the house, but on being asked the applicant's mother stated that the applicant was not in house. Thereafter, Atroliya entered the house. He then stated that Atroliya was at the door and when he called the applicant, he came out. He further stated Tksis gh vkjksih vk;k osisa gh mis idm dj Fkkus ys vk;sa 5. Sub-Inspector B. P. Upadhyay (P. W. 4) gave a different version. What he states is that on being caned a threat came from inside that who-so-ever would catch him would be killed. Then the applicant came out with a lathi and started grappling. Tirath Singh was assaulted by the applicant by lathi. Then Sub-Inspector Atroliya and the staff caught hold of the applicant. Sub-Inspector Atroliya (P. W. 5) states that when applicants mother denied applicants presence in the house, Tirath Singh (P. W. 2) could see the applicant inside the house and so he called him. At this stage, the applicant came out of the house and- threatened that who-so-ever would catch him, would be killed Then the applicant wanted to run away from the side where Tirath Singh (P. W. 2) was standing. When he was obstructed, the applicant assaulted Tirath Singh by lathi. At this stage, the applicant was caught hold of by him (Atroliyas) and other persons of the raiding party. Attoliyas evidence indicates that the applicant before being caught hold of had to be chased. When he was obstructed, the applicant assaulted Tirath Singh by lathi. At this stage, the applicant was caught hold of by him (Atroliyas) and other persons of the raiding party. Attoliyas evidence indicates that the applicant before being caught hold of had to be chased. ( 6 ) SUB-INSPECTOR Atroliya (P. W. 5) in his cross-examination admitted that they had taken the vehicle of Durga Prasad when they went to raid the house of the applicant. Durga Prasad (P. W. 3) did not support the prosecution story. He admitted that the police force had gone in his vehicle at the applicants house where the applicant was arrested by Sub-Inspector Atroliya and others and thereafter was brought to the police station. He denied that the applicant had assaulted anyone of the raiding party. He was cross-examined by the prosecutor with the permission of the trial Court. ( 7 ) FROM the evidence as has been referred to above, there appears to be discrepancy about the manner in which the assault on Tirath Singh took place. Tirath Singh (P. W. 2) does not state about the applicant having given any threats before he came out of the house. Tirath Singh has also stated that it was Sub-Inspector Atroliya (P. W. 5) who from the door had called out the applicant and this is how the latter had come out. He also states that the moment the applicant came out he was taken in custody and removed to the police station. Sub-Inspector B. P. Upadhyay (P. W. 4) and Sub-Inspector Atroliya (P. W. 5) have different versions to give on those facts. It does not stated to reason that if Atroliya (P. W. 5) was at the door and the applicant had come out, why the latter would not be caught hold of by him and others. There is discrepancy even on the question that the applicant had tried to run away and it was during chase that the applicant assaulted Tirath Singh (P. W. 2 ). ( 8 ) BESIDES the aforesaid discrepancies in the statements of the police officers, the fact, however, remains that Durga Prasad (P. W. 3) who admittedly was present at the time of the incident, does not state about any assault having been made by the applicant on Tirath Singh or even quarrel or grappling having taken place. ( 8 ) BESIDES the aforesaid discrepancies in the statements of the police officers, the fact, however, remains that Durga Prasad (P. W. 3) who admittedly was present at the time of the incident, does not state about any assault having been made by the applicant on Tirath Singh or even quarrel or grappling having taken place. That is the version even of the defence witnesses who have not at all been cross-examined. ( 9 ) IT was urged by the counsel appearing on behalf of the State that the statement of Tirath Singh stands corroborated by the first information report as also by the find of the injuries on his person. The incident as per the report Ex. P. 2 took place at about 3. 00 P. M. but the report was lodged at 11. 35 P. M. when the distance of the police station is about one kilometre only. It was at that time that Tirath Singh was examined. The injuries to Tirath Singh as admitted by Dr. Kshirsagar could be caused even by falling on hard ground. In my opinion, therefore, the delayed first information report and the medical examination cannot in the circumstances be treated to be sufficient to corroborate the version of Tirath Singh. ( 10 ) THUS on the contradictory evidence, as has been referred to a hove, of the three witnesses, namely, Tirath Singh (P. W. 2) who was a home-guard sainik, Sub-Inspector Upadhyay (P. W. 4) and Sub-Inspector Atroliya (P. W. 5), which does not stand corroborated from any other independent witness, it cannot conclusively be held that the applicant had as assaulted Tirath Singh, as is the prosecution case. This is more so because the preponderance of probabilities with regard to the manner of incident in which it has allegedly been committed, goes against the prosecution. This is besides the fact that according to Durga Prasad (P. W. 3) no such incident of assault had occurred while taking the applicant in custody. Nothing has been brought out in his evidence to show as to why he would make a false statement. It also has to be taken into account that the sworn testimony of the two defence witnesses has gone unchallenged. ( 11 ) ON a totality of the circumstances and the evidence, the applicant in my opinion is entitled to a benefit of doubt. It also has to be taken into account that the sworn testimony of the two defence witnesses has gone unchallenged. ( 11 ) ON a totality of the circumstances and the evidence, the applicant in my opinion is entitled to a benefit of doubt. ( 12 ) CONSEQUENTLY, this revision is allowed. The conviction and sentence of the applicant under Section 332 Indian Penal Code are set aside. Conviction and sentence set aside. .