JUDGMENT 1. - This criminal appeal is directed against the judgment dated the 25th October, 1978, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Kota whereby Jagdish Singh Rajawat, the accused-appellant, was convicted under Section 332 and Section 452, IPC, and sentenced as under:- U/s 332, IPC -3 months R.I. with a fine of Rs. 100/- in default, further 15 days R.I. U/s 452, IPC -4 months R I. with a fine of Rs. 100/- in default, further 15 days R.I. Both the substantive sentences were ordered to run concurrently. 2. The facts giving rise to this appeal in brief, are that, P.C. Jain, Accounts Clerk, Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, Kota (in short, Corporation) lodged a report before the Superintendent of Police at 12.45 in the noon on August 27, 1977, alleging therein that the Depot Manager of the Corporation bad gone to Jaipur and one, K.C. Jain, Assistant Depot Manager, was working in his place, and at about 11 in the noon when Shri Jain was sitting on bis seat alongwith Rajveer Pathak, Satya Narain and Brij Mohan, discussing an order in the matter of House rent, one Kailash Vyas, a Conductor, came and reported that some students were approaching the Depot. Upon this. Rajveer/Pathak asked to phore to the police of Nayapura and no sooner Shri Jain tool up the Receiver, 30-35 students entered his room, out of which a few of them who were armed with hockey sticks, started abusing, and stated that if the concession is not provided, he (Jain) would be beaten. It was further alleged that a number of students were shouting out side the court yard, and one, Jagdish Rajawat (appellant) had snatched the phone from his hands (Jains) and hit the same of his head resulting in bleeding from his head and further that, another student took up the inkpot and threw it on him (Jain), whereas some of them had started beating by hockey sticks. It was further alleged that the complainant-informant tried to intervene he was pushed away. These persons after beating left the place Shri Jain was removed to the hospital after sometime, where he was admitted and his condition was precarious. The students had entered the room of Shri Jain to insist upon the grant of concession. It was then alleged that the students had unlawfully assembled there and had pushed Shri Jain. 3. These persons after beating left the place Shri Jain was removed to the hospital after sometime, where he was admitted and his condition was precarious. The students had entered the room of Shri Jain to insist upon the grant of concession. It was then alleged that the students had unlawfully assembled there and had pushed Shri Jain. 3. Upon the aforesaid report, a case was registered; and after investigation, a challan was filed against the appellant-Jagdish Singh Rajawat who was charged for the offences under Sections 308, 332, 452, IPC. the appellant denied to the charges and claimed to be tried. The prosecution examined nine witnesses in all in support of its case. However, the accused appellant in his statement denied the allegations levelled against him by the prosecution witnesses and further stated that since he is President of the College Union, he has been f strongly impleaded. 4. Out of nine witnesses, Padam Chand (PW I), Rajveer Patbak (PW 3), Satva Narain PW 4). Mahavir Prasad (PW 5), and Nand Kishore (PW 6) were produced by the prosecution as eye witnesses who, in their statements, though admitted the incident but. they failed to identify the appellant when i specific question was put to the witnesses as to whether they could have identified the students who had assembled there at the Depot and inflicted injuries on the person of K.C. Jain (PW. 2). Padam Chand (PW. l) was the witness who lodged the report but in his cross-examination he failed to claim himself to be eye witnesses of the occurrence and refused to identify the students including the accused-appellant. As regards the report (Ex. P. 1), the witness (PW 1) stated that it was written on the dictation of some Officer (name of whom was not Known to him). It is thus clear that the facts contained in the report (Ex. P. 11 have not been verified by the witness and from his statement, it appears that Kailash Chand Jain. Rajveer Pathak, Satya Narain Mahavir Prasad and Nand Kishore (PW 2 to PW 6) did not support the prosecution story that it was Jagdish Singh Rajwat who was one of the persons who had given beating to the Depot Manager. As stated earlier, only testimony against the accused is that of Kailash Chand Jain. Rajveer Pathak, Satya Narain Mahavir Prasad and Nand Kishore (PW 2 to PW 6) did not support the prosecution story that it was Jagdish Singh Rajwat who was one of the persons who had given beating to the Depot Manager. As stated earlier, only testimony against the accused is that of Kailash Chand Jain. In my view, on a reading of his entire statement, this witness Kailash Chand Jain (PW 2) has not given straightway answers to the questions put to him by the defence counsel and in the circumstances, no reliance could be placed on his testimony without any corroboration. However, this cannot be denied that Kailash Chand Jain (PW 2) is highly interested person being injured and secondly in his statement which was recorded during the course of investigation no details of the incident have been stated including the overt-act of the accused-appellant, that being so, it amounts to contradictions and in my view, the witness has tried to introduce embellishments. In these circumstances, the statement of this witness (PW 2) ought not to have been considered without any independent corroboration which is lacking in the present case. Therefore, in my opinion, the learned trial Court committed error in ignoring improvements and embellishments introduced by the prosecution witnesses as against the facts averred in the first information report. 5. Looking to the entire statements of the prosecution witnesses it appears that in this case, a test identification was must of the persons who have been alleged to have committed offence but, no such parade has been conducted and the prosecution witnesses were not put for test identification Kailash Chand Jain (PW 2) in his statement before the Court has admitted that he could not specifically show as to how and from when he was knowing Jagdish Singh (appellant). In the instant case, the prosecution initially came with the case of ounces under Sections 308, 320, 147, 148, 149 and 452, IPC, and as alleged the prosecution case was very specific that about 30-35 students had reached the place of occurrence, i. e, office of the Depot Manager, but after investigation the case came to be fallen only against accused appellant and not against the assembled persons, in the present case. The investigating officer disbelieved the report as against most of the persons who as per the facts averred in the first information report, have committed offence. The investigating officer disbelieved the report as against most of the persons who as per the facts averred in the first information report, have committed offence. In this view of the matter, the evidence of the prosecution witnesses who have been disbelieved by the investigating agency as against a number of persons cannot be believed against the accused-appellant only. 6. In total analysis of the prosecution evidence brought on record, in my opinion, the prosecution failed utterly to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt against the appellant, and further, the prosecution evidence does not convince and carry the conviction against the appellant; and as such, the learned trial Court fell in error in convicting the accused-appellant for the offences under Sections 332, and 452 308, IPC, 7. In sum up, I allow this appeal; set aside the impugned judgment dated 25th October, 1978, passed by the Sessions Judge, Kota; and acquit the accused-appellant for the offences charged against him. The appellant is on bail and need not surrender. His bail bonds stand cancelled.Appeal allowed. *******