JUDGMENT S. N. Phukan, J.—This appeal is directed against the judgment and order of the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class (Court No. 2), Palampur, District Kangra dated 28-8-1991 passed in Criminal Case No. 48-11 of 1987. 2. This matter came up yesterday, the 3rd October, 1994 and after condoning delay, leave to file appeal under sub-section (3) of section 378, Cr. P. C. was granted to the State. It was also ordered that this appeal will be listed for admission and final disposal today. 3. Heard Mr. R. M. Bisht, learned Asstt. Advocate General-cum- Additional Public Prosecutor and also Ms. P. P. Grewal, learned Counsel for the respondent. At the concession given at the Bar, the appeal has been taken up for admission and final disposal today. 4. Briefly stated, the facts are as follows : On 25-2-1986 while in formant Kamla Devi, PW 1 was washing clothes in her house at about 2.30 p. m accused came down by jumping a wall (Danga), caught hold of her and she was thrown on the ground. According to the informant, accused respondent sat on her body and started beating her mercilessly with the result that her tooth was broken. The informant raised an alarm whereupon some nearby persons came to the place of occurrence and thereafter the accused fled away. At that point of time her son came home from school. The informant PW 1 was taken to the hospital arid it was alleged that the accused obstructed while she was going to hospital. However, on the intervention of Mast Ram Up-Pradhan of the village and others, she was rescued and was taken to the hospital. She was examined by two doctors and medical treatment was given. Police after investigation submitted challan under sections 323/325/506, I. P. C. Charge was also framed by the learned trial Court under the above sections, to which the accused pleaded not guilty. In support of the prosecution story 11 witnesses were examined by the prosecution. No witness was examined on behalf of the accused-respondent. 5. Before proceeding to consider the merit of the present appeal, the power of this Court in deciding an appeal against acquittal is necessary to be examined. 6. In this connection, Ms. In support of the prosecution story 11 witnesses were examined by the prosecution. No witness was examined on behalf of the accused-respondent. 5. Before proceeding to consider the merit of the present appeal, the power of this Court in deciding an appeal against acquittal is necessary to be examined. 6. In this connection, Ms. P. P. Grewal has drawn attention of this court to the decision of the apex court in Ram Milan and others v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 1993- Supp (I) SCC 561, wherein the apex court held that strong and convincing reasons must exist for interference by the appellate court in an appeal against acquittal, ft was also held that it is well settled that the appellate court should be slow in reversing the order of acquittal and unless there are good and strong grounds the acquittal should not be interfered with. 7. Learned Counsel has also drawn the attention of this court to the decision of the apex court in Awadesh and another v. State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 1988 SC 1158, which was relied upon by the learned single Judge of the Orissa High Court in State of Orissa v. Puma Chandra Dass, 1990 (1) Crimes 4. The apex court while explaining the scope and ambit of section 378, Cr. P. C. held that although the power of the High Court to reassess the evidence and reach its own conclusion are as extensive as in an appeal against the order of conviction, yet, as a rule of prudence, the High Court should always give proper weight and considerations to matters e. g. (i) the views of the trial Judge as to the credibility of the witnesses ; (ii) the presumption of innocence in favour of the accused, a presumption certainly not weakened by the fact that he has been acquitted at the trial; (iii)the right of the accused to the benefit of any doubt, and (iv) the slowness of an appellate Court in disturbing a finding of fact arrived at by a Judge who had the advantage of seeing the witnesses. 8. Though the law regarding the power of the appellate Court in an appeal against acquittal is well-settled, I have quoted above the law laid down by the apex court only for the purpose of appreciating the facts of the present case. 9. 8. Though the law regarding the power of the appellate Court in an appeal against acquittal is well-settled, I have quoted above the law laid down by the apex court only for the purpose of appreciating the facts of the present case. 9. The judgment and order is a reasoned one and the learned trial Court has assessed the evidence of the witnesses including the evidence of the two doctors. I have perused the evidence as well as the impugned judgment and I do not find any infirmity for interference with the impugned judgment. 10. Mr. Bisht, learned Asstt. Advocate General-cum-Addl. Public Prosecutor has strenuously urged that the evidence of the injured PW 1 is sufficient to bring home the charge against the accused and for this purpose corroboration is not necessary. According to the learned Counsel, if this witness is believed the impugned judgment is liable to be quashed and set aside. On the other hand, Ms. Grewal has strenuously urged that PW 1 being an interested witness, it is risky to convict the accused person without corroboration. 11. From the impugned judgment as well as the evidence on record I find that the injured PW 1 is supported by her mother-in-law PW 5, Smt. Gajan Devi. Though in the F. I. R., Ex. PW 10/A, names of some persons have been mentioned, the name of PW 5 was not mentioned. According to the prosecution, PW 6 Lachhman Dass was an eye-witness, but he de posed otherwise before the trial Court. 12. PW 6 was allowed to be declared hostile on the prayer of the learned Public Prosecutor, but he was not cross examined. It is settled law that merely because a witness is declared hostile his entire evidence cannot be treated as washed off the record But in the case in hand, evidence of PW 6 is not at all helpful to this court inasmuch as he was not cross examined by the prosecution. From the judgment, it appears that there were other witnesses present but except PW 6, no other witness was examined. 13. It is true that conviction can be based on the sole evidence of an eye-witness provided it inspires confidence. In the case in hand, evidence of PW l the injured, does not inspire confidence, more particularly, as she has admitted that there was enmity with the accused respondent. 14. 13. It is true that conviction can be based on the sole evidence of an eye-witness provided it inspires confidence. In the case in hand, evidence of PW l the injured, does not inspire confidence, more particularly, as she has admitted that there was enmity with the accused respondent. 14. As stated above, the learned trial Court has duly considered the evidence of the witnesses including the medical evidence and I do not find any infirmity or illegality in the impugned judgment. 15. For the reasons stated above, I do not find any merit in the present appeal and accordingly it is dismissed. Appeal dismissed.