JUDGMENT 1. -This is an appeal by State against acquittal of Nawal Singh. Kamal Singh and Jagroop Singh who were tried by learned Sessions Judge, Balotra for offences under sections 307, 326, 325, 323 & 324 IPC. Vide his judgment dated 13.4.1983 the three respondents were acquitted. 2. I have heard learned Public Prosecutor as well as learned counsel Shri Sachin Acharya on behalf of the respondents who has ably argued the case before me. 3. Case of the prosecution in nut shell is that on 14.2.1981 at 7.00 a.m. Bher Singh was passing through the dhani of Gazi in village Varsa. Three accused-respondents-Nawal Singh, Kamal Singh and Jagroop Singh along with two companions Derawar Singh and Chandan Singh armed with kulhari, dharia and lathis came and assaulted Bher Singh. When Bher Singh made hue and cry Laxman Singh and Mangal Singh came and rescued him. A blanket, steel bucket and an amount of Rs. 245/- were snatched for the complainant. He was taken to the dhani of Chandan Singh where he was again beaten. Blood smeared shirt of the complainant was taken by the respondents and the complainant was asked to wear a washed taiwta. Then they took him in the evening to the Chandan Singh, from the dhani of Chandan Singh to the place of Pratap Singh where he was handed over to Laxman Singh. Report to this effect was lodged at police station Barmer which is Ex. P/I . The same was lodged on 15.2.1981 at 6.00 a.m. Police registered a case under sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 324, 394 & 307 IPC and started investigation. 4. During investigation Bher Singh was medically examined. His injuries are stated in Ex. P/2. Site was inspected. Memo Ex. P/3 and site plan Ex. P/6 were prepared. Blood smeared clothes were seized. Accused-respondents were arrested and it was found that respondent-Kamal Singh was having some injuries at the time of his arrest. Police, after investigation, left Derawar Singh and Chandran Singh and submitted challan only against three respondents. Learned Sessions Judge charged them with various offences including 307 IPC. They denied their indictment and claimed trial. Prosecution examined as many as 16 witnesses in support of its case. The accused-respondents were examined under section 313 Cr.P.C. They examined DW 1 Noora, DW 2 Gazi who were cited by the prosecution in its calender but were not produced. Learned Sessions Judge charged them with various offences including 307 IPC. They denied their indictment and claimed trial. Prosecution examined as many as 16 witnesses in support of its case. The accused-respondents were examined under section 313 Cr.P.C. They examined DW 1 Noora, DW 2 Gazi who were cited by the prosecution in its calender but were not produced. Respondents also examined DW 3 Dr. Lala Ram who had examined Kamal Singh and found such injuries on his body which were found at the time Of his arrest and are stated in Ex. D/3. 5. The settled law for appeals against acquittal is that if the trial Court's view is reasonably possible, High Court should not reverse the order of acquittal merely on the ground that a different view of the evidence was possible. (See Dinanath & Ors. v. State of Bihar, (1980) I SCC page 674) . In Ashok Kumar v. State, (1991) I SCC page 166 . it has been held that interference of High Court with trial Court's decision may be called for in case of perversity or where there is misreading of evidence. 6. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the prosecution was able to prove its case but the learned Sessions Judge acquitted the respondents and thereby committed error. He submitted that the evidence has not been correctly appreciated by the learned Session Judge and there was evidence that the respondents committed various offences. He carried me through the evidence of the witnesses produced by the prosecution as well as the judgment of the trial Court. 7. We should first see the evidence of PW 15 Dr. Surendra Kodnani who examined Bher Singh and found following injuries which he mentioned in injury report Ex. P/14:- 1. Incised wound : 7 cm x I cm x 2 cm deep in the centre over the occiput bone 2 cm x lateral to mid-bone in the left side. 2. Swelling over the right parietal hone with lacerated wound 6 cm x 2 cm x 1.5 cm lacerated margin over the right parietal bone 2 cm lateral to mid-line. 3. Lacerated wound with swelling 3 cm x 1 cm x 0.5 cm. lacerated margins in the centre of the mid-line 15 cms away from the glabella. 4. Lacerated wound 3 cms x 1 cm x 0.5 cm. lacerated margins in the mid line 10 ems away from glabella. 5. 3. Lacerated wound with swelling 3 cm x 1 cm x 0.5 cm. lacerated margins in the centre of the mid-line 15 cms away from the glabella. 4. Lacerated wound 3 cms x 1 cm x 0.5 cm. lacerated margins in the mid line 10 ems away from glabella. 5. Lacerated wound 6 cms x I cm lacerated margins on the left parietal bone 5 cm x lateral to mid line. 6. Bruise 2 cms x 2 cms right thumb below nail. 7. Bruise in 8 cms x 8 ems area just below the right side of the chest on the back. 8. Bruise 10 ems x 1 ems two in number in the mid line of the back of the chest. 9. Swelling on the right side of the chest anterior aspect over the lower ribs near mid line and xiphisternum. 10. Bruise 4 cms x 4 cms area on the lateral side of the left upper arm. 10 cms above the elblow joint. 11. Bruise with pealed skin 6 cms x 2 son the right elbow joint dorsal aspect. 12. Bruise with diffused swelling on the lateral side of the left thigh. 13. Lacerated wound 3 ems x 1 cm x 1 cm deep lacerated margin over the lateral mallei us of the right leg. 8. Dr. Surendra Kodnani opined that injury No. 9 was grievous which was confirmed by X-ray. He stated that this injury was not at all dangerous of sufficient to cause death. So from his statement it is found that there were certain injuries on the person of Bher Singh. 9. Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the prosecution has totally changed the story of incident during trial. PW 2 Bher Singh stated that the incident took place near Gazi ki dhani at the time of sunset. He reached there where he found Nawal Singh, Jagmal Singh, Derawar Singh, Kamal Singh and Chandan Singh. Some of them were hiding in a house while others behind some bushes. They came out as soon as he went towards Gazi ki dhani. They attacked on him. According to him Jagmal Singh inflicted injuries by dharia while Kamal Singh by an axe. Thus, according to him there were two injuries caused by different two accused-respondents on his head. He made hue and cry and then Laxman Singh and Mangal Singh came. Thereafter Bher Singh became unconscious. They attacked on him. According to him Jagmal Singh inflicted injuries by dharia while Kamal Singh by an axe. Thus, according to him there were two injuries caused by different two accused-respondents on his head. He made hue and cry and then Laxman Singh and Mangal Singh came. Thereafter Bher Singh became unconscious. He further stated that after he fell down the respondents including two others took him to the dhani of Chandan Singh where again he was assaulted. The 'tewta' which he was wearing was washed by them and then handed over back to him. He was again shifted from the dhani of Chandan Singh to the house of Pratap Singh. This story is somewhat different than the story told in report Ex. P/1. The report Ex. P/I states that he was assaulted at 7.00 a.m. in the morning of 14.2.1981 when he was passing nearby the dhani of Gazi. The FIR Ex. P/1 which was lodged by Bher Singh himself contradicts the time of incident for which the witness has no explanation. He was cross-examined and changed his earlier version by saying that when he reached near the dhani of Gazi the sun had not risen. He also changed his version in the cross-examination by saying that when he reached he found the accused persons sitting in the way. Thus they were not hiding themselves as stated by him in the examination-in- chief. He admitted that he did not enter into the dhani of Gazi and when he was running he fell down. According to the FIR Ex. P/1 it were Laxman Singh and Mangal Singh who rescued him from the accused persons. They have been withheld by prosecution which compelled the Court to withdraw adverse inference. 10. PW 14 Mangal Singh did not support Bher Singh at all. He was declared hostile. A hostile witness according to Sat Paul v. Delhi Administration, AIR 1976 SC page 294 cannot be discarded as a whole and the Court can act upon statement of a hostile witness. But I find from the statement of this witness that he has not at all supported the case of prosecution. There is nothing in his statement on the basis of which the Court should have acted upon in favour of prosecution. 11. But I find from the statement of this witness that he has not at all supported the case of prosecution. There is nothing in his statement on the basis of which the Court should have acted upon in favour of prosecution. 11. PW 3 Laxman Singh stated that in the morning he was going to jungle and heard noise near the dhani of Gazi. He saw that the respondents including the persons against whom challan was not submitted were giving beatings to Bher Singh. He stated that Mangal Singh accompanied him, but as stated above Mangal Singh has not supported the prosecution. This witness Laxman Singh stated that he was threatened by the assailants and thereafter they took away Bhera towards the dhani of Chandan Singh. He has further stated that he went to the Kotri where all the there respondents brought Bher Singh and handed over to him. This story of handing over to Laxman Singh was also stated in the FIR but the witness appears to be interested one. He has stated that he saw the incident of assault from a distance of about 20 paces, which means about 50-60 feet and according to the statement of PW 2 Bher Singh, when incident took place the sun had not risen. Therefore, Laxman Singh could not have identified the assailants from such a distance in darkness. The witness is not in a position to say as to which of the assailants caused a particular injury on the person of Bher Singh. So he cannot he relied about infliction of injuries on the person of Bher Singh. From his statement its appears that he changes his version whenever he chooses. He first stated that when he saw Bher Singh, Bher Singh was unconscious. Then he stated that Bher Singh was dragged by the respondents. But then again he changed his version that Bher Singh walked along with accused persons. The conduct of the witness is strange which makes him unreliable as in one breath he states that he called Gazi but did not go to his dhani neither informed him, but in the second breath he stared that Gazi told that he was not able to help and that Bhera was such a person that could be given beatings by alone. He went directly to the Kotri without knowing whether Bher Singh would be taken there or not. He went directly to the Kotri without knowing whether Bher Singh would be taken there or not. He is not able to tell as to why did he go there. Thercfore, it appears that he is a cooked up witness and not reliable one. 12. PW 4 Gemar Singh is not an eye-witness. He told that Laxman Singh narrated the incident to him but Laxman Singh himself does not support the prosecution story. Thus these material witnesses of the prosecution contradict each other. There are inherent weaknesses in the statement of Bher Singh himself and he is not corroborated by the medical evidence. 13. PW 11 Gula is a very important witness. He stated that he had gone from Derasar to the house of Alam and then went with Alam to the dhani of Chandan Singh. According to him Kamal Singh, Bher Singh, Derawar Singh and Nawal Singh were present there and when he enquired he was told that there was some sex scandal. According to him Bher Singh had an evil eye on Ran Singh's wife. He went to have sexual intercourse with her, was caught and had some scuffle. He further stated that some compromise had taken place in this connection and thereafter Bher singh was allowed to go. From his statement it appears that Bher Singh who reported the matter to he police suppressed the genesis of occurrence. 14. Report was lodged to PW 8 Bhikha Ram who after registering the case started investigation. After some time the investigation was handed over to the Station House Officer of Police Station on 21.2.1981 because the witness went to attend a training programme at Jaipur. The investigation remained with him right from the ate of lodging of report till 21.2.1981 and during this period he did not investigate the genesis of the case as told by witness Gula. 15. It was PW 9 Chhug Singh who admitted in cross-examination that Bher Singh had come to have illicit intercourse with the Bhabhi of Chandan Singh. He was caught by two accused persons. Out of them Kamal Singh also suffered injuries in the scuffle. He stated that Bhera Singh apologised and promised not to repeat his visit. He admitted that a this witness and some other persons assured on behalf of Bher Singh that he would not come for the purpose again and thereafter Bher Singh was allowed to go. Out of them Kamal Singh also suffered injuries in the scuffle. He stated that Bhera Singh apologised and promised not to repeat his visit. He admitted that a this witness and some other persons assured on behalf of Bher Singh that he would not come for the purpose again and thereafter Bher Singh was allowed to go. He further stated that this matter was not reported to police because Bher Singh apologised. It is possible because it might have been though on the part of accused-respondents that since the character of a lady was involved, the same should not be subjected to any investigation and hence they kept silence. Even according to this witness Kamal Singh accused also suffered some injuries. 16. It is proved beyond doubt that Kamal Singh suffered injuries but Investigating Officer Sohan Singh PW 16 is such who tells a lie, that at time of arrest Kamal Singh did not have injuries. He is telling something against memo Ex. P/9. It is the arrest memo of Kamal Singh which mentions that this accused had some scars of injuries on 9.4.1981 when he was arrested at 1.00 p.m. When it is found from the evidence of witnesses that Kamal Singh suffered injuries on the same date i.e. 14.2.1981, the injuries on the person of Kamal Singh, as such would not be available and scars were present and the witness PW 16 Sohan Singh has simply stated that he did not find any injury on the person of Kamal Singh. He denied even the medical certificate of the injuries found on the person of Kamal Singh by Dr. Lala Ram Parmar who has been produced on behalf of defence as DW 3. 17. DW 3 Dr. Lala Ram Parmar has stated that he examined Kamal Singh on 16.2.1981 at 9.40 a.m. and found two injuries mentioned in Ex. D/3 which he prepared. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that these injuries could be self-inflicted as the doctor has stated in his cross-examination that the injuries could be caused by any blunt weapon or could be self-inflicted. But when prosecution witnesses themselves state that Kamal Singh suffered injuries during scuffle but the prosecution has itself withheld the very genesis of the case, the case of prosecution falls like a house of cards, I am not going to accept the story of prosecution that injuries were self-inflicted. 18. But when prosecution witnesses themselves state that Kamal Singh suffered injuries during scuffle but the prosecution has itself withheld the very genesis of the case, the case of prosecution falls like a house of cards, I am not going to accept the story of prosecution that injuries were self-inflicted. 18. Prosecution did not examine Noora whose name was listed in the calender. It also did not examine Gazi before whose dhani the incident is said to have taken place in the morning. They were examined by defence. DW 2 Gazi who has been examined on behalf of defence has stated that his son was seriously ill and he was treated by DW 1 Noora for whole of night and Noora went away in the morning from his house. Gazi has not said anything against the respondents. Gazi wa cited as an eye-witness by prosecution but left for the reason that he did not support the prosecution case. 19. Noora DW I corroborating Gazi stated that he stayed in the dhani of Gazi for whole of night and treated his son through religious scriptures. He went in the morning. He has stated that he did not sec any occurrence before the dhani of Gazi but when he was returning and reached near the dhan of Chandan Singh he heard the noise of a quarrel. He went there and found that Kamal Singh and Bhera were scuffling with each other. Kamal Singh suffered some injury. Jagmal Singh was also present. He intervened. According to him Bher Singh apologised and stated that he would not come there in order to have relationship with a lady. He has stated that Bhera Singh beseeched him and on his recommendation Bhera was left. He further stated that he stayed in the dhani of Chandan Singh where Alam came after half an hour and also helped Bher Singh to be released after apology. The witness has very clearly stated that Bher Singh had relationship with some lady in the dhani and had come to fulfill his lust. Thus when the witnesses of the prosecution as well as of defence stated that it was Bher Singh himself who had gone to the dhani of Chandan Singh to have sexual intercourse with a lady and he was caught and a scuffle took place, the case of prosecution is false. 20. Thus when the witnesses of the prosecution as well as of defence stated that it was Bher Singh himself who had gone to the dhani of Chandan Singh to have sexual intercourse with a lady and he was caught and a scuffle took place, the case of prosecution is false. 20. The witnesses do not support the version of Bher Singh that a incident took place infront of the dhani of Gazi. Instead there is positive evidence that an indecent took place in the dhani of Chandan Singh where Bher Singh himself had gone to fulfil his sexual lust. He was caught and then scuffle took place. Prosecution has withheld the genesis of the case, has also tried to suppress the injuries suffered by accused-Kamal Singh and in my view the learned trial Judge did not commit any illegality in appreciating evidence in order to acquit respondents.There is no force in this appeal and it is hereby dismissed.Appeal dismissed. *******