JUDGMENT C.K. Thakker J: - This appeal is filed against an order of acquittal recorded by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hamirpur, on December 31, 1996, in Criminal Case No. 148 - II of 1993. 2. All the respondents - accused were charged for committing offences punishable under Sections 452, 324, 323 and 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (briefly, "the Code"). The case of the prosectuion was that on April 22, 1993, at about 6.30 P.M. in Jain Mohalla of Nadaun, all the accused persons voluntarily caused injuries to PW1 complainant. According to prosecution story, on the day of incident, complainant Brij Mohan was sitting in his shop meanwhile, accused No. 1 Avinash Chand and accused No.2 Manoj Verma @ Happy, son of accused No.l, came on a motor cycle. They parked the motor cycle in front of the shop of the complainant. Accused No.2 was having two sticks in his hand. They got down from the motor cycle; both of them took one stick, abused the complainant and asked him to come out of the shop. The complainant refused to do so. Meanwhile, accused No.3, Asha Rani, wife of accused No.l, reached there. She was also armed with a Danda. All the three accused forcibly entered into the shop of the complainant and caused injuries to him. On hearing the noise and cries of complainant Brij Mohan, PW8 Vishawjit @ Kaka, son of Prem Shanker came there. He snatched away Danda from the hands of accused No.2 and threw it outside the shop. Even thereafter accused No.2 continued beating the complainant with first blows. PW8 Vishawjit @ Kaka saved Brij Mohan from the clutches of the accused. During the incident, Janak Rani and Jamuna Devi (PW2), mother of the complainant arrived and they also saw the incident. Even while leaving the place of occurrence, the accused caused damage to window of Niranjan Jain, brother of the complainant. Threats were also administered to the complainant that on that day he was saved but in future the accused would not spare him. 3. A complaint was filed, usual investigation was made and the accused were asked to face the trial. The defence of the accused was of total denial and false implixcation. they did not lead any evidence in support of their defence. 4. 3. A complaint was filed, usual investigation was made and the accused were asked to face the trial. The defence of the accused was of total denial and false implixcation. they did not lead any evidence in support of their defence. 4. To prove the case, the prosecution examined eight witnesses, including PW1, Brij Mohan complainant injured, PW2 Jamuna Devi, mother of the complainant PW8 Vishawjit @ Kaka and PW6 Dr Kaushal. On the basis of the evidence adduced by the prosecution, the learned Magistrate was called upon to decide whether it was proved by the prosectuion beyond reasonable doubt that all the accused caused injuries to the complainant on the day in question and whether they had committed the offences withn which they were charged. Considering the evidence on record and taking into account inconsistencies, improbabilities and omissions, the learned Magistrate did not think it fit to convict the accused persons and, accordingly, he gave them benefit of doubt and acquitted them. 5. It is that order passed by the learned Magistrate which is challenged by the State by filing the present appeal. 6. I have heard Mr. M.L. Chauhan, learned Deputy Advocate General, and Mr. Ashutosh Burathoki, leaned counsel for the accused. 7. Mr. Chauhan submitted that the learned Magistrate has committed an error of fact and of law in acquititing the accused for the offences with which they were charged. He submitted that the prosectuion has fully established by leading evidence of PW1 Brij Mohan-injured, PW2, Jamuna Devi, mother of the complainant, and PW8 Vishawjit @ Kaka, involvement of the, accused in commission of offences. He also submitted that there was no enmity between the parties and there was no reason on the part of the prosectuion to falsely implicate the accused by screening the real culprits. According to him, the learned Magistrate has stated in the judgment that an important eye witness kaka was not examined by the prosectuion. Mr. Chauhan stated that this is factually incorrect inasmuch as Vishawjit @ Kaka, son of Prem Shankar, who was an eye witness and referred in FIR as well as in the deposition of PW1, was very much examined by the prosecution. He submitted that had that fact been considered by the learned Magistrate, in all probability, he would not have acquitted the accused. He submitted that had that fact been considered by the learned Magistrate, in all probability, he would not have acquitted the accused. The counsel also submitted that medical evidence corroborated the prosectuion story and injuries sustained by the complainant. Both the eye witnesses, Vishawjit @ Kaka and Jamuna Devi, supported the case of the prosectuion and the learned Magistrate, relying on their evidence, ought to have convicted the accused. He also made a grievance that the trial court has erred in observing that all the persons who were examined were Interested and independent witnesses were not examined, including one Janak Rani, who was present and whose name appeared during the course of investigation and whose statement was also recorded. No reason and/or ground has been given for this omission. 8. According to the learned counsel, the witnesses examined by the prosectuion could not be termed as "interested". He urged that a witness can be said to be "interested", if by hook or crook, he wants the case to be resulted in conviction of the accused. But the persons, present at the time of incident and were related to a deceased or an injured, cannot be termed as "interested". And if they depose in a court of law as to what had happened at the time of incident, their testimony cannot be impeached on the ground that they were relatives of the deceased or injured and hence were "interested" witnesses. 9. So far as non-exmaination of Jank Rani was concerned, the counsel submitted that the prosectuion was satisfied that she had been won over by the accused and no purpose would have been served by examining her. The said ground was also put forward before the trial court for non examination of Janak Rani and no grieveance was made by the defence against it. Finally, ft was submitted that when the case of the prosectuion was proved on the basis of ocular evidence, it was not necessary to establish motive. On all these grounds Mr. Chauhan submitted that the order passed by the learned Magistrate requires to be interfered with an appeal deserves to be allowed by convicting the accused for the offences with which they were charged. 10. Mr. Burathoki, learned counsel for the accused, on the other hand, supported the order passed by the learned Magistrate. On all these grounds Mr. Chauhan submitted that the order passed by the learned Magistrate requires to be interfered with an appeal deserves to be allowed by convicting the accused for the offences with which they were charged. 10. Mr. Burathoki, learned counsel for the accused, on the other hand, supported the order passed by the learned Magistrate. He submitted that looking to the entire evidence of the prosctuion, it is not clear as to how the incident took place. If genesis of the prosectuion case is not reliable, the counsel contended, the entire case collapses. He submitted that looking to inherent improbabilities, material contradictions and inconsistencies as well as omissions, it cannot be contended that by extending benefit of doubt, the learned Magistrate has acted illegally. Regarding injuries to the complainant, the counsel submitted that the prosectuion witnesses themselves were not certain as to where, when and how blows were administered on the person of PW1 Brij Mohan. According to Dr. Kaushal, there were five injuries on the person of the complainant. Injury No. 1 was a wound on frontal part of scalp which was serious injury. The remaining four injuries were superficial injuries. Injuries No.2,3 and 4 were in die nature of swelling whereas injury No.S was merely tenderness on the left side of the neck. It was the consistent case of the prosectuion that all the three accused were having sticks to Dandas with them. Injury No.l, according to the evidence of Dr. Kaushal, was an incised wound. In examination - in chief, he stated that injury No. 1 "Seems to be sharp" while injuries No.2 to 5 were possible by hard and blunt substance. In his evidence, initially, Dr. Kaushal stated that injury No. 1 could be caused by a Danda. In cross - examination, however, he stated that it could not be caused by a Danda and that his earlier statement was "nothing but slip of his tongue". The defence counsel also drew my attention to evidence of PW2 Jamuna Devi, mother of the complainant, who had stated that several injuries were caused to her son. They might be 50 or 60.injuries. Again, according to the complainant, he was asked to come out of the shop by the accused, but he refused to do so and injuries were caused to him in his shop. They might be 50 or 60.injuries. Again, according to the complainant, he was asked to come out of the shop by the accused, but he refused to do so and injuries were caused to him in his shop. PW8 Vishawjit @ Kaka, on the other hand, stated in his deposition that injuries were caused to PW1 Brij Mohan outside the shop and blood was also found on the road. From the investigation, however, no blood was found on the road. Omission was also pointed out in the evidence of PW1 regarding presence of Jamuna Devi, mother of the complainant. It was also urged that if three persons had come with sticks, several injuries would have been sustained by the complainant but there were only four injuries (ifinjury No.l can be ignored, as according to the medical evidence, it was possible with sharp cutting instrument), and that too, of superficial nature of swelling and tenderness. Regarding so called recovery of sticks, it was submitted that two of them were recovered on the next day, that is , on April 23, 1993 and the third one was recovered on April 24, 1993. It was from an open place. Moreover, the witnesses who were party to such recovery were also relatives of the complainant, being his brothers. No blood was found on any of the sticks. Finally, it was submitted that when an order of acquittal was recorded by the trial court and cogent and convincing reasons have been given, even if this court is of the opinion that another view is possible, it would not substitute its opinion for the opinion of the trial court by setting aside an order of acquittal and by recording conviction. It was, therefore, submitted that the appeal deserves to be dismissed. 11. In the facts and circumstances of the case, in my opinion, it cannot be said that by ordering acquittal, the learned Magistrate has comitted any error of fact or of law which deserves to be interfered with by this Court. 12. Now, so far as the evidence on record is concerned, it is clear that three witnesses were examined by the prosectuion who were present at the place of ocurrence and had seen the incident. PW1 Brij Mohan, complainant had stated that he was in his shop and accused Nos. 12. Now, so far as the evidence on record is concerned, it is clear that three witnesses were examined by the prosectuion who were present at the place of ocurrence and had seen the incident. PW1 Brij Mohan, complainant had stated that he was in his shop and accused Nos. 1 and 2 came on a motor cycle, abused him and asked him to come out of the shop. He, however, refused to do so and he was beaten. It was also his case that meanwhile accused No.3, wife of accused No.l, reached there. He, no doubt, in his FIR refers the fact that PW2 Jamuna Devi, his mother, had come and had seen the incident but in his substantive evidence he is silent about the said fact. The counsel for the defence, in my opinion, rightly emphasised this aspect that if the mother of the complainant had come, the complainant would have been deposed by him. He is, therefore, right in submitting that neither the evidence of complainant Brij Mohan nor the evidence of his mother Jamuna Devi can be implicitly relied upon. In this connection, the counsel also submitted that Jamuna Devi had stated that several injuries were caused to her son. According to her, 50-60 blows were administered on her son. PW8 Vishawjit @ Kaka, no doubt, claimed to be an eye witness and also intervened and rescued PW1 Brij Mohan, his evidence also cannot be totally relied upon. There are inconsistencies and contradictions as to the place where complainant Brij Mohan was beaten. According to Brij Mohan, he did not come out of his shop and he was beaten in his shop. According to PW8, Vishawjit @ Kaka, Brij Mohan was beaten outside the shop and there were blood marks also. No such blood marks were ever found on the road and it was not even the case of the prosectuion. Looking to the medical evidence also prima facie, the case of the prosectuion appears to be very much exaggerated. Out of five injuries, four injuries were possible by hard and blunt substance like Danda (stick). They were, however, superficial in nature -either swelling and tenderness. Looking to the medical evidence also prima facie, the case of the prosectuion appears to be very much exaggerated. Out of five injuries, four injuries were possible by hard and blunt substance like Danda (stick). They were, however, superficial in nature -either swelling and tenderness. Injury No.l, no doubt, was serious in nature but, according to the medical evidence, such an injury was possible by sharp instrument and it was not even the allegation of the prosectuion that any accused was having sharp cutting instrument with him or her. If version of PW2 Jamuna Devi is seen, there must be about 50-60 injuries on the person of the complainant. Again, according to PW2 Jamuna Devi, her son became unconscious but PW1, Brij MOhan, himself had stated that he was conscious..So far as recovery is concerned, as already discussed, it was either on the second or on the third day and without there being any amrk of blood. Moreover, it was from an open place. In the light of all these facts, the learned Magistrate did not think it fit to convict the accused and granted benefit of doubt. In my opinion, it cannot be said that such a view could not have been taken by the learned Magistrate. 13. It is also in evidence that on the day in question that is, on April 22, 1993, accused No.3, wife of accused Nol, had gone to the residence of the complainant. It cannot be gains/aid that if direct evidence is available, against the accused, it is not necessary for the prosectuion to prove motive of the accused behind the act in question. But when it appears from the record that there was no enmity between the parties and the said fact was admitted by one and all prosectuion witnesses and both sides were on visiting terms, so much so that on the day of incident, accused No.3 was at the residence of the complainant, the said circumstance cannot be ignored by the court while appreciating the evidence on record. It is also to be seen that, according to the prosectuion case, both accused Nos. 1 and 2 came on a motor cycle and without any reason or ground whatsoever abused the complainant and asked him to come out of the shop so that he can be beaten. Such conduct could not be considered natural. It is also to be seen that, according to the prosectuion case, both accused Nos. 1 and 2 came on a motor cycle and without any reason or ground whatsoever abused the complainant and asked him to come out of the shop so that he can be beaten. Such conduct could not be considered natural. When in the light of other evidence, the learned Magistrate observed that it would not be possible that an incident had taken place in the manner in which the complainant has stated, coupled with the fact that there were material contradictions in the evidence of three eye witnesses and, also medical evidence relating to injury No.l which was not possible by hard and blunt substance, the order of acquittal cannot be said to be illegal, contrary to law or otherwise unreasonable. 14. In above view of the matter, it is not necessary for me to enter into larger question whether prosectuion witnesses PWs 1, 2 and 8 can or cannot be said to be "interested" as even otherwise, in the light of omissions and material contradictions, the learned Magistrate was justified in not relying on their evidence. 15. For the foregoing reasons, in my opinion, it cannot be said that any illegality was committed by the learned Magistrate in acquitting the accused for the offences with which they were charged. The appeal deserves, therefore, to be dismissed and is, accordingly dismissed. Bail bonds stand discharged. Appeal dismissed