Honble YAMIN, J.–This criminal appeal has been preferred by State against the judgment of acquittal passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Raisinghnagar dated 24.8.1990 by which Ratan Singh, Amarjeet Singh, Deepa and Mahendra Kaur were acquitted from the charges of Sections 304/34 and 323/34 IPC. (2). Briefly stated, first information report was lodged on 7.6.1988 at police station Raisinghnagar by Baljinder Singh to the effect that on 6.6.1988 at about 9.00 P.M. when he was taking his dinner and his mother Smt. Swaran Kaur was cooking meals and his father was taking rest, Ratan Singh came in presence of Smt. Ragi and Rajvinder. Ratan Singh was the uncle of complainant and was residing nearby. Smt. Mahendra Kaur, Amarjeet and Deepa had also come alongwith Ratan Singh. They started hurling abuses and asked as to why did they vote in favour of Hardev Singh to make him a Sarpanch. Then Baljinder Singhs father replied that votes were cast according to their own will. Then all the four accused respondents became angry and Ratan Singh exhorted and said that Bachan Singh may be dragged and killed. Thereupon all the four accused respondents entered into the house. Ratan Singh, Amarjeet and Deepa were armed with lathis while Mahendra Kaur was armed with a bala. They dragged Bachan Singh to their house. Then complainant and his mother following Bachan Singh reached there and found that the respondents were giving beatings to Bachan Singh. Bachan Singh, after receiving injuries, fell down and became unconscious. When Baljinder Singh and his mother wanted to rescue Ratan Singh, they were also given beatings. Ratan Singh gave blows of lathi on the arm of the complainant and Amarjeet Singh inflicted lathi blow on the arm of the mother of the complainant. Then Bachan Singh was rescued and taken to his house. After hearing noise Hardev Singh, Gurdeep Singh, Sukhdev Singh and other villagers came. It was also reported that there was a previous enmity because of partition of immovable agricultural property. Since Bachan Singh suffered serious injuries he was admitted in hospital and thereafter report was lodged. Police registered a case under Sections 307, 452, 342, 323 IPC and after investigation challan was submitted for offences under Sections 302, 452, 342, 323/34 IPC as Bachan Singh expired on 7.6.1988. Since Bachan Singh suffered serious injuries he was admitted in hospital and thereafter report was lodged. Police registered a case under Sections 307, 452, 342, 323 IPC and after investigation challan was submitted for offences under Sections 302, 452, 342, 323/34 IPC as Bachan Singh expired on 7.6.1988. Learned Sessions Judge, framed charges under Sections 304/34 and 323/34 against the respondents and tried them for the same as they had denied their indictment. (3). Defence of the accused respondents was that the complainant party had itself gone to the house of accused Ratan Singh where Ratan Singh and other family members were given beatings and the respondents accused persons had in their defence caused injuries to the complainant party. The complainant party was itself aggressor. Their further defence was that there was a previous enmity because of which they were attacked. The children of the family pelted pieces of bricks and that Bachan Singh fell on a hand-pump and suffered injury on head and foot. The defence further was that accused Ratan Singh lodged report to police vide FIR No. 109/88. It is admitted case that Ratan Singh and Mahendra Kaur also suffered injuries which were proved by Dr. Om Prakash Arora. Ratan Singh had suffered grievous injury. This injury was dangerous to his life. The learned Sessions Judge did not find the evidence of the prosecution worth acceptance and believed the story of the defence and acquitted the accused respondents. (4). Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the learned Sessions Judge has misread the evidence; that by disbelieving the prosecution witnesses he has committed error of law and that the story of defence was not acceptable and the judgment of acquittal be converted to judgment of conviction. Nobody has appeared on behalf of the respondents though name of a counsel did appear in the cause list. (5). Learned Public Prosecutor invited my attention to various statements of the prosecution witnesses and submitted that the story of defence was not worth acceptance. Let me first see the evidence of medical expert who has been examined on behalf of the prosecution. He is PW-6 Dr. (5). Learned Public Prosecutor invited my attention to various statements of the prosecution witnesses and submitted that the story of defence was not worth acceptance. Let me first see the evidence of medical expert who has been examined on behalf of the prosecution. He is PW-6 Dr. Om Prakash Arora who stated that Swaran Kaur suffered three minor injuries and Baljinder Singh also suffered an injury on his left arm while Bachan Singh suffered an injury on his left parietal and temporal region as well as a lacerated wound on right foot who died because of the injury on the parietal region. He admitted in the cross examination that the injury on the foot of Bachan Singh could be caused by fall and that injury on his parietal regions could also be caused by fall. He admitted that Ratan Singh suffered as many as five injuries which were mentioned in Ex. D/3 and his ribs were X-Rayed when it was found that ribs were broken. It may be stated that the police filed final report in relation to FIR No. 109/88 which was a report lodged by accused Ratan Singh. From the evidence of Dr. Om Prakash Arora it emerges that the accused persons suffered serious injuries and that the injury on the parietal region of deceased could be caused by fall as there was an injury on the left foot of the deceased which was an indication of his stumble as the story of the defence suggests that he dashed against a hand-pump and fell down and suffered injury on the parietal region by fall on the hand-pump. It is proved that there existed a hand-pump as site plan Ex. P/2 mentions it. It is proved by the Investigation Officer. (6). Admittedly there is no evidence as to who caused this injury on the parietal region of Bachan Singh. Baljinder Singh PW-1 gave an omnibus statement and says that it were Amarjeet and Ratan Singh who gave blows on the upper part of body of Bachan Singh. Similarly, Swaran Kaur PW-2, who is widow of the deceased and an eye witness, stated that her husband was taken to the house of accused respondents and there Amarjeet Singh and Ratan Singh inflicted blows on his head. Similarly, Swaran Kaur PW-2, who is widow of the deceased and an eye witness, stated that her husband was taken to the house of accused respondents and there Amarjeet Singh and Ratan Singh inflicted blows on his head. She says that she was an eye witness but exaggerates to the extent that teeth of the deceased were broken by accused respondents when they were giving him beatings. She does not pin point as to who inflicted injury on the head of Bachan Singh. PW-3 Rajvinder Kaur, who is the daughter of deceased and a child witness, stated that her father was taken near hand-pump and there he was given beatings by Ratan Singh. Thus in a way she corroborates the story of defence that deceased might have fallen near hand-pump. She does not say as to who inflicted injury on the head of Bachan Singh. PW-4 Hardev Singh stated that he heard noise at about 9.00 P.M. and saw that Ratan Singh, Amarjeet Singh and Mahendra Kaur were giving beatings to Bachan Singh and Bachan Singhs son as well as his wife were trying to rescue him and then they took him to their house. He admitted in the cross examination that when he reached he found that occurrence was taking place in the house of Ratan Singh and the other co-accused respondents were also present there. He did not enter into the house neither did he go to rescue anyone. He did not know if Ratan Singh suffered any injury. (7). From the evidence of these eye witnesses it is not proved that none of the accused respondents inflicted injury on the head of Bachan Singh. When the accused respondents suffered injuries on their bodies and the occurrence took place in the house of the respondents themselves, the learned Sessions Judge was right in holding that it was the complainant party who had attacked on the respondents. The evidence has not been misread by the trial court. Acquittal can be changed to conviction only when there is misreading of evidence or there is perversity. (See Ashok Kumar Vs. State of Rajasthan (1). The theory of defence as stated above has been accepted by learned trial Judge and by doing so he has not committed any illegality. (8). The evidence has not been misread by the trial court. Acquittal can be changed to conviction only when there is misreading of evidence or there is perversity. (See Ashok Kumar Vs. State of Rajasthan (1). The theory of defence as stated above has been accepted by learned trial Judge and by doing so he has not committed any illegality. (8). The cardinal rules laid down by the Honble Supreme Court in respect of appeals against acquittals are that: (1) the presumption of innocence of the accused should be kept in mind; (2) if two views of the matter are possible, the view favourable to the accused should be taken; (3) the appellate court should take into account the fact that the trial Judge had the advantage of looking at the demeanour of witnesses; and (4) the accused is entitled to the benefit of doubt. But the doubt should be reasonable, that is, the doubt which rational thinking men will reasonably, honestly and conscientionsly entertain and not the doubt of a timid mind which fights shy. To put it differently, it is not the doubt of a vacillating mind that has not the moral courage to decide but shelters itself in a vain and ideal scepticism. (9). While testing this case on these touch stones I find that the learned trial Judge has rightly reached to the conclusion that the accused respondents were entitled to acquittal. (10). Consequently, there is no force in this appeal and it is hereby dismissed.