JUDGMENT Amar Dutt, J. - The State of Haryana is aggrieved by the judgment dated 24.1.1994 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Rewari, by which the respondents Des Ram and Rajender alias Pappi were acquitted of the charges under Sections 332, 333, 353 and 186 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. In brief, the facts, which led to the prosecution of the respondents, are that on 4.8.1991, HC Radhey Shyam, while posted as Incharge of Guard at Railway Bridge, Ajarka, had come to Police Station Bawal for delivering a rapat roznamcha. On this way back, he got down at Kishanpura Railway Crossing from the bus at about 7.00 P.M. where the respondents, who were drunk, were calling each other by names. Radhey Shyam had advised them not to do so, on which they had caught hold of him and Des Ram gave a fist blow on his mouth. Rajender respondent had inflicted a blow on his head with a piece of wood Radhey Shyam had fallen on the ground and thereafter Rajender had given another blow on his right arm. Des Ram had also given a blow with a Kara on the nose of Radhey Shyam. On raising of alarm, Ishwar Singh and Raju were attracted to the spot and both the respondents on seeing them ran away from the spot. While doing so, they pelted stones, which hit Radhey Shyam on the face and head. Radhey Shyam had been removed to the Primary Health Centre, Bawal, where he was medico legally examined by Dr. G.S. Yadav PW3, who incorporated the result of the examination in the Medico Legal Report Ex.PC. He was also got radiologically examined from Dr. B.K. Sharma PW1, who in his report Ex.PA opined that the nasal bone of Radhey Shyam was fractured. Dr. V.S. Yadav of the Government Hospital, Rewari had found a fracture of the left maxilla molar region. 3. Sub Inspector Bhup Singh on receipt of the information about the arrival of Radhey Shyam at the Primary Health Centre had reached there and recorded his statement on the basis whereof a case under Sections 353, 332 and 186 of the Indian Penal Code was registered against the respondents. On completion of the investigation, during the course whereof the Kara was recovered from Des Ram and both the accused arrested, a challan was filed in the Court of the Ilaqa Magistrate. 4. On completion of the investigation, during the course whereof the Kara was recovered from Des Ram and both the accused arrested, a challan was filed in the Court of the Ilaqa Magistrate. 4. On going through the papers sent up with the challan, when the Magistrate found that the case was exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, he committed the same for trial, which led to the framing of charges under Sections 332, 333 and 353 of the Indian Penal Code, to which the respondents pleaded not guilty. 5. In order to bring home the charge, the prosecution examined Dr. B.K. Sharma PW1, Dr. Vishwender Singh Yadav PW2, Dr. G.S. Yadav PW3, Ishwar Singh PW4, SI Ram Chander PW5, HC Ganpat Ram PW6, Inspector Bhup singh PW7, Sardar Singh PW8, Radhey Shyam PW9, Raju alias Rajesh PW10 and Constable Anup Singh PW11 before closing its evidence. 6. When examined under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the respondents denied all the facts and asserted that on the date of the occurrence, they were returning from village Dadiya to village Pranpura. Near the Railway crossing Radhey Shyam had met them. He was not in police uniform and was under the influence of liquor. He questioned the accused about their whereabouts and abused them and when they protested, he had given an injury to Des Ram on his head and another blow, which was warded off by Des Ram, had resulted into an injury to his right little finger. Des Ram had called Rajender for help and on his asking Rajender pushed Radhey Shyam on one side, as a result of which he fell down on the ground on the pieces of stones lying near the railway track and has sustained injuries. They claimed that they were innocent and arrested on the date of occurrence and made to sit in the Police Station for three days and after they were arrested, Des Ram was also got medico-legally examined. They had named the accused only to suppress the fact of injuries on the person of Des Ram caused by Radhey Shyam. They, however, produced no evidence in their defence. 7. he trial Court adverting to the fact that independent witness Ishwar Singh had not supported the story given by Radhey Shyam, had also referred to the fact that the FIR in the case was lodged after abnormal delay. They, however, produced no evidence in their defence. 7. he trial Court adverting to the fact that independent witness Ishwar Singh had not supported the story given by Radhey Shyam, had also referred to the fact that the FIR in the case was lodged after abnormal delay. In spite of the fact that the ruqa from the Medical Officer, C.H.C. Bawal had specifically mentioned that Radhey Shyam had been beaten by two persons and had received multiple injuries, no FIR is recorded on its basis and instead the Sub Inspector had delayed the recording thereof by obtaining a report from the doctor that Radhey Shyam was not fit to make a statement on 4.8.1991. The fact that the injuries found on the person of Des Ram, which according to the medical evidence, could not be self-suffered was also relied upon by the trial Court to reject the statement of Radhey Shyam. The Court had also come to the conclusion that there was no material produced before it to show that the complainant was on duty at the time of the incident. No daily diary report from Police Station, Bawai indicating that the complainant Radhey Shyam had reached Police Station, Bawal for delivering of D.D.R. was not produced nor was there any explanation as to why if he was on duty the complainant was not wearing a police uniform. Taking these circumstances collectively, the trial Court had opined that the respondents were entitled to the benefit of doubt and had, consequently, acquitted them of the charges framed against them. 8. I have heard Mr. Sanjay Vashisth, Deputy Advocate General, Haryana, appearing on behalf of the State and with his assistance have perused the record. 9. On going through the evidence, I find that the view taken by the Court below cannot be stated to be perverse. A police official, deputed to deliver dak at a Police Station, would normally be wearing his uniform. The only independent evidence, which was available in the shape of the testimony of Ishwar Singh did not support the version put forth by Radhey Shyam. A police official, deputed to deliver dak at a Police Station, would normally be wearing his uniform. The only independent evidence, which was available in the shape of the testimony of Ishwar Singh did not support the version put forth by Radhey Shyam. The injuries on his person do not appear to be such as would render him unfit for making a statement and the story has been introduced only to gain more time for explaining the delay in the lodging of the F.I.R. It would also be an open question as to whether the circumstances in which the incident is alleged to have taken place would in any event attract the provisions of Sections 332, 333 and 353 of the Indian Penal Code in a case whereas a member of the police force, who is not in uniform, is involved in an incident outside the geographical limits of his duty in which he is supposed to be on duty without there being anything to indicate that he is a member of the police force. The view taken by the trial Court, in these circumstances, cannot be said to be perverse so as to warrant intervention by this Court in an appeal against acquittal, in view of the judgment of Apex Court in Allarakha K. Mansuri v. State of Gujarat, 2002 S.C.C. (Crl.) 519, wherein it was observed as under :- "Though the High Court has full powers to review the evidence upon which an order of acquittal is based, it will not interfere with an order of acquittal because with the passing of an order of acquittal the presumption of innocence in favour of the accused is reinforced. The High Court should be slow in disturbing the finding of the fact arrived at by the trial court. The golden thread which runs through the web of administration of justice in criminal case is that if two views are possible on the evidence adduced in the case, the pointing to the guilt of the accused and the other to hi innocence, the view which is favourable to the accused should be adopted. The paramount consideration of the court should be to avoid miscarriage of justice. A miscarriage of justice which may arise from the acquittal of guilty is no less than from the conviction of an innocent. The paramount consideration of the court should be to avoid miscarriage of justice. A miscarriage of justice which may arise from the acquittal of guilty is no less than from the conviction of an innocent. In a case where the trial Court has taken a view based upon conjectures and hypothesis and not on the legal evidence, a duty is cast upon the High Court to reappreciate the evidence in acquittal appeal for the purposes of ascertaining as to whether the accused has committed any offence or not. Probable view taken by the trial Court which may not be disturbed in the appeal is such a view which is based upon legal and admissible evidence. Only because the accused has been acquitted by the trial Court, cannot be made a basis to urge that the High Court under all circumstances should not disturb such a finding." For the reasons recorded above, this appeal fails and is dismissed. Appeal dismissed.