JUDGEMENT Abhilasha Kumari, J.: This appeal has been file by the State of Himachal Pradesh (hereinafter referred to as the appellant), being aggrieved by the judgment passed by learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Karsog, "camp at Ani", District Kullu, Himachal Pradesh, in case No. 78-2 of 1997, decided on 21.5.1999, whereby the accused persons Jimtu Ram, Shiv Ram, Janki Devi, Shilu Devi, Chuda Ram and Belu Ram (hereinafter referred to as the respondents) have been acquitted of the charge under Sections 147, 341, 323 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. Briefly stated the case of the prosecution is that the complainant Heera Mani (who has appeared as PW-2) lodged a report at the Police Station Nirmand to the effect that on 3.1.1997, she, alongwith her minor children, was returning to her home at village Barohal during the evening time, after gathering grass for fodder. On the way, the respondents, who were equipped with dandas, accosted her. It is alleged that respondents No.6 Belu Ram beat the complainant by giving a blow of the danda. It is further alleged that the respondents also inflicted a blow upon the minor children and told them not to move on the disputed path and to leave the field or else they would kill the complainant and her family members. According to the prosecution, the respondents had also cut one tree and put the wood in the field thereby making it uncultivable. The respondents also beat the complainant due to which blood started oozing out from her nose and mouth. Besides, this, the respondents also threatened to kill the complainant whose house was situated in an isolated place. 3. The police entered upon the investigation and the accused was medically examined. After the completion of the necessary formalities, the challan was presented before the Trial Court for offences punishable under Sections 147, 323, 149 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code to which the respondents pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. The prosecution has examined 8 witnesses in support of their case. The respondents have not adduced any defence evidence but have denied all the allegations of the prosecution in the statements recorded under Section 313 Cr. P.C. 4. I have heard Shri Som Dutt Vasudeva, learned Additional Advocate General for the appellant, and Shri Virender Kumar Verma, learned counsel for the respondents, and have carefully scrutinized the evidence and material on record. P.C. 4. I have heard Shri Som Dutt Vasudeva, learned Additional Advocate General for the appellant, and Shri Virender Kumar Verma, learned counsel for the respondents, and have carefully scrutinized the evidence and material on record. 5. Assailing the impugned judgment, the learned Additional Advocate General has contended that the statement of the complainant Heera Mani, who has appeared as PW-2, worthy of belief since it is corroborated by the statement of Shankru Ram, PW-1, who is the husband of the complaint, and Nagar Dass, PW-3, who although is her brother, has stated correctly, having been present on the spot. Moreover, PW-4 Kesi Ram, who is the brother-in-law of PW-1, is also a witness to the incident. There are injuries on the person of the complainant, which have been certified by the doctor, who examined her and who has appeared as PW-5 and issued MLC Ex. PW-5/A. Therefore, it cannot be disputed that the incident, as narrated by the complainant, took place in the manner stated by her. He has further contended that just because PW-1 is the husband of the complainant and PW-3 is her brother and PW-4 is the brother-in-law of PW-1, does not mean that their testimony is to be out rightly discarded since they are related to the complainant. They are the direct witnesses having been present at the time of occurrence. They have narrated the factual position clearly and their testimony ought to be believed. The is especially so since there is also medical evidence to the effect that the complainant has sustained injuries. According to the learned Additional Advocate General, the impugned judgment of the Trial court lacks proper appreciation of the evidence and is based upon surmises and conjectures and, therefore, he prays that the same be set aside. 6. The learned Additional Advocate General has placed reliance on Surinder Singh and Another V. State of U.P., (2003) to Supreme Court Cases 26), wherein it has been held that: "Relationship is not a factor to affect the credibility of a witness. It is more often than not that a relation would not conceal the actual culprit and make allegations against an innocent person. Foundation has to be laid if a plea cf false implication is made. In such cases, the court has to adopt a careful approach and analyse the evidence to find out whether it is cogent and credible. It is more often than not that a relation would not conceal the actual culprit and make allegations against an innocent person. Foundation has to be laid if a plea cf false implication is made. In such cases, the court has to adopt a careful approach and analyse the evidence to find out whether it is cogent and credible. Hence, the ground that the witness being a lose relative and consequently being a partisan witness, should not be relied upon, has no substance." 7. In support of the judgment of the Trial Court, Shri Virender Kumar Thakur, learned counsel for the respondents, has argued that there is no irregularity or legal infirmity in the said judgment and the respondents have rightly been acquitted. The prosecution has failed to connect the respondents with the crime and moreover, the ingredients of the offences for which they have been charged have not been proved. The most important ground raised by him is that there are numerous improvements and contradictions in the testimony of the so called eye witnesses, which belie the very case of the prosecution. Even the account of the injuries on the person of the complainant differs in the testimony of PW-1, PW-2 and PW-3 and PW-4 and their versions do not tally with the MLC Ex.PW-5/A. The material contradictions in the case of the prosecution, as pointed out by the learned counsel for the respondents, are as under: (a) PW-1 Shankru Ram is the husband of the complainant. He states in his cross-examination that he was also beaten by the respondents and saw the incident taking place. A few lines below, he contradicts himself and states that it was his wife Heera Mani who told him about the incident. The version that he was also beaten has not been corroborated by PWs 3 and 4, who are stated to have witnessed the incident. In fact, they do not that PW-1 was present at the spot. (b) PW-4 Kesi Ram, who is the brother-in-law of PW-1, has introduced a new version that the respondents gave a threat of life to the complainant Heera Mani. This is not stated so by Shankru Ram PW-1. In fact, they do not that PW-1 was present at the spot. (b) PW-4 Kesi Ram, who is the brother-in-law of PW-1, has introduced a new version that the respondents gave a threat of life to the complainant Heera Mani. This is not stated so by Shankru Ram PW-1. (c) PW-3 Nagar Dass, who is the real brother of the complainant Heera Mani and who is stated to have been present at the time of the incident, says that the dispute took place because the complainant asked the respondents that why they have thrown stones in the field. He has further introduced another version that the respondents Shri Heera Mani threw Heera Mani from over the wall. This is total contradictions of the version given by PW-1 and the complainant PW-2. (d) PW-1 States that the complainant sustained injuries on her arm and leg whereas PW-2 describes the injuries to have been sustained on her face, arms and stomach. PW-2 also states that the blood was oozing out from her nose and mouth of the complainant. PW-3 states that the complainant sustained injuries on her arm, face and leg whereas PW-4 says that the complainant sustained injuries on her stomach and head. If the MLC PW-5/A is seen, there are no injuries on the head, stomach or face of the complainant. Therefore, its is very clear that PW-1, PW-2, PW-3 and PW-4 have given different versions of the injuries sustained by the complainant none of which tallies with the MLC Ex. PW-5/A. (e) PW-3 has stated that the dispute and altercation took place because the complainant questioned the respondents why they had thrown stones in the field, whereas PW-1 has given an entirely different version by stating that the dispute was regarding the felling of a tree, the wood of which was thrown in the field. The second version given by PW-1 is that there was also a dispute regarding the path because they were wanting the right of passage through the house of respondent No.6 Belu Ram. PW-1 Shankru Ram says that he came to the spot at the time of the incident and PW-2 complainant also states to the same fact. However, PW-4 Kesi Ram has introduced an improvement by saying that PW-1 saved the complainant Heera Mani whereas PW-1 and PW-2 (complainant) do not state so. 8. PW-1 Shankru Ram says that he came to the spot at the time of the incident and PW-2 complainant also states to the same fact. However, PW-4 Kesi Ram has introduced an improvement by saying that PW-1 saved the complainant Heera Mani whereas PW-1 and PW-2 (complainant) do not state so. 8. According to the learned counsel for the respondents, these are material contradictions in the testimony of the so called eye witnesses, which render their evidence untrustworthy and throw serious doubts upon the veracity of their statements. He has further contended that the incident took place on 3.1.1997, but the matter was reported to the police only on 6.1.1997, which is evident from the FIR Ex. PW-7/A. The complainant was medically examined on 6.1.1997, that is, three days after the incident took place. The delay in reporting the matter to the police and the medical examination of the complainant after three days has not at all been explained and casts doubt upon the entire story of the complainant. He has further contended that PW-1 and PW-2 have stated that the respondents also beat up PW-1 and the son of PW-2, were not medically examined, remains unexplained. 9. Another circumstance pointed out by the learned counsel for the respondents is that it has come in the evidence of PW-1, PW-2, PW-3 and PW-4 that the respondents beat the complainant with dandas and threw stones at her. Neither the dandas nor the stones have been taken into possession. Moreover, there are six respondents and it is the version of the prosecution that they all came armed with dandas and beat the complainant. If all of them have given danda blows to the complainant, then she would have sustained many more injuries of a much more serious nature than those present on her person. PW-2 (complainant) has stated that when she was beaten, blood was oozing out of her nose and mouth. If that is accepted, then her clothes should have been stained with blood. However, no blood stained clothes have been taken into possession. 10. In support of the above contentions, reliance has been placed on State of U.P. v. Arun Kumar Gupta (2003) 2 SCC 202]. If that is accepted, then her clothes should have been stained with blood. However, no blood stained clothes have been taken into possession. 10. In support of the above contentions, reliance has been placed on State of U.P. v. Arun Kumar Gupta (2003) 2 SCC 202]. In this case, the witness belonging to the same biradari as the complainant and since he was an interested witness taking extraordinary interest in the investigation, the Supreme Court has held him to be unreliable. In the present case also, PW-1, PW-3 and PW-4 are interested witnesses. PW-1 is the husband of the complainant and PW-3 is her real brother, whereas PW-4 is the sisters husband of PW-1. The incident took place near a public road, which is evident from the testimony of PW-1 and PW-4. The spot map Ex. PW-7/B shows that there were residential in the vicinity. Why no independent person from the village or nearby area has been associated and only interested and closely related persons have been associated who have testified in favour of the complainant, is a factor which throws doubt upon the truthfulness of the version of the complainant. 11. In Lallu Manjhi and another v. State of Jharkhand (2003) 2 SCC 401], it has been held that: "The law of evidence does not require any particular number of witnesses to be examined in proof of a given fact. However, faced with the testimony of a single witness, the court may classify the oral testimony into three categories, namely, (I) wholly reliable, (ii) wholly unreliable, and (iii) neither wholly reliable nor wholly unreliable., in the first two categories there may be not difficulty in accepting or discarding the testimony of the single witness. The difficulty arises in the third category of cases. The court has to be circumspect and has to look for corroboration in material particulars by reliable testimony, direct or circumstantial, before acting upon the testimony of a single witness. In the present case, it is not possible for the court either to place implicit reliance on or to totally discard the testimony of the deceaseds brother (PW 9), who was the sole eyewitness as it can neither be called wholly reliable nor wholly unreliable." 12. Regarding the delay in lodging the FIR, reliance has been placed on State of Punjab v. Daljit Singh and Another (2004) 10 SCC 141). Regarding the delay in lodging the FIR, reliance has been placed on State of Punjab v. Daljit Singh and Another (2004) 10 SCC 141). In this case, the Police Station was situated five kilo metres away and the incident took place at 8.00 PM whereas the FIR was lodged at 6.00 AM on the next date. The Supreme Court had held that the prosecution has failed to explain the delay in filing with complaint, their case was rendered doubtful. The learned counsel for the respondents has argued that in the case in hand, the delay in lodging the FIR is much more, that is, three days and it has come in the statement of the complainant herself that the distance from her house to the Police Station can be covered in 2-1/2 hours. There is no explanation whatsoever for the delay. 13. Regarding contradictions in the statements of the witness and the discrepancies with the statements made to the police and the version in the FIR, the learned counsel for the respondents had relied in State of Haryana v. Gurdial Singh and Another (1974) 61 AIR 1871, which in which the prosecution had come out with two inconsistent versions of the occurrence and in view of these contradictory versions, the Supreme Court did not interference with the judgment of the High Court. 14. It has been contended by the learned counsel for the respondents that had PW-1 been present on the spot, his natural reaction would have been to save the complainant who was his wife. Even PW-3, brother of the complainant, and PW-4, brother-in-law of complainants husband, who were present on the spot, would have come to her rescue in the normal course of human behavior. Their not having done so is highly unnatural. In support of this contention, he has relied upon Mohan Lai v. Prem Singh and Another (2002) 10 SCC 236. 15. From the scrutiny of the evidence on record and after hearing the respective parties, it is very clear that the contentions that are present in the testimony of PW-1, PW-2, PW-3 and PW-4 and the different versions which they have given of the same incident are material in nature and go to the very root of the case of the prosecution. Even though relationship alone is not a factor on which the testimony of eye witnesses ought to be discarded, the court has to be circumspect and look for corroboration in material particulars before implicit reliance is placed upon such testimony. In the present case, the very foundation of the case of the prosecution is shaken by the different versions given by the different interested witnesses who have freely indulged in improvements and embellishments which, instead of strengthening the case of the prosecution, has resulted in causing serious doubt regarding the authenticity of their statements. Taken as a whole, the testimony of PWs 1 to 4 is neither cogent nor credible. The propositions of law enunciated in the judgments relied upon hereinabove are also applicable in the facts and circumstances of the present case. The medical evidence is at variance with the description of the injuries stated to have been sustained by the complainant by different witnesses as has already been pointed out hereinabove. The delay in lodging the FIR has also not explained as also the delay in the medical examination of the complainant, which is stated to have been sustained as a result of beatings from the 16. In my view, after taking into consideration all these factors, there is no cogent reason for interfering with the judgment of the Trial Court. The respondents have rightly been acquitted by giving them benefit of doubt. 17. For the reasons stated above, this appeal fails and the same is dismissed.