JUDGMENT Kuldip Singh, J.-The convict has filed this revision against judgment dated 14.5.2003 passed by learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Una in Criminal Appeal No.8 of 2001 affirming judgment of conviction and sentence dated 27.1.2001/8.2.2001 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Court No.II, Amb in Case No.54-1/2000/51-II/2000. 2. The petitioner was prosecuted for offence punishable under Section 324 IPC on the basis of FIR Ex.PW-8/A lodged by PW-1 Kulwinder Singh complainant alleging that on 17.5.2000 at about 7 P.M. at place Panjoa the petitioner had caused simple injuries on the person of complainant. The Investigating Agency during investigation took into possession Ex.P-1 to Ex.P-3 pieces of pachher (wooden pieces). The complainant was got medically examined vide MLC Ex.PW-4/A. The site plan Ex.PW-8/B was prepared. The petitioner was charged for offence punishable under Section 324 IPC. He pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. The prosecution has examined eight witnesses and produced documentary evidence to bring home the charge. The statement of petitioner was recorded under section 313 Cr.P.C, he denied the prosecution case. The petitioner led no evidence in defence. The learned Judicial Magistrate convicted the petitioner under Section 324 IPC and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for three months. In appeal learned Addl. Sessions Judge on 14.5.2003 affirmed the conviction and sentence of petitioner; hence accused has come in revision. 3. I have heard Mr. Rahul Mahajan, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. A.K. Bansal, learned Addl. Advocate General with Mr. R.P. Singh, learned Assistant Advocate General for respondent. have also gone through the record. It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that two Courts below have misconstrued and misinterpreted the evidence on record. The inference drawn from the evidence by the Courts below is not possible. The prosecution has miserably failed to prove the case against petitioner. The two Courts below have erred in convicting and sentencing the petitioner. The learned counsel for petitioner has submitted that on the basis of material on record the petitioner deserves acquittal. The learned Addl. Advocate General has supported the impugned judgment and has submitted that the two Courts below after due appreciation of evidence on record have recorded a concurrent findings of fact which requires no interference in revision. The learned Addl. Advocate General has prayed for dismissal of the revision. 4. Ex.PW-1/A is rapat No.24 dated 17.5.2000 which was recorded at the instance of Kulwinder Singh. The learned Addl. Advocate General has prayed for dismissal of the revision. 4. Ex.PW-1/A is rapat No.24 dated 17.5.2000 which was recorded at the instance of Kulwinder Singh. In Ex.PW-1/A it has been stated that complainant on 17.5.2000 at about 7 PM was near the shop of Chaman Lal, Sukhwinder Singh alias Bobby came there and started abusing the complainant. The complainant objected to the abuses hurled by the accused, on this accused took a paccher from nearby and hit the complainant on his left ear, left hand and on the forehead. The blood started oozing out from the injuries. There were many persons on the spot such as Joginder Singh, Ashwani Kumar, Chaman Lal, Lalit and Suchha Singh. It was Suchha Singh who saved the complainant from the clutches of accused. Sukhwinder left the place and in the process hurled abuses to the complainant. The complainant went to his house and thereafter went to the police station alongwith his father Nanak Singh and Vice President Suresh Kumar . Ex.PW-1/B is the recovery memo of wooden pieces ( Pachher) . Ex.PW-4/A is the MLC of complainant indicating the injuries to be simple. Ex.PW-8/A is the FIR which was recorded on the basis of rapat No.24 dated 17.5.2000 Ex.PW1/A. 5. PW-1 Kulwinder Singh has stated that accused hit him on left ear, left hand and on the forehead and from the injuries blood started oozing out. The complainant went to his house and narrated the incident to his father. Joginder Singh, Lalit, Suchha Singh were present on the spot, Suchha Singh saved him from the clutches of the accused. Dr. Ashwani Kumar was also present on the spot. Pachher was broken into three pieces when accused hit him which are Ex.P-1 to Ex.P-3. The pieces of pachher were produced by Satish. In cross-examination he has stated that he and six others including his mother are facing trial under Section 324 IPC at the instance of parents of the accused. The blood fell on his clothes as well as on the ground; his shirt was not taken into possession by the police even though he had shown the shirt to the police. Ex.P-1 to Ex.P-3 are pieces of Fatti (wooden plank). Pachher is piece of wood which is cut by an axe. Ex.P-1 to Ex.P-3 are the pieces of Fatti which is prepared by sawing. Ex.P-1 to Ex.P-3 are pieces of Fatti (wooden plank). Pachher is piece of wood which is cut by an axe. Ex.P-1 to Ex.P-3 are the pieces of Fatti which is prepared by sawing. In his statement he has not stated that occurrence took place near the shop of Chaman. 6. PW-2 Suchha Singh has stated that on 17.5.2000 at about 7 PM he was returning from the flour mill of Satish and at that time accused was beating the complainant with pachher which was broken into three pieces Ex.P-1 to Ex.P-3 which were taken into possession vide memo Ex.PW-1/B which is signed by him and Joginder Singh. Accused hit the complainant on left ear, left hand and forehead. He intervened and rescued the complainant. Dr. Ashwani Kumar, Chaman, Lalit and Joginder were on the spot. 7. PW-3 Joginder Singh has stated that accused had given beatings to complainant with pachher which was broken into three pieces. One blow was given in hand, second on the ear and third on the forehead. Ashwani, Chaman and Lalit were on the spot. Satish kept the pieces of pachher Ex.P1 to Ex.P-3 with him. In cross-examination he has admitted that he was prosecuted for offence punishable under Section 354 IPC but volunteered that he was acquitted in that case. 8. PW-4 Dr. S.K. Verma had examined Kulwinder Singh and issued MLC Ex.PW-4/A. In cross-examination he has stated that the injuries are not possible by Ex.P-1 to Ex.P-3 in a single place. PW-5 Dr. Ashwani Kumar has stated that on 17.5.2000 at about 7 PM the petitioner was holding one pachher type danda and beating Kulwinder Singh. Suchha Singh had separated them. The danda was broken into three pieces which was taken into possession by Satish Kumar. In cross-examination he has stated that he remained in his shop and saw the beatings from the shop. The danda was not shown to him in the Court. Suchha Singh is the cousin of Kulwinder Singh. PW-6 Satish Kumar has stated that nothing happened in his presence. He did not support the prosecution and was declared hostile. He was cross-examined by the prosecutor. In cross-examination conducted by the prosecutor he denied that in his presence Sukwinder gave beatings to Kulwinder with pachher. He admitted his signature on memo Ex.PW-1/B but he has stated that he did not read the memo when he signed. 9. He did not support the prosecution and was declared hostile. He was cross-examined by the prosecutor. In cross-examination conducted by the prosecutor he denied that in his presence Sukwinder gave beatings to Kulwinder with pachher. He admitted his signature on memo Ex.PW-1/B but he has stated that he did not read the memo when he signed. 9. PW-7 HC Mehar Singh has proved rapat No.24 Ex.PW-1/A. PW-8 ASI Prem Chand is the Investigating Officer who has proved FIR Ex.PW-8/A. In cross-examination he has stated that father of accused had lodged a complaint against complainant and his family. The accused in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. has denied the prosecution case. 10. The complainant gave first version to the police in the form of rapat No.24 Ex.PW-1/A. The complainant in Ex.PW-1/A has stated that the accused had given him beatings with pachher by hitting on his left ear, left hand and forehead; blood started oozing out from the injuries. At that time Joginder Singh, Ashwani Kumar, Chaman, Lalit and Suchha Singh were on the spot. He was rescued by Suchha Singh. In his statement in the Court PW-1 Kulwinder Singh has not stated that Chaman was present on the spot. PW-1 in the Court has improved the story by stating that the pachher was broken into three pieces which are Ex.P-1 to Ex.P-3. The complainant in first version in Ex.PW-1/A has not stated that pachher was broken into three pieces. PW-4 Dr. S.K. Verma has stated that the injuries in MLC Ex.PW-4/A are not possible by Ex.P-1 to Ex.P- in a single place. PW-1 has stated that he was rescued by Suchha Singh. In other words no other person intervened to save the complainant. The prosecution case is that wooden pieces Ex.P-1 to Ex.P-3 were collected by Satish Kumar who handed over the wooden pieces to the police during investigation. PW-6 Satish Kumar has not supported the prosecution. He however, has admitted his signature on the recovery memo Ex.PW-1/B of wooden pieces Ex.P-1 to Ex.P-3 but has stated that he signed the memo without reading its contents. PW-6 Satish Kumar has not specifically stated that he handed over the wooden pieces to police during investigation. PW-6 Satish Kumar has not supported the prosecution. He however, has admitted his signature on the recovery memo Ex.PW-1/B of wooden pieces Ex.P-1 to Ex.P-3 but has stated that he signed the memo without reading its contents. PW-6 Satish Kumar has not specifically stated that he handed over the wooden pieces to police during investigation. PW-2 Suchha Singh and PW3 Joginder Singh have stated that they have signed the memo Ex.PW-1/B as witnesses but these witnesses have not stated that Ex.P-1 to Ex.P-3 were produced by PW-6 Satish Kumar during investigation. As already noticed, PW-6 has not supported the case of the prosecution; therefore, it has not been proved that wooden pieces Ex.P-1 to Ex.P-3 were taken into possession from PW-6 Satish Kumar. PW-5 Dr. Ashwani Kumar has stated that beatings were given by danda which was broken into three pieces. This witness has not stated that Ex.P-1 to Ex.P-3 are the pieces of danda with which the accused had allegedly given beatings to the complainant. 11. The close scrutiny of the prosecution evidence indicates that at least three versions have come regarding the manner with which the beatings were given to the complainant. The first version in Ex.PW-1/A is that beatings were given to complainant with pachher without any reference that the pachher was broken into three pieces. The second version is that beatings were given by the accused to the petitioner with pachher which was broken into three pieces which are Ex.P-1 to Ex.P-3. The third version is that beatings were given to complainant with danda which was broken into three pieces. Pachher is a typical type of piece of wood. PW-2 Suchha Singh has stated that pachher is a wooden piece when wooden log is cut by an axe. PW-1 Kulwinder Singh has also stated that pachher is a wooden piece which is cut by an axe. PW-1 has admitted that Ex.P-1 to Ex.P-3 are of wooden plank; he has also admitted that plank of Ex.P-1 to Ex.P-3 was prepared by sawing. There is no clear evidence whether pachher which was broken into three pieces Ex.P-1 to Ex.P-3 was cut by axe or by sawing. The cutting with axe and preparation through the process of sawing has its own significance. In case a wooden piece is cut by an axe then chances are that such piece will not be smooth. There is no clear evidence whether pachher which was broken into three pieces Ex.P-1 to Ex.P-3 was cut by axe or by sawing. The cutting with axe and preparation through the process of sawing has its own significance. In case a wooden piece is cut by an axe then chances are that such piece will not be smooth. On the contrary if the wooden piece is prepared through sawing then it will have smooth edges. The prosecution is not clear whether the wooden piece which was allegedly used by accused was pachher cut by an axe blow or it was prepared by sawing wooden plank. Thus this benefit will go to the accused. 12. It has come in evidence that blood fell on the shirt of the complainant and he had even shown that shirt to the police, blood also fell on the ground but blood was not collected from the ground nor blood stained shirt of the complainant was taken into possession. This creates suspicion in the prosecution case. 13. It has come on record that accused was not having cordial relations with the family of the complainant. PW-8 ASI Prem Chand Investigating Officer has stated that father of the accused had lodged a report against complainant and his family. The investigating Officer has further stated that complainant and his family are quarrelsome persons and many cases are against them. The independent witnesses Lalit and Chaman Lal have not been examined. PW-6 Satish Kumar has not supported the prosecution. PW-2 Suchha Singh is cousin of the complainant; therefore, he cannot be termed as independent witness. PW-3 Joginder Singh at one point of time was involved in case under Section 354 IPC, however he has stated that he was acquitted in that case. There is no other material on record in support of the version of PW-3 that he was acquitted in the case under Section 354 IPC. PW-2 Suchha Singh and PW-3 Joginder Singh have contradicted Ex.PW-1/A rapat No.24 wherein complainant has not stated that pachher was broken into three pieces whereas PW-2 and PW-3 have stated that pachher was broken into three pieces. The prosecution has failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt. There are material contradictions, improvements in prosecution case. The petitioner is entitled to benefit of doubt. The two courts below have not drawn proper inference from the evidence on record. The prosecution has failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt. There are material contradictions, improvements in prosecution case. The petitioner is entitled to benefit of doubt. The two courts below have not drawn proper inference from the evidence on record. The judgment of conviction and sentence recorded by learned trial Court and affirmed by learned lower Appellate court are not sustainable and are liable to be set aside. 14. No other point was urged. 15. The result of the above discussion, the revision is allowed, judgment dated 27.1.2001/8.2.2001 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Court No.II, Amb in Case No.54-1/2000/51II/2000 and affirmed by learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Una on 14.5.2003 in Criminal Appeal No.8 of 2001 are set aside. The petitioner-accused is acquitted of the charge under Section 324 IPC, his bail bonds are discharged.