Judgment ( 1. ) THIS Criminal Revision under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been preferred being aggrieved by the impugned judgment dated 19. 02. 1999 passed by Sessions Judge, Gadarwara in Criminal Appeal No. 27/98, arising out of Criminal Case No. 762/95 passed by A. C. J. M. , Gadarwara on 09. 03. 1998, whereby the applicant No. 1 has been convicted under Section 294 and 323 of I. P. C. and sentenced to fine of Rs. 400/-and 300/-respectively and applicant No. 2 has been convicted under Section 323/34 of I. P. C. and sentenced to fine of Rs. 300/ -. ( 2. ) THE prosecution case in short is that on 03. 11. 1995 at 9:00 p. m. complainant Vijay Kumar Gupta, Assistant Station Master, Gadarwara was going to take dinner at Rajneesh Hotel with his friend Raghvendra Sharma on the scooter. As soon as they reached in front of the hotel the applicants wrongfully restrained them. They caught hold of him, abused filthy languages and caused marpeet by kick and fist on account of which he sustained injuries on his right cheek. Raghvendra Sharma and the Manager of the Prabhu Niwas intervened the matter. The report was lodged on 04. 11. 1999 at 10. 15 a. m. at police station Gadarwara where Crime No. 440/95 under Section 342, 324 and 294 of I. P. C. was registered against the applicants. The spot map was prepared. The complainant was sent for medical examination. One abrasion was found on the left side of cheek. After completing the investigation the charge sheet was filed in the trial Court. ( 3. ) THE applicants were charged under Section 294 and 323/34 of I. P. C. They denied the guilt and claimed to be tried mainly contending that they have been falsely implicated. Prosecution examined as many as 6 witnesses and the accused persons did not examine any witness in defence. After appreciating the evidence the trial Court found them guilty for the offence charged. The applicants preferred criminal appeal No. 27/98 against the judgment, finding and sentence of the trial Court. The appellate Court also found them guilty and modified the sentence. Being aggrieved by the impugned judgment the instant revision has been preferred on the grounds mentioned in the memo of revision. ( 4. The applicants preferred criminal appeal No. 27/98 against the judgment, finding and sentence of the trial Court. The appellate Court also found them guilty and modified the sentence. Being aggrieved by the impugned judgment the instant revision has been preferred on the grounds mentioned in the memo of revision. ( 4. ) LEARNED counsel for the applicants submitted that the courts below have not appreciated the evidence in proper perspective. The prosecution has not given satisfactory explanation of lodging the delayed report. No independent witness has supported the prosecution case. The applicants have been implicated on account of the previous enmity, therefore, the finding of guilt is erroneous which deserves to be set aside and the applicants deserve to be acquitted. ( 5. ) ON the other hand, Shri Ramesh Shukla, learned Dy. G. A. appearing on behalf of the respondent/state has supported the impugned judgment mainly contending that prosecution has proved the case beyond reasonable doubt against the applicants. The applicants have been rightly convicted and sentenced, hence does not call for any interference. ( 6. ) THE main point for consideration in this revision is that whether the courts below have committed any illegality in convicting and sentencing the applicants under Section 294, 323 and 323/34 of I. P. C. ? ( 7. ) ACCORDING to prosecution the incident is of 03. 11. 1995 at 9:00 p. m. but the report is lodged on 04. 11. 1999 at 10:15 a. m. and the distance of the police station is hardly kilometer from the place of occurrence and it has been brought in his evidence that after incident when he returned back to his house he passed through Gadarwara police station then why did not lodge the report immediately. It shows that he deliberately after consultation lodged the report on the next day. The cause of such delay is shown as that he was in tension but this explanation is not acceptable in the facts and circumstances of the case, therefore, the contention of the learned counsel for the applicants that the prosecution has not explained properly the delay in lodging the F. I. R. is acceptable. ( 8. ) IT is evident that Raghvendra Sharma was present at the time of incident. ( 8. ) IT is evident that Raghvendra Sharma was present at the time of incident. He has been examined by prosecution as PW-1 but he has not supported the prosecution case and has clearly stated that the applicants have not used any filthy language and have not caused any marpeet to complainant Vijay Gupta. Thus the star witness of this case is not supporting the prosecution version. Other independent witnesses Pramod (PW-3) and Ashok (PW-4) have also not supported the prosecution case and have declared hostile. Thus, there is no independent witness to support the prosecution case. ( 9. ) NO doubt complainant Vijay Kumar Gupta (PW-6) has given the evidence against the applicant but there are contradictions and omissions in his statement. In F. I. R. (Ex. P-5) he has not mentioned that Indu Pandey has caught hold of his collar but he has so deposed in the evidence. In F. I. R. Ex. P-5 it is mentioned that the applicants restrained the scooter but in deposition he has stated that at that time complainant was talking with Raghvendra Sharma in front of the hotel where the applicants along with 2-4 other persons came there. He has also stated that some of the persons were having the stick in their hands but in F. I. R. Ex. P-5 this fact is missing. He has also stated that one stick blow was also given in his back but this fact is not mentioned in the F. I. R. ( 10. ) FROM perusal of his entire statement it is manifestly clear that he is exaggerating his statement, therefore, he can not be said to be a fully reliable witness since his version has not been corroborated by any other independent evidence, therefore, conviction on such discrepant evidence is not sustainable. ( 11. ) SO far as the evidence of Dr. R. K. Rawat (PW-2) is concerned, he has stated that he has found the abrasion on left cheek but he has also admitted in defence that this injury may be caused by fall. Since the ocular evidence is not reliable regarding the causing of the injury by the applicants, therefore, they can not be held guilty on the basis of this evidence. ( 12. Since the ocular evidence is not reliable regarding the causing of the injury by the applicants, therefore, they can not be held guilty on the basis of this evidence. ( 12. ) THE applicants have taken the defence that they have been falsely implicated on account of the prior enmity but no evidence has been adduced in this behalf. It is the established principle of criminal jurisprudence that that the prosecution must prove the case beyond reasonable doubt then its benefit would go to the accused. In this case also the applicants deserves to be given the benefit of doubt. ( 13. ) FOR the foregoing reasons, it can be said that the courts below have not appreciated the evidence in proper perspective and have committed illegality in finding them guilty for the charges levelled against them, therefore, the such finding deserves to be set aside and the applicants deserves to be acquitted. ( 14. ) CONSEQUENTLY, this revision succeeds and is allowed. The conviction and sentence passed by the courts below is hereby set aside. The applicant No. 1 is acquitted from the charge under Section 294 and 323 of I. P. C. and applicant No. 2 from 323/34 of I. P. C. the fine amount if deposited be refunded to them. The applicants are on bail. Their bail bonds are discharged.