Judgment M.D. Shah, J.—Present appeal is filed by the accused challenging the judgment and order dated 22.07.1999 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Vadodara in Atrocity Case No. 108 of 1998 whereby the learned Sessions Judge has convicted the appellant accused for the offence punishable under Sections 342, 325, 452, 323, 384 of Indian Penal Code and also under Section 3(1)(10) of the Atrocity Act. 2. Learned Judge has awarded simple imprisonment of six months and fine of Rs. 100/- and in default Simple imprisonment for 7 days for the offence under Section 342 of IPC; simple imprisonment of six months and fine of Rs. 100/- and in default Simple imprisonment for 7 days for the offence under Section 325 of IPC; simple imprisonment of six months and fine of Rs. 200/- and in default Simple imprisonment for 7 days for the offence under Section 452 of IPC; simple imprisonment of two months and fine of Rs. 100/- and in default Simple imprisonment for 7 days for the offence under Section 323 of IPC; simple imprisonment of six months and fine of Rs. 200/- and in default Simple imprisonment for 15 days for the offence under Section 384 of IPC; simple imprisonment of six months and fine of Rs. 200/- and in default Simple imprisonment for 7 days for the offence under Section 3(1)(10) of the Atrocities Act. Learned Judge has passed the judgment to run the sentence concurrently. Hence, this appeal. 3. When the appeal is taken up for hearing, it is submitted by Mr. Y.J. Patel, learned advocate for the appellants accused that incident took place long time back and as accused and original complainant are residing in the same village, with the intervention of the elder persons, matter is settled between the parties and so he requested the Court to allow them to compound the offence qua under Section 342, 325, 323 of Indian Penal Code. It is submitted by the learned advocate for the appellant accused that said offence are compoundable. He has produced on record affidavit of original complainant, which is directed to be taken on record. In view of above, permission is granted to compound the offence punishable under Sections 342, 325, 323 of Indian Penal Code. Hence, appellant accused are acquitted for the said offence. 4. He has produced on record affidavit of original complainant, which is directed to be taken on record. In view of above, permission is granted to compound the offence punishable under Sections 342, 325, 323 of Indian Penal Code. Hence, appellant accused are acquitted for the said offence. 4. So far as charges levelled against the applicants accused under Sections 452, 384 of Indian Penal Code and also under Section 3(1)(10) of the Atrocity Act is concerned, let us discuss the evidence on record. This Court has gone through the record of the case. As per the evidence of complainant – Chandubhai - PW-7 incident took place on 26.05.1998 at the residence of wife’s sister, when complainant, his wife – Gitaben, her sister -Jayaben were taking dinner at about 9.00 p.m, at that time accused came there and started using abusive language and started beating the complainant. 5. So far as evidence of Gitaben – PW2 is concerned, she has specifically stated on oath that no such alleged incident took place. As per evidence of this witness, as per instructions of family members she stated that accused persons tied the complainant with rope and dragged him. It is also stated by this witness, that her husband – original complainant is in habit of taking liquor and after consuming liquor, he is wondering in the village. He is not doing any business. As per evidence of this witness, her husband – original complainant had borrowed money from the village people and as he did not return the money, quarrel took place between the village people and her husband. The witness is wife of original complainant and inspite of that, she is not supporting the case of the prosecution. 6. So far as evidence of Chandubhai – PW-7 is concerned, said evidence is not corroborated with the evidence of her wife – Gitaben- PW-2. It is pertinent to note that incident took place on 26.05.1998 and complaint was lodged on 30.05.1998 and no explanation has been given for the lodging the complaint so late. 7. Considering above facts and circumstances and evidence on record, this Court is of the opinion that Trial Court has committed error in only relying on evidence of Chandubhai – original complainant- PW-7 though this evidence is not corroborated with the evidence of his wife – Gitaben- PW-2. 8. 7. Considering above facts and circumstances and evidence on record, this Court is of the opinion that Trial Court has committed error in only relying on evidence of Chandubhai – original complainant- PW-7 though this evidence is not corroborated with the evidence of his wife – Gitaben- PW-2. 8. It is a matter of surprise that though Geetaben Chandubhai - PW-2 has not supported the case of prosecution, it is held by the Trial Court that evidence of Chandubhai – PW-7 is corroborated with the evidence of PW-2. 9. In view of above, appellants accused are entitled to get benefit of doubt and so the appeal is required to be allowed and accordingly the appeal is allowed. Judgment and order dated 22.07.1999 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Vadodara in Atrocity Case No. 108 of 1998 is quashed and set aside. Appellant accused are acquitted from the charges levelled against them. Bail bond shall stand cancelled. Office to send back Record and Proceedings to the Trial Court forthwith. P P P P P