Judgment R & P is already called. 2. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent. 3. The applicant was tried in Regular Criminal Case No.194 of 2006 in the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Arvi, for offences punishable under Sections 186, 294, 332, 352 and 506 of Indian Penal Code, on the basis of Crime No.24/2005. 4. Ultimately, the charge was framed for the offences punishable under these Sections. 5. The trial ended in conviction for offence under Section 332 of Indian Penal Code. The applicant was awarded sentence for imprisonment for three months and a fine of Rs.500/-and in default of payment of fine, to undergo imprisonment for two months. 6. In the appeal carried by the applicant before Sessions Court, the conviction has been maintained, however, sentence has been altered to payment of fine of Rs.1000/-in place of imprisonment, and seven days imprisonment in default of payment of fine. 7. The order of Sessions Court is under challenge in this Revision Application. 8. The point, which is stressed, can be summarized as follows:- "Seeing the evidence from any angle and without any re-appreciation and second view of the matter, the bare perusal thereof also does not lead to a conclusion that the guilt for which accused was charged, has been proved." 9. Perused the evidence. 10. The evidence of PW 1 Pundalik and PW 4 Ganesh is of no worth, being hostile and nothing useful could be elicited from their cross-examination. 11. PW 3 Sulbha Raut too was declared hostile. In the cross-examination by Public Prosecutor, PW 3 Sulbha did not support the prosecution, and told that the portions contained in the statement recorded by police marked as A and B were not her statements and she cannot explain as to why the police have recorded those. 12. PW 2 Gautam, i.e., the complainant, is the only witness who has supported the prosecution. He has reiterated his story and he claims that the accused hit him by giving a slap on his face, due to which blood oozed, people intervened etc. 13. The evidence of PW 2 Gautam does not, in any manner, prove as to how his official business was interfered. The simple injury can be said to have been proved by this witness. The medical evidence as regards Simple Injurya bleeding injury is not coming forward. 14. 13. The evidence of PW 2 Gautam does not, in any manner, prove as to how his official business was interfered. The simple injury can be said to have been proved by this witness. The medical evidence as regards Simple Injurya bleeding injury is not coming forward. 14. If entire worth of evidence is considered, the case turns out to be one based on sole testimony of PW 2 Gautam. Moreover, witness says that quarrel had taken place. The quarrel is an activity of duet, and not a mono act. Witness has said that quarrel occurred and not that the accused had unilaterally did some acts. Moreover, which acts constituted obstruction to a Public Servant in performance of official duty, has not been deposed by the witness. 15. Considering the possibility of intimidation, the accused would be entitled to benefit of doubt. It being a case of sole testimony of PW 2 Gautam, the complainant, unsupported by witnesses examined by the prosecution, it emerges to be a case of not proved category. 16. In the result, the Judgment and order of conviction does not stand to the test of proof of guilt beyond a shadow of reasonable doubt. 17. In these premises, Revision succeeds. Judgment and Order of conviction and sentence is set aside. Fine amount be refunded.