Judgment Rajiv Sharma, Judge: 1. State has come in appeal against the judgment, dated 12.05.2004 of the learned Additional Sessions Judge-II, Kangra at Dharamshala, rendered in Sessions Case No. 13-P/2002, whereby the respondents, who were charged with and tried for offence punishable under Sections 452, 323, 326 and 307 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, have been acquitted. 2. Case of the prosecution, in a nutshell, is that on 12.03.2001, all the accused persons in furtherance of their common intention, committed house trespass by entering into the dwelling house of Amar Singh (PW-2) at village Sehol and all the accused persons voluntarily caused hurt to him by giving a blow of sickle. It is also alleged that accused Geeta Devi threw acid from bucket, Ex. P-7, on the complainant, Amar Singh. Smt. Puniya Devi made a report at Police Post, Bhawarna vide Ex. PW-9/A. Thereafter, Head Constable Jai Chand alongwith Constable Ravi Kumar went to the Hospital. Injured Amar Singh made a statement under Section 154, Cr. P.C. vide Ex. PW-2/A. In sequel thereto, FIR Ex. PW-9/B was registered against the accused. The injured Amar Singh was medically examined and the doctor issued MLC Ex. PW-1/B. On 14.03.2001, SHO visited the spot and prepared the spot map Ex. PW-12/A. A bottle Ex. P-5 was recovered and taken into possession vide seizure memo Ex. PW-4/A. One bucket Ex. P-7 and a sickle were also taken into possession by the police in the presence of Krishan Singh and Smt. Daya Devi vide seizure memo Ex. PW-4/B. On 31.03.2001, Shri Purshotam Chand handed over burnt clothes, i.e., Shirt Ex. P-2, pant Ex. P-3 and vest Ex. P-4 to the Police in the presence of Smt. Puniya Devi and Narinder Thakur and the same were taken into possession vide seizure memo Ex. PW-5/A. The clothes Ex. P-2 to Ex. P-4 and a bottle Ex. P-5 were sent to F.S.L., Junga for chemical analysis. The report of the Chemical Examiner, Ex. PA, was received. According to the report, the contents of sulphuric acid were found on the clothes and in the bottle. The challan was put up after completion of investigation. 3. The prosecution has examined a number of witnesses to prove the case. The accused were also examined under Section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code. They pleaded innocence and claimed trial. Learned trial Court acquitted the accused on 12.05.2004. The challan was put up after completion of investigation. 3. The prosecution has examined a number of witnesses to prove the case. The accused were also examined under Section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code. They pleaded innocence and claimed trial. Learned trial Court acquitted the accused on 12.05.2004. Hence, this appeal by the State. 4. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the judgment, dated 12.05.2004 and the records carefully. 5. PW-2, Amar Singh, has deposed that on 12.03.2001, at about 9:30 p.m., he was coming from Bhawarna and going to his residence. Accused Geeta and Paramjit were standing on the gate of their house. Accused Paramjit was holding a bucket in her hands. Geeta Devi instigated her daughter to pour the same on him. Thereafter, Paramjit threw the liquid on him. He felt burns and left the place. A small child asked him that what happened to him. The child ran to the next house to call the occupants, but no one came. According to him, his eyes were closed due to pouring of liquid by Paramjit. Thereafter, four persons, two male and two female came and attacked him. He received injuries and recognized the female by their voice. He heard the voice of Geeta Devi saying that Deepa now leave the place as he will not survive. His son brought him to the hospital alongwith one Puni. His statement was recorded by the police in the Police Station vide Ex. PW-2/A. He was medically examined at Palampur and Dharamshala and the M.L.C. Ex. PW-2/B was issued. 6. PW-3, Shri Romi Ram, has deposed that he has no knowledge about the case. He was declared hostile. In his cross-examination by the learned Public Prosecutor, he has denied the suggestion that on 12.03.2000 at about 9:30 p.m., he has heard the noise near the house of Geeta Devi. According to him, his statement was not recorded by the police. Police only inquired about the incident from him. He did not tell the police that accused Geeta Devi and her daughter Paramjit were standing by the side of the gate of their house and Amar Singh was passing nearby the house of the accused Geeta Devi and her daughter Paramjit threw some acid like liquid on Amar Singh. 7. Police only inquired about the incident from him. He did not tell the police that accused Geeta Devi and her daughter Paramjit were standing by the side of the gate of their house and Amar Singh was passing nearby the house of the accused Geeta Devi and her daughter Paramjit threw some acid like liquid on Amar Singh. 7. PW-4, Daya Devi has deposed that the house of Geeta Devi was searched and nothing was found from her house. She was declared hostile. She was cross-examined by the learned Public Prosecutor. According to her, she did not remember from where and how the bottle was recovered. 8. PW-5, Krishan Singh deposed that he has also joined the police investigation. Police searched the house of Geeta Devi. They remained out-side and the police officials went inside the house of Geeta Devi. According to him, the police has taken into possession sickle Ex. P-1 vide memo Ex. PW-4/B. 9. The statement of PW-6, Parshotam, son of Amar Singh was recorded in question answer form, since he was a minor. According to him, on 12.03.2001, at about 9:30 p.m., his father was coming from the side of bazaar. He came outside. He saw his father coming and Geeta Devi and Paramjit were standing on the gate of their house. Paramjit was holding a bucket in her hands and threw the contents of bucket on his father. His father came to his house shaking his clothes in order to threw away the contents to save himself. He went to the house of his neighbours to call them to help his father. Only ladies were present in their houses. Accused again came back. He saw sickle in the hands of accused Geeta Devi. 10. PW-7, Head Constable Man Singh deposed that on 08.04.2001 vide R.C. No. 55/21 the sealed parcels were sent to F.S.L., Junga through Constable Partap Singh. PW-8, Partap Singh has deposed that he deposited the sealed bottle, Ex. P-5 with seal impression ‘P’ alongwith specimen seal impressions vide R.C. No. 51/21 at F.S.L., Junga. 11. PW-9, Dharam Chand has deposed that when he was posted in Police Station, Palampur, Punia Devi made a report, which was reduced into writing vide rapat No. 7 vide Ex. PW-9/A. A rukka was received through Constable Ravi Kumar vide Ex. PW-9/B, on the basis of which, FIR Ex. PW-9/B was registered. 12. 11. PW-9, Dharam Chand has deposed that when he was posted in Police Station, Palampur, Punia Devi made a report, which was reduced into writing vide rapat No. 7 vide Ex. PW-9/A. A rukka was received through Constable Ravi Kumar vide Ex. PW-9/B, on the basis of which, FIR Ex. PW-9/B was registered. 12. PW-12, Gian Chand has deposed the on 14.03.2001, he visited the spot in the presence of son of Amar Singh, namely, Parshotam Chand. He prepared the site plan Ex. PW-12/A. He searched the house of accused Geeta Devi and in the presence two marginal witnesses, bottle Ex. P5, containing 100 ml. liquid, was taken into possession vide seizure memo Ex. PW-4/A. The bottle was sealed with seal impression ‘P’. 13. PW-13, Head Constable Jai Chand has deposed that on 13.03.2001, at about 10:45 a.m., SHO, Dharam Chand directed him to go to the hospital. He went to the hospital. He made an application to the Medical Officer, SDH, Palampur vide Ex. PW-1/A. He recorded the statement of Amar Singh vide Ex. PW-2/A. 14. PW-14, Narinder Thakur has deposed that Parshotam Chand has handed over to the police one vest, shirt and pant, which were burnt. The same were recovered vide memo Ex. PW-5/A. He signed the same. 15. According to PW-1, Dr. Vinay Mahajan, he examined Amar Singh on 13.03.2001 at about 10:45 a.m. According to him, all the injuries were kept under observation and subsequently injuries No. 1, 3, 4 and 5 were declared grievous (15% burn deep). Rest of the injuries were simple in nature. The probable duration of all the injuries was between 6 to 24 hours. According to him, if sulphuric acid is thrown/poured on a person, injuries No. 1 to 4 could be caused and the other injuries could be possible if beatings are given with kicks, fists and weapon like Ex. P-1. 16. The statement of PW-2, Amar Singh under Section 154 Cr. P.C. was recorded vide Ex. PW-2/A. According to the contents of Ex. PW-2/A, Smt. Geeta Devi has thrown the liquid on him, resulting in injuries. However, Amar Singh while appearing as PW-2, has deposed that the acid was thrown on him by Paramjit. PW-6, Parshotam has also deposed that the acid was thrown on his father by Paramjit. There are major contradictions in the contents of Ex. PW-2/A, Smt. Geeta Devi has thrown the liquid on him, resulting in injuries. However, Amar Singh while appearing as PW-2, has deposed that the acid was thrown on him by Paramjit. PW-6, Parshotam has also deposed that the acid was thrown on his father by Paramjit. There are major contradictions in the contents of Ex. PW-2/A, recorded by PW-2, Amar Singh and in the depositions of PW-2 and PW-6 before the Court. According to PW-6, Parshotam, he has seen sickle in the hands of Geeta Devi, but it is no so stated in Ex. PW-2/A. PW-2, Amar Singh has not deposed that he was given sickle blow by the accused. The incident has happened at 9:30 p.m. There was no street light or other light available during night hours. In these circumstances, in case it was dark, the accused could not have been recognized. It has come in evidence that there were many houses in the vicinity of the place where the incident has taken place. The prosecution has not examined any independent witness residing in nearby houses. The prosecution has mainly relied upon the statements of interested witnesses PW-2, Amar Singh and PW-6, Parshotam. 17. PW-3, Romi Ram and PW-4, Daya Devi have been declared hostile. According to PW-4, Daya Devi, the house of Geeta Devi was searched, but nothing was found from her house. PW-5, Krishan Singh has deposed that the police searched the house of Geeta Devi. However, they remained outside and the police officials went inside the house of Geeta Devi and brought bottle from inside. Thus, the recovery of bottle is also doubtful. 18. PW-6, Parshotam in his statement has deposed that when he came outside, he saw Paramjit holding and throwing a bucket on his father. The incident has happened, as noticed above at 9:30 p.m. and, thus, his version that he saw Paramjit holding and throwing bucket on his father, cannot be believed. 19. PW-2, Amar Singh has only deposed that when the liquid was poured on him, a small child has asked him that what happened to him. He did not state specifically that his son has come on the spot. If his son had come on the spot, he should have stated the same in his statement recorded under Section 154 of the Criminal Procedure Code. 20. He did not state specifically that his son has come on the spot. If his son had come on the spot, he should have stated the same in his statement recorded under Section 154 of the Criminal Procedure Code. 20. There are inherent contradictions in the statements made by PW-2, Amar Singh and PW-6, Parshotam, the manner in which the incident has taken place. The recoveries made by the police are doubtful. The police has not produced any independent witness, though available. 21. The law is well settled that the conviction can be recorded on the basis of statements of related witnesses, but in the present case, there are inherent contradictions in the statements of PW-2, Amar Singh and PW-6, Parshotam. Moreover, their statements have not been corroborated by the independent witnesses. 22. The learned trial Court after considering the entire evidence, has rightly acquitted the accused. We, therefore, find no merit in this appeal, which is accordingly dismissed. Bail bonds are discharged.