JUDGMENT Kuldip Singh, Judge This appeal is directed against judgment dated 31.03.2003 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Solan, in Sessions Trial No.4-S/7 of 2002 acquitting the respondents. 2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 16.05.2001 at about 10.45 p.m., PW-4 Dilwar made a statement to PW-10 S.I.Brij Mohan Sharma that on 16.05.2001 at about 9.30 p.m., the complainant and PW-5 Ashish were riding scooter near Kasauli Chowk, they spotted three persons riding motorcycle. They pushed their scooter which fell down. The motorcycle riders gave beatings to PW-5 and complainant with iron rods, the complainant could only identify Ajay and Roop Lal. The accused dragged the victims, Ashish was thrown down the ‘Danga’ and thereafter accused fled away. Ashish was taken to ESI hospital, Parwanoo. 3. On completion of investigation, challan was filed in the Court, accused were committed and charge was framed for offences punishable under Sections 307, 120-B, 201, 506 and 34 IPC. The accused pleaded not guilty, they claimed trial. The prosecution examined 12 witnesses and produced some documents. The statements of accused were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. The accused denied the prosecution case. They pleaded their innocence. In defence accused examined DW-1 Mohan Lal. The learned Additional Sessions Judge acquitted the respondents, hence appeal by the State. The respondent No.4 vide order dated 03.01.2013 has been declared proclaimed offender. The present appeal is being disposed of against respondents 1 to 3 and 5 only. 4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and we have also gone through the record. On behalf of the State, it has been submitted that the learned Additional Sessions Judge has misconstrued and misinterpreted the evidence and has erred in acquitting the respondents. On the contrary, on behalf of respondents 1 to 3 and 5, it has been submitted that the Court below has rightly appreciated the evidence. The prosecution has miserably failed to prove the case. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents have supported the impugned judgment. 5. In order to appreciate the submissions made on either side, it is necessary to refer to evidence which has come on record. PW-4 Dilwar has stated that he had been working as Carpenter at Parwanoo. On 16.05.2001 at 9.30 p.m., he and Ashish were going to Taksal on scooter for installation of a fan. 5. In order to appreciate the submissions made on either side, it is necessary to refer to evidence which has come on record. PW-4 Dilwar has stated that he had been working as Carpenter at Parwanoo. On 16.05.2001 at 9.30 p.m., he and Ashish were going to Taksal on scooter for installation of a fan. At Kasauli Chowk near PNB, Parwanoo, three bike riders came in front of their scooter and motorcycle rider kicked their scooter as a result of which scooter fell down. Ashish asked motorcycle rider as to why he has kicked his scooter. On this, motorcycle rider attacked Ashish and started giving him beatings, the witness pointed out towards accused Roop Lal, who was present in the Court. He continued that the other two pillion riders also started giving beatings to Ashish with ‘dandas’ and rods. He could not identify them as it was dark, they pushed Ashish towards PNB from the retaining wall, who fell down nine feet below from the road. The accused then fled away. 6. PW-4 has proved his statement Ex.PW4/A, rod Ex.P-3, recovery memo Ex.PW4/B of motorcycle and recovery memo Ex.PW4/C of rod. PW-4 was declared hostile and was cross- examined by the prosecutor. He proved recovery memo Ex.PW4/D. He denied that Jaswant Rana, Sudesh Negi and Naresh Kumar were the assailants. He has also proved broken wrist watch Ex.P-4. In the cross-examination conducted on behalf of the accused, PW-4 has stated that he did not identify other accused except Roop Lal. There is ‘abadi’ at the Chowk where the incident took place. 7. PW-5 Ashish has stated that on 16.05.2001 he and Dilwar were going to Taksal on his scooter. At the backside of PNB, a motorcycle which was being driven by Jaswant Rana came. He asked Jaswant to hear him. On this, three motorcycle riders came out and started giving beatings to him and one rider gave iron rod blow on his forehead. He could not identify assailants due to darkness. There were three assailants on the motorcycle namely Jaswant Rana and two others who were not known to him, but again stated that those were Sudesh Negi and Naresh Kumar. He sustained injuries. He proved his signatures on MLC Ex.PW3/A. He has proved vest Ex.P-1, shirt Ex.P-2. He could not identify assailants due to darkness. There were three assailants on the motorcycle namely Jaswant Rana and two others who were not known to him, but again stated that those were Sudesh Negi and Naresh Kumar. He sustained injuries. He proved his signatures on MLC Ex.PW3/A. He has proved vest Ex.P-1, shirt Ex.P-2. In the cross-examination, PW-5 has stated that he did not disclose to the police that Jaswant Rana was riding the motorcycle at the time of occurrence. He did not disclose the names of three rider assailants to the police. Dilwar disclosed the names of the assailants to him namely Jaswant, Roop Lal and Rohit. Dilwar disclosed the name of Naresh to him. 8. PW-3 Dr. Sidharath Vats, Medical Officer, ESI hospital, Parwanoo, has proved MLC Ex.PW3/A of Ashish, case summary Ex.PW3/C and opinion Ex.PW3/D and another opinion Ex.PW3/F. He also stated that the injuries could be caused due to fall on hard surface. PW-12 Dr. Harpreet Singh, Senior Resident, Department of Neuro Surgery, PGI, Chandigarh, has stated that he examined Ashish Anand and found that the injuries sustained by him were simple in nature. He has stated that MLC Ex.PW3/C was issued by him and bears his signatures. The injuries referred in Ex.PW3/C could be caused with rod Ex.P-3 or with any other blunt weapon like ‘danda’ or by throwing from a height. 9. PW-1 Pradeep Kumar is brother of Ashish. He is not an eye witness to the incident. PW-2 Mangat Ram is father of Ashish, he is also not an eye witness. PW-6 Surender Singh has stated that Akash was an employee in STD booth in the year 2001 and he used to telephone his niece Ranjna from STD booth. PW-7 Hardeep Singh has stated that he is the owner of Bajaj motorcycle. He did not give this motorcycle to anyone for riding. PW-8 HC Jeet Ram deposited sealed packet with FSL, Junga, on 22.06.2001. PW-9 HC Daulat Ram registered FIR Ex.PW9/A on the basis of Ex.PW4/A. PW-10 Sub-Inspector Brij Mohan Sharma has stated that on 17.05.2001 investigation of the case was handed over to him. He prepared rough sketch plan Ex.PW10/A. Accused Akash disclosed the names of the accused persons. It came in his investigation that Akash demanded money from Dilwar which Dilwar refused to pay. The name of Rohit was given by victim whose participation was not found. He prepared rough sketch plan Ex.PW10/A. Accused Akash disclosed the names of the accused persons. It came in his investigation that Akash demanded money from Dilwar which Dilwar refused to pay. The name of Rohit was given by victim whose participation was not found. No identification parade was got conducted. PW-11 HC Het Ram has stated that he recorded statement Ex.PW4/A of Dilwar under Section 154 Cr.P.C. 10. The respondents 1 to 3 and 5 in their statements under Section 313 Cr.P.C. denied the prosecution case. DW-1 Mohan Lal, who made statement on 24.02.2003 in the trial Court has stated that about two years ago in February/March, he, Dilwar and Roop Lal were sitting in the STD booth of Akash. Dilwar and Roop Lal had a quarrel. Dilwar threatened Roop Lal to teach him a lesson and would also implicate him in some false case. 11. Ex.PW4/A is the statement of PW-4 Dilwar under Section 154 Cr.P.C. Ex.PW9/A is the FIR. Ex.PW1/A is the recovery memo of watch, soil with blood, Ex.PW2/A is the recovery memo of shirt Ex.P-1 and vest Ex.P-2. Ex.PW3/D is the opinion of the doctor. Ex.PW3/C is the medical case summary. Ex.PW3/F is another opinion of the doctor. Ex.PW4/C is the disclosure statement of Jaswant Singh. Ex. PW4/D is the recovery memo of iron rod. Ex. PW10/E is the site plan showing point ‘A’ where PW-5 and PW-4 were given beatings. Ex. PX is the Forensic Science Laboratory report. 12. The prosecution case, in brief, is that PW-4 Dilwar and PW-5 Ashish were given beatings by respondents 1 to 3 and 5 as well as Sudesh Negi respondent No.4, who has been declared proclaimed offender. The first version of the incident has been given by PW-4 in his statement Ex.PW4/A. In Ex.PW4/A, it has been stated that on 16.05.2001 at about 9.30 p.m., PW-4 and Ashish were riding scooter, near Kasauli Chowk, three boys riding motorcycle came in front of the scooter and stopped in front of the scooter, pushed the scooter which fell down. The three boys attacked Ashish with iron bars and rods. They also overpowered PW-4. Some boys were already standing there who also helped the assailants. PW-4 could identify Ajay and Roop Singh, but not others. The accused dragged both victims, they gave beatings to Ashish and threw him below 10 feet. The accused thereafter fled away. The three boys attacked Ashish with iron bars and rods. They also overpowered PW-4. Some boys were already standing there who also helped the assailants. PW-4 could identify Ajay and Roop Singh, but not others. The accused dragged both victims, they gave beatings to Ashish and threw him below 10 feet. The accused thereafter fled away. PW-5 Ashish was examined by PW-3 Dr. Sidharath Vats, who issued MLC Ex.PW3/A. PW-5 was also examined by PW-12 Dr. Harpreet Singh, who issued MLC Ex.PW3/C. There is no denial that PW-5 has sustained some injuries on his person, but the question is whether such injuries are attributable to the beatings given to him by respondents 1 to 3 and 5. The recoveries of iron rod, watch themselves are not enough to record a finding that respondents 1 to 3 and 5 committed the offence as alleged by the prosecution. 13. PW-4 in his statement Ex.PW4/A has named Ajay and Roop Singh only and he has also stated that he could not identify others. He has also stated that they were dragged. It emerges from the statement of PW-4 that Roop Lal was driving the motorcycle. PW-4 in the Court identified only Roop Lal and not the others. He denied that Jaswant Rana, Sudesh Negi and Naresh Kumar were the assailants. In the Court, PW-4 has not stated that assailants dragged him. 14. It emerges from the statement of PW-5 that Jaswant Rana was driving the motorcycle, therefore, on this point PW-5 has contradicted PW-4. According to PW-4, motorcycle was being driven by Roop Lal. PW-5 has stated that he could not identify assailants due to darkness. In Ex.PW4/A, it has been stated that some boys were already standing at the place of incident who also joined the assailants in giving beatings to the victims, whereas it is not so stated in the Court either by PW-4 or PW-5. PW-4 has stated that there is ‘abadi’ at the Chowk where the incident took place. In site plan Ex.PW10/E, the occurrence took place at point ‘A’ which is near to sentry post at Kasauli Chowk. There is no explanation why any independent person was not joined during the investigation and examined in the Court from the ‘abadi’ near to the place of occurrence. In site plan Ex.PW10/E, the occurrence took place at point ‘A’ which is near to sentry post at Kasauli Chowk. There is no explanation why any independent person was not joined during the investigation and examined in the Court from the ‘abadi’ near to the place of occurrence. There is no explanation why sentry supposed to be on duty at the time of incident was not joined in the investigation and examined in the Court. 15. PW-10 Sub-Inspector Brij Mohan Sharma, Investigating Officer, has stated that identification parade was not got conducted. PW-4 and PW-5 both contradicted each other on material particulars. Both of them could not identify all assailants due to darkness. PW-4 has stated that Roop Lal was driving the motorcycle, whereas, PW-5 has stated that Jaswant Rana was driving the motorcycle. PW-4 in his statement under Section 154 Cr.P.C. has stated that he was dragged, but it is not clear whether any medical examination of PW-4 was got conducted. Mere some injuries on the person of PW-5 and recovery of iron rod at the instance of Jaswant Rana is not enough when there is no evidence who gave beatings to PW-4 and PW-5. The respondents 1 to 3 and 5 have denied their involvement. 16. The learned Additional Sessions Judge has taken a possible view from the evidence which cannot be said to be wrong. The scope of interference in an appeal against acquittal is well-known. The prosecution has failed to prove the case against respondents 1 to 3 and 5 beyond reasonable doubt. The trial Court has rightly given benefit of doubt to respondents 1 to 3 and 5. The appeal against respondents 1 to 3 and 5 is dismissed. The bail bonds of respondents No.1 to 3 and 5 are discharged. The record of the case be not destroyed. The appeal against respondent No.4 is adjourned sine die and shall revive on his arrest at the request of the prosecution.