JUDGMENT : SANJAY KAROL, J. 1. Assailing the judgment dated 29.10.2005, passed by Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Court No. III, Hamirpur, H.P., in Criminal Case No. 157-II-98, RBT No. 387- II-04, titled as State of Himachal Pradesh v. Amrit Lal, whereby respondent-accused stands acquitted, State has filed the present appeal under the provisions of Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. 2. In connection with F.I.R. No. 69/1998, dated 10.7.1998 (Ext. PW-9/A), registered at Police Station Bhoranj, Distt. Hamirpur, H.P., accused (respondent herein) was charged for having committed offences punishable under the provisions of Sections 509 and 324 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. In order to prove its case, in all, prosecution examined ten witnesses and statement of the accused under Section 313 Cr. P.C. was also recorded, in which he took plea of innocence and false implication. No evidence in defence was led by the accused. 4. Court below acquitted the accused for the reason that prosecution could not prove its case, beyond reasonable doubt. Hence the present appeal. 5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and also perused the record, Court is of the considered view that in the instant case no ground for interference is made out at all. Judgment rendered by the trial Court is based on complete, correct and proper appreciation of evidence (documentary and ocular) so placed on record. There is neither any illegality/infirmity nor any perversity with the same, resulting into miscarriage of justice. 6. It is a settled principle of law that acquittal leads to presumption of innocence in favour of an accused. To dislodge the same, onus heavily lies upon the prosecution. Having considered the material on record, I am of the considered view that prosecution has failed to establish essential ingredients so required to constitute the charged offences. 7. In Prandas v. The State, AIR 1954 SC 36 , Constitution Bench of the apex Court, has held as under: " (6) It must be observed at the very outset that we cannot support the view which has been expressed in several cases that the High Court has no power under Section 417, Criminal P.C., to reverse a judgment of acquittal, unless the judgment is perverse or the subordinate Court has in some way or other misdirected itself so as to produce a miscarriage of justice. In our opinion, the true position in regard to the jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 417, Criminal Procedure Code in an appeal from an order of acquittal has been stated in - 'Sheo Swarup v. Emperor', AIR 1934 PC 227 (2) at pp.229, 230 (A), in these words: "Sections 417, 418 and 423 of the Code give to the High Court full power to review at large the evidence upon which the order of acquittal was founded, and to reach the conclusion that upon that evidence the order of acquittal should be reversed. No limitation should be placed upon that power, unless it be found expressly stated in the Code. But in exercising the power conferred by the Code and before reaching its conclusions upon fact, the High Court should and will always give proper weight and consideration to such matters as (1) the views of the trial Judge as to the credibility of the witnesses, (2) the presumption of innocence in favour of the accused, a presumption certainly not weakened by the fact that he has been acquitted at his trial, (3) the right of the accused to the benefit of any doubt, and (4) the slowness of an appellate Court in disturbing a finding of fact arrived at by a Judge who had the advantage of seeing the witnesses. To state this, however, is only to say that the High Court in its conduct of the appeal should and will act in accordance with rules and principles well known and recognised in the administration of justice." 8. It be only observed that in the instant case trial Court, vide impugned judgment dated 29.10.2005, acquitted the accused finding the testimonies of the material witnesses to be contradictory and uninspiring in confidence. The incident, according to the complainant, took place on 9.7.1998 when in village Faglot accused started urinating in the presence of complainant Kamla Devi (PW-1) and thereafter assaulted her with sickle causing simple injuries on her person. 9. Dr. Anil Dhiman (PW-7) who examined the complainant Kamla Devi and issued MLC (Ext. PW-7/A) has opined the injuries, which are simple in nature, to have been caused with a sharp edged weapon. The weapon of offence has not been shown to the Doctor. 10. On complaint lodged by the complainant (Ext. PW-1/A), investigation was conducted by HC Bichitter Singh (PW-6). 11. PW-7/A) has opined the injuries, which are simple in nature, to have been caused with a sharp edged weapon. The weapon of offence has not been shown to the Doctor. 10. On complaint lodged by the complainant (Ext. PW-1/A), investigation was conducted by HC Bichitter Singh (PW-6). 11. Having minutely examined the testimony of the complainant and other independent witnesses who allegedly witnessed the occurrence of the incident, one finds the acquittal of the accused to be based on correct appreciation of the evidence and application of law. According to Kamla Devi the incident was not witnessed by any independent person. As such, she contradicts the version of her daughter Asha Kumari (PW-4) to the effect that the incident with regard to the accused urinating and thereafter assaulting with a sickle, to be extremely doubtful. Chajju Ram (PW-2), Braham Dass (PW-3) and Savitri Devi (PW-5) undisputedly reached the spot after the incident. They do not state that complainant was assaulted by the accused. 12. Undisputedly it has come on record, as has emerged from the testimonies of Kamla Devi and Asha Kumari that there has been prior animosity between the complainant and the accused. Well this may not by itself be a ground to disbelieve the prosecution but then the testimony of the complainant needs to be examined with little circumspection. Trial Court rightly acquitted the accused by giving him the benefit of doubt. Contradictions being significant and not minor goes to the root of the matter making the genesis of the prosecution story to be doubtful. 13. Having perused the testimony of prosecution witnesses on record, it cannot be said that prosecution has been able to prove its case, beyond reasonable doubt, to the effect that accused intending to insult the modesty of the complainant started urinating in her presence and also assaulted her with sickle causing simple injuries on her person, by leading clear, cogent, convincing and reliable material on record. 14. Court below, has correctly and completely appreciated the evidence so placed on record by the prosecution. It cannot be said that the judgment of trial Court is perverse, illegal, erroneous or based on incorrect and incomplete appreciation of material on record resulting into miscarriage of justice. 15. The accused has had the advantage of having been acquitted by the Court below. It cannot be said that the judgment of trial Court is perverse, illegal, erroneous or based on incorrect and incomplete appreciation of material on record resulting into miscarriage of justice. 15. The accused has had the advantage of having been acquitted by the Court below. Keeping in view the ratio of law laid down by the Apex Court in Mohammed Ankoos and others v. Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad, (2010) 1 SCC 94 , since it cannot be said that the Court below has not correctly appreciated the evidence on record or that acquittal of the accused has resulted into travesty of justice, no interference is warranted in the instant case. 16. For all the aforesaid reasons, present appeal, devoid of merit, is dismissed, so also pending applications, if any. Bail bonds, if any, furnished by the accused are discharged. Records of the Court below be immediately sent back.