JUDGMENT : Chander Bhusan Barowalia, J. The present appeal arises from the judgment of acquittal, dated 30.03.2007, passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sirmaur, District Nahan, H.P., in Criminal Case No. 68/2 of 2004/03. The State of Himachal Pradesh has maintained the present appeal for setting-aside judgment of acquittal and punishing the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 451, 341, 147, 323 and 506 read with Section 149 of Indian Penal Code. 2. Briefly stating the facts giving rise to the present appeal are that on 29.03.2003 the complainant, Shri Ved Parkash, had gone to Court at Nahan and on his return to house, PW-1 (Smt. Kala Devi, wife of the complainant) informed him that she was beaten up by accused persons, namely, Baikunth Lal, Ram Parkash and his nephew and Nishu etc. total 8 to 10 persons, some of the them were also having dandas. The accused persons had also broken the television and other articles. When the complainant was enroute for lodging the report at Police Post Kala Amb, near Kheri, the accused persons prevented him from proceeding and thrashed him. Both, complainant and his wife, were medically examined and FIR was registered at Police Station, Nahan. S.I. Lekh Ram completed the investigation and handed over the case file to Station House Officer, who prepared the challan and presented the same in the Court. The prosecution, in order to prove its case, examined twelve witnesses. Ultimately, the learned Trial Court acquitted the accused persons vide its judgment dated 30.03.2007. The State has assailed the judgment on the ground that the findings arrived at by the learned Court below are based on unrealistic standards, the reasoning is unreliable and unsustainable and the Court below has failed to take into consideration the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, which prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. 3. In order prove its case, prosecution examined twelve witnesses. 4. I have heard learned Additional Advocate General for the appellant/State and learned Defence Counsel for the respondent/accused. To appreciate the arguments of the learned Additional Advocate General and learned Defence Counsel, this Court has gone through the record in detail and minutely scrutinized the statements of the witnesses. 5. 3. In order prove its case, prosecution examined twelve witnesses. 4. I have heard learned Additional Advocate General for the appellant/State and learned Defence Counsel for the respondent/accused. To appreciate the arguments of the learned Additional Advocate General and learned Defence Counsel, this Court has gone through the record in detail and minutely scrutinized the statements of the witnesses. 5. Smt. Kala Devi, deposing as PW-1, has stated that about a year ago, her husband was away to attend Court at Nahan and at about 6:00 p.m., when she was sitting in her courtyard, accused Baikunth Lal, Ramesh, Bammu, Ved Parkash, Pawan, Nishu came there. Accused persons were associated by 6-7 persons. They forcible entered into their shops by breaking the locks and when PW-1 asked them whey they are trespassing, accused Baikunth Lal inflicted danda blow on her and other accused persons gave fist blows. Shri Babu Ram and Shri Rameshwar rescued her. Due to the beatings given to her, she received injuries on her arm and other parts of the body. Smt. Kala Devi (PW-1) narrated the incident to her husband when he returned home at about 7/8/9 p.m. On the very next morning at about 8-9 a.m., when her husband was returning from Nahan, the accused persons inflicted injuries to him. She was informed by Babu Ram about the beatings given to him, when she reached the shop in dispute, and she also saw the accused persons giving beatings to her husband. She rescued her husband from the accused persons. Her father died on the next day, so they went to Renukaji. While her husband was returning from Renukaji, accused persons again gave beatings to him and due to this he suffered multiple injuries and was taken to hospital for medical examination. Accused persons again thrashed her husband after two days, so PW-1 and her husband went to Police Post, Kala Amb, but the report was not lodged. Therefore, they came to Police Station, Nahan, and lodged the report. In her cross-examination, Smt. Kala Devi (PW-1) deposed that the quarrel between them and the accused persons continued for 5-6 days and she does not know that during this period her husband attended his office or not. 6. Therefore, they came to Police Station, Nahan, and lodged the report. In her cross-examination, Smt. Kala Devi (PW-1) deposed that the quarrel between them and the accused persons continued for 5-6 days and she does not know that during this period her husband attended his office or not. 6. Complainant, Shri Ved Parkash (PW-2), deposed that his house is near Trilokpur Temple and the day, when occurrence took place, he had gone to Nahan for attending the Court of Civil Judge (Senior Division). On 29.03.2003, at about 8 p.m., when he reached Trilokpur and was enroute, people informed him that 8-10 persons had beaten his wife. On reaching his house, he met his wife and also saw broken television and scattered articles. On inquiry, his wife told him that accused Baikunth Lal, Ramesh Kumar, Dammu, Pawan, Ved Parkash, Nishu alias Ashu etc. gave beatings to her with slap, fist and with bamboo stick. Complainant could not go to Police Post, Kala Amb, as he remained in Trilokpur. Subsequently, on the next morning, complainant moved an application to the police. However, no action was taken thereon. On 30.03.2003, when he was returning after lodging the report, near Kheri bridge, accused Dammu, Nishu, brother-in-law of son of Om Parkash, Ramesh Kumar, Ved Parkash and 8/10 other persons met him and gave beatings to him with slap and fist blows. A danda blow was inflicted on him, due to which he became unconscious and on regaining consciousness he saw the accused persons there. One Chander Bhan told the accused persons not to take law in their own hands. Intermittently, factory workers came there, rescued him and took him to Trilokpur to his residence. Due to the beatings, he sustained injuries on his ear, head and other parts of the body. On subsequent morning, when he went to Police Post, Kala Amb, police personnel told him that he is a quarrelsome person and so the case is beyond their limits. Thereafter, he moved an application before Police Station, Nahan, and Police despite assurance did not visit his house. On 31.08.2004, at 6:00 p.m., when the complainant was present in his house, accused Dammu, Baikunth Lal, Nishu, Ramesh etc. and 10-15 other persons came there and threatened him. When the complainant did not come outside, the accused persons entered the house and inflicted injuries on him. On 31.08.2004, at 6:00 p.m., when the complainant was present in his house, accused Dammu, Baikunth Lal, Nishu, Ramesh etc. and 10-15 other persons came there and threatened him. When the complainant did not come outside, the accused persons entered the house and inflicted injuries on him. The complainant was taken to hospital at about 9:00 p.m. by one Chander Bhan, who was called by his wife and children. The matter was brought to the notice of the police by the hospital officials and police took him to Police Station and registered the case. After two days, due to the death of his father-in-law, he went to Renukaji and on the next day he came to Nahan as he had to attend the Court at Ambala. On 4th, when he was returning back from Ambala, he was pulled out of his van at Naraingarh Chowk and was thrashed by the accused persons. The incident was reported to the Police vide application, Ex. PW-2/A. Complainant in his cross-examination deposed that 2-4 persons rescued his wife from the accused persons. He further deposed that his wife was not admitted in the hospital, but was locally treated. As per the complainant, the matter was pacified between the parties by the police officials, so the case was not registered. Complainant has further deposed that there were three vans. People were telling that there were 24 persons and 10/12 persons met him at Kheri Pul and he also recognize them by face, as they were residents of Bilaspur. He did not see anything in the hands of 18-19 persons, one of them picked up a stick of Khair tree, struck a blow on his head and he became unconscious. PW-1 (complainant) has denied that witness Babu Ram is his tenant. 7. PW-3, Rameshwar Dass, in his cross-examination has stated that except Baikunth Lal, he does not recognize anyone. PW-4 Babu Ram, though in his examination-in-chief has corroborated the versions of PWs 1 to 3, but in his cross-examination admitted that he was a tenant of Ved Prakash (PW-2) and admitted that there were many people on the spot. PW-5, in his cross-examination, has stated that he could not recognize accused Baikunth Lal and other accused persons. He admitted that he has friendship with the father of PW-2 (complainant) for considerable time. PW-5, in his cross-examination, has stated that he could not recognize accused Baikunth Lal and other accused persons. He admitted that he has friendship with the father of PW-2 (complainant) for considerable time. PW-7 has not supported the case of the prosecution and was declared hostile, but in cross-examination by the learned APP nothing favourable to the prosecution has come. Similarly, PW-8, Chander Bhan, has not supported the case of the prosecution, though he was declared hostile, nothing favourable to the prosecution has come when he was cross-examined by the learned APP. 8. PW-6, S.I. Purshotam Dass and PW-9, S.I. Lekh Ram, are Investigating Officers. PW-9 in his cross-examination has specifically stated that he has no knowledge that the witnesses produced by PW-2 (complainant) were his tenants. PW-12, Dr. Manisha, has specifically stated that the injuries, which were simple in nature, could have been caused by fall. 9. The occurrence took place during Trilokpur fair and many people had gathered there. Surprisingly, the prosecution has only examined interested witnesses and no independent witness has been associated. PW- 3, Rameshwar Dass and PW-4, Babu Ram, have admitted that they are tenants of PW-2, Ved Parkash (complainant), meaning thereby they are certainly influenced by their landlord, so their statements cannot be said to be trustworthy. Moreover, PW-4, Babu Ram, has deposed that spot of occurrence is approximately ½ km from his shop, thus his presence on the spot also becomes dubious. PW-5, Sunder Singh, has unequivocally deposed in his cross-examination that he does not recognize the accused persons and other persons and he has also good kinship with the complainant (PW-2). PWs Karan Singh and Devi Parshad were given up by the prosecution, as they were stated to be won over by the accused. PW-6, S.I. Purshotam Dass and PW-7, Sarwan Kumar, did not support the prosecution case. 10. As per prosecution story, Chander Bhan (PW-8) rescued the complainant (PW-2) from the accused and also took him to hospital. PW-8, Chander Bhan, in his cross-examination, has deposed that he is tenant of the complainant and has cordial relations with him. This witness further deposed that he does not know any of the accused persons. Noticeably, both complainant (PW-2) and his wife (PW-1) have nowhere stated that PW-3, Rameshwar, PW-4, Babu Ram and PW-6, Chander Bhan, are their tenants, so they have concealed this fact. This witness further deposed that he does not know any of the accused persons. Noticeably, both complainant (PW-2) and his wife (PW-1) have nowhere stated that PW-3, Rameshwar, PW-4, Babu Ram and PW-6, Chander Bhan, are their tenants, so they have concealed this fact. Statements of police officials and Doctor are also of no avail, as they have not witnessed the occurrence. 11. As per the prosecution witnesses, the injuries were caused by danda, but on comparison with the injuries, as found by the Doctor, those injuries cannot be said to have been caused by the danda blows. Further it has come in evidence that there was a property dispute inter se the parties regarding the shops and civil litigation is also pending between them. In these circumstances, it cannot be said that the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused beyond a shadow of doubt. 12. It has been held in K. Prakashan vs. P.K. Surenderan (2008) 1 SCC 258 that when two views are possible, appellate Court should not reverse the judgment of acquittal merely because the other view was possible. When judgment of trial Court was neither perverse, nor suffered from any legal infirmity or non-consideration/mis-appreciation of evidence on record, reversal thereof by High Court was not justified. 13. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in T. Subramanian vs. State of Tamil Nadu, (2006) 1 SCC 401 , has held that where two views are reasonably possible from the very same evidence, prosecution cannot be said to have proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. 14. The net result of the above discussion is that the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused persons conclusively and beyond a shadow of doubt, as reasonable suspicion has occurred in the prosecution story. 15. In view of the aforesaid decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and discussion made above, there is no merit in this appeal and the same is accordingly dismissed. All the pending applications, if any, stands disposed of accordingly.