JUDGMENT : Sanjay Karol, J. - In terms of the impugned judgment dated 16.5.2009, passed by learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Una, District Una, H.P., in Sessions Case No. 3 of 2007; Sessions Trial No. 8/07, titled as State of Himachal Pradesh v. Sarwan Dass and others, trial Court convicted accused Sarwan Dass, Kaushalya Devi, Gurdev Singh, Nirmala Devi and Chanchal Singh for having committed an offence punishable under the provisions of Section 323 IPC and sentenced them to serve imprisonment till the rising of the Court as also pay fine of Rs. 2000/- each and in default thereof to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one month. However, all the accused stand acquitted for having committed offences punishable under the provisions of Sections 148, 149, 451, 307 and 506 IPC. 2. Cr. Appeal No. 397 of 2009 stands preferred by convict Chanchal Singh under the provisions of Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, who under instructions, seeks permission to withdraw the same. Permission granted. 3. Cr. Appeal No. 297 of 2009 stands preferred by the State under the provisions of Section 378 (3) Cr.P.C. assailing the impugned judgment dated 16.5.2009 whereby accused Sarwan Dass, Kaushalya Devi, Gurdev Singh, Nirmala Devi and Chanchal Singh stand acquitted in relation to offences punishable under the provisions of Sections 148, 149, 451, 307 and 506 IPC. 4. State is not aggrieved of the findings of conviction and imposition of sentence by the trial Court in relation to offence punishable under the provisions of Section 323 IPC. 5. In brief it is the case of the prosecution that in the night of 29.4.2006, all the accused persons trespassed into the house of Ram Pal (PW-4) and thereafter by forming an unlawful assembly, armed with deadly weapons, in furtherance of their common object, by using force and violence, assaulted the complainant party as a result of which Ram Pal (PW-4), Parkasho Devi (not examined), Sushma Devi (not examined), Ashok Kumar (PW-3) and Satnam Singh (PW-5) sustained simple and grievous injuries which were dangerous to life. The matter was immediately brought to the notice of Gurcharan Singh (PW-9), pradhan of the area, who took the victims to the hospital and ensured timely medical aid and treatment. The matter came to be reported to the police and F.I.R. No. 73 of 2006, dated 29.4.2006 (Ext. The matter was immediately brought to the notice of Gurcharan Singh (PW-9), pradhan of the area, who took the victims to the hospital and ensured timely medical aid and treatment. The matter came to be reported to the police and F.I.R. No. 73 of 2006, dated 29.4.2006 (Ext. PW-2/A) came to be registered at police station Amb, Distt. Una, H.P. against the accused under the provisions of Sections 451, 147, 148, 149, 323, 506 of the Indian Penal Code. Police after obtaining opinion of Dr. Indu Bhardwaj (PW-8) and Dr. R.K. Garg (PW-12) recorded the statements of the parties. Investigation revealed complicity of the accused in the alleged crime and as such, challan was presented against them in the Court for trial. 6. Accused were charged for having committed offences punishable under the provisions of Sections 147, 148, 451, 323, 307, 506 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, to which they did not plead guilty and claimed trial. 7. In order to prove its case, in all, prosecution examined fourteen witnesses and statements of the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. were also recorded, in which they took plea of innocence and false implication. 8. At the threshold it stands clarified that this court has not gone into the question of legality, propriety or correctness of the findings with regard to the offence of the accused persons having voluntarily caused hurt to the complainant party. 9. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and also perused the record, we are of the considered view that in the instant appeal so filed by the State, no ground for interference is made out at all. We find that the judgment rendered by the trial Court is well reasoned and 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. 10. Through the testimonies of Ashok Kumar (PW-3), Ram Pal (PW-4), Satnam Singh (PW-5), Rasalo Devi (PW-6), Dr. Indu Bhardwaj (PW-8), Gurcharan Singh (PW-9) and Dr. There is neither any illegality/infirmity nor any perversity with the same, resulting into miscarriage of justice. 10. Through the testimonies of Ashok Kumar (PW-3), Ram Pal (PW-4), Satnam Singh (PW-5), Rasalo Devi (PW-6), Dr. Indu Bhardwaj (PW-8), Gurcharan Singh (PW-9) and Dr. R.K. Garg (PW-12) this court is called upon to examine the propriety and the legality of the judgment in question and the fact as to whether the trial court was right in coming to the conclusion that the prosecution failed in establishing and proving, beyond reasonable doubt, the fact that the accused, by forming an unlawful assembly, with a common object, committed an act of rioting, trespassed into the house of the complainant party, assaulted them with deadly weapons with an intent or knowledge that the blows inflicted by them, would result into death of anyone of the members of the complainant party and while do so, also criminally intimidated and threatened them. 11. It is a matter of record, as is so admitted by Ashok Kumar (PW-3), Ram Pal (PW-4), Satnam Singh (PW-5) and Rasalo Devi (PW-6) that the place of incident is inhabited and there are residences of others adjoining to the house of Ram Pal. Herein reference is made of Gulzar, Garib Dass and others. It is a matter of record that none of the neighbours stands examined in court. Also police did not associate anyone of them during the course of investigation. 12. It is a matter of record, as is so admitted by Ashok Kumar (PW-3) that one Ashok had reached the spot. Now who is this Ashok? remains unexplained. In his statement so recorded under the provisions of Section 154 Cr.P.C. (Ext. PW-3/A) we find the witness to have given reference of Ramesh Chand, the only one to have arrived at the spot. Now why was this Ramesh Chand not examined in court remains unexplained by the prosecution. He was the only independent witness who could have testified the truth and narrated correctly the events which took place on the spot, corroborating the testimonies of the complainant party who are close relatives. 13. Significantly from the testimony of Ashok Kumar it is evident that when Ram Pal (PW-4) had returned from the temple, one Gurdas Ram was also accompanying him. Now this Gurdas Ram has also not been examined in Court. 14. 13. Significantly from the testimony of Ashok Kumar it is evident that when Ram Pal (PW-4) had returned from the temple, one Gurdas Ram was also accompanying him. Now this Gurdas Ram has also not been examined in Court. 14. From the testimony of Ram Pal (PW-4) we find that even one "Sardar" was also present on the spot. The said "Sardar" was also present at the time when this witness was examined yet police did not associate this person during investigation nor was he examined in Court during trial. 15. Why we lay emphasis on non examination of these witnesses is for the fact that all the members of the complainant party who sand examined in Court namely Ashok Kumar (PW-3), Ram Pal (PW-4), Satnam Singh (PW-5) and Rasalo Devi (PW-6), apart from being close relatives, admit prior animosity and hostility between the parties. Undisputedly, as is evident from the testimony of Ashok Kumar civil litigation was pending inter se the parties wherein one of the accused had deposed against Ram Pal. Also this very witness admits accused Sarwan Dass having lodged report with the panchayat for having teased and mis-behaved with his daughter. 16. But then animosity is a double edged sword and it is a settled principle of law that testimony of the witnesses is not to be discarded solely on such ground. However, it is equally settled principle of law that testimony of such witnesses is also required to be examined with greater circumspection and if necessary corroborated by credible evidence, which in the instant case, qua the charges for which the accused sands acquitted, we find to be none. 17. A conjoint reading of the testimony of the witnesses of the complainant party renders the prosecution case qua the remaining charged offences to be extremely doubtful if not false. 18. Gurcharan Singh (PW-9) simply states that having learnt about the incident and the fact that the accused had assaulted the members of the complainant party, he took the victims to the hospital. He is not an eye witness and his testimony is in the nature of hearsay. Be that as it may, this witness does not specifically attribute any act of crime to each of the accused persons. What role was played by which one of the accused persons, either individually or jointly, he does not narrate. He is not an eye witness and his testimony is in the nature of hearsay. Be that as it may, this witness does not specifically attribute any act of crime to each of the accused persons. What role was played by which one of the accused persons, either individually or jointly, he does not narrate. It is not his case either that he was told by the members of the complainant party that the accused gave blows with dandas to Ram Pal or other members of the complainant party. Hence, this witness does not in any manner advance the case of the prosecution and this being, despite the fact that he himself is a close relative of Ram Pal. 19. It is a matter of record, as stands established through the testimony of SI Ashok Kumar (PW-10), that the victims were first examined by Dr. R.K. Garg (PW-12). Now significantly this witness on examination did not find anyone of the victims, except Ram Pal, to have suffered serious/grievous injuries, dangerous to life. It is a matter of record that this Doctor had examined several members of the complainant party and issued MLCs Ext P.W.12/A pertaining to Ram Pal; Ext. P.W.12/B pertaining to Parkasho Devi; Ext. P.W.12/C pertaining to Sushma Devi; Ext. P.W.12/D pertaining to Satnam and Ext. P.W.12/E pertaining to Ashok Kumar. Crucially witness admits that such injuries could have been sustained by way of fall or with fist/kick blows. Through the testimony of the members of the complainant party, it stands established that scuffle did take place between them and accused. What was the cause of that scuffle has not come on record. 20. Dr. Indu Bhardwaj (PW-8) has issued certificate (Ext. PW-8/A) evidencing the fact that injuries sustained by Ram Pal were grievous and dangerous to life. But then even this Doctor admits that her opinion is based on the fact that two of the ribs were fractured. But the fact of the matter, as is evident from her testimony, is that the victim was neither put on the ventilator nor admitted in the ICU. In fact he was discharged within five days and the fracture of the ribs did not lead to rupturing of any of the vital organs of the body. 21. But the fact of the matter, as is evident from her testimony, is that the victim was neither put on the ventilator nor admitted in the ICU. In fact he was discharged within five days and the fracture of the ribs did not lead to rupturing of any of the vital organs of the body. 21. Still the question which needs to be considered is as to whether such injuries came to be sustained as a result of the blows inflicted by the accused or not. Now Ashok Kumar (PW-3) states that accused Gurdev Singh caught Ram Pal with his hands and accused Chanchal Singh gave blows with danda. But then we find that there are several improvements, embellishments and exaggerations in narration of such version in Court. He also alleges that apart from the five accused persons there were other persons namely Santosh and Bindu who were also present on the spot and carrying dandas along with accused Nirmala Devi and Sarwan Dass. But then such version is not so recorded in his statement (Ext. PW-3/A) with which he was confronted. Also these persons are not arrayed as accused. 22. Now, Ram Pal (PW-4) does not specifically state that he was given blow with a danda. According to him it was Sarwan and his daughter who had given him fist and kick blows and his ribs got broken as a result of such beatings given by them. Which of the family members of the accused gave blows with a danda, he does not state. 23. Now Satnam Singh (PW-5) does state that accused who were carrying dandas inflicted blows with the same. But then he also referes to accused Sarwan Dass having hit Ram Pal on his ribs with his knees and the testimony of Rasalo Devi (PW-6) is to the effect that the blows with dandas were given to Parkasho Devi. 24. Significantly all of these witnesses have made several improvements in Court and were confronted with their previous statements so recorded by the police wherein there is no reference of any of the accused having inflicted blows with dandas. In any event, their version of blows given by danda is at variance and thus unbelievable. 25. That dandas were used as weapons of offence itself is in doubt. In any event, their version of blows given by danda is at variance and thus unbelievable. 25. That dandas were used as weapons of offence itself is in doubt. It is not the case of either of the witness that while leaving the spot, accused had taken away the dandas along with themselves. Though prosecution wants the court to believe through the testimony of HC Sanjay Sharma (PW-7) that recovery of dandas (Ext. P1 to P3) took place pursuant to disclosure statement so made by accused Sarwan Dass but however, such fact stands falsified through the testimony of HC Sanjay Sharma according to whom, it was the accused who had handed over the dandas to the police. Now no recovery came to be effected pursuant to the disclosure statement. That apart, there is nothing on record to establish that the dandas (Ext. P1 to P3) were actually used to intimidate or assault the complainant party. Injuries sustained on the body of the victims were not linked to the weapon of offence. Also there is no scientific/medical evidence on record to establish such fact. 26. Trial Court has already come to the conclusion that the testimony of the witnesses with regard to the accused having trespassed is uninspiring in confidence. There are material contradictions and major improvements. To this extent it cannot be said that their testimonies are believable or inspiring in confidence. There are inconsistencies, embellishments and improvements with regard to such of those offences in relation to which the accused stands acquitted. 27. Having perused the testimony of the prosecution witnesses on record it cannot be said that prosecution has been able to prove its case, beyond reasonable doubt, by leading clear, cogent, convincing and reliable material on record to the effect that accused by forming an unlawful assembly, with common object, committed an act of rioting, trespassed into the house of the complainant party, assaulted them with deadly weapons with an intent or knowledge that the blows inflicted by them would result into death of anyone of the members of the complainant party and while doing so also criminally intimidated and threatened them. 28. The Court below, in our considered view, has correctly and completely appreciated the evidence so placed on record by the prosecution with regard to such of those offences in relation to which the accused stands acquitted. 28. The Court below, in our considered view, has correctly and completely appreciated the evidence so placed on record by the prosecution with regard to such of those offences in relation to which the accused stands acquitted. 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. There are improvements, which are major, embellishments and contradictions, rendering the testimonies of these witnesses to be shaky and unbelievable. 29. For all the aforesaid reasons, appeal filed by the State being Cr. Appeal No. 297 of 2009, devoid of merit, is dismissed, so also pending applications, if any. Bail bonds, if any, furnished by the accused are discharged. 30. As already noticed above, appeal filed by Chanchal Singh being Cr. Appeal No. 397 of 2009 already stands withdrawn. Both the appeals stand disposed of accordingly. Records of the Court below be sent back.