JUDGMENT : Vivek Singh Thakur, J. 1. Present appeal has been filed by the State of Himachal Pradesh against acquittal of respondent vide judgment dated 20.12.2012 passed in Sessions Trial No. 4-5/7 of 2012 by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Shimla, in Case FIR No. 67/11 dated 5.4.2011 under Sections 326, 307 of Indian Penal Code registered at Police Station, Dhalli, Shimla. 2. The prosecution case is that on 5.4.2011 at about 7.35 A.M., PW-11 HC Dillu Ram had rushed to CHC, Sunni on receiving telephonic information from Medical Officer, CHC Sunni about bringing PW-1 Gopal Krishan for treatment after fight. The said information was recorded in daily diary as rapat No. 21 dated 5.4.2011, Police Post, Sunni. PW-11 moved an application for medical examination of PW-1 Gopal Krishan and recorded statement Ex.PW-3/A of PW-3 Bala Nand under Section 154 Cr.P.C. and sent the same with endorsement to Police Station, Dhalli. On the basis of statement of PW-3 Bala Nand FIR Ex.PW-10/D was registered under Sections 323, 506(2) IPC. PW-1 was referred to IGMC, Shimla. After considering treatment summary of PW-1 in IGMC, Shimla, PW-13 Dr. Tarun Shashtri opined that there was pneumoencephalton with fracture of left parietal bone with soft tissue over left parieto occipital region and said injury was grievous in nature and dangerous to life. On the basis of opinion of doctor challan under Sections 326 and 307 IPC was presented in the Court. 3. The prosecution case mainly hinges upon testimonies of PW-1 Gopal Krishan injured, PW-2 Sarita Sharma wife of injured, PW-3 Bala Nand a colleague of injured and PW-4 Mohinder Lal a friend of injured. 4. As per FIR Ex.PW-10/D, on 5.4.2011 at about 6.30/7.00 a.m., PW-1 had visited house of PW-3 and had stated that respondent Leela Ram was constructing a wall in land belonging to PW-1 and therefore, PW-1 had called respectable persons of village and as such he had asked PW-3 also to come to his house upon which PW-3 went to house of PW-1 and the place where wall was being constructed. Leela Ram was present there. Leela Ram and his wife had started arguments with PW-1. On hearing noise, mother and wife of PW-1 had also reached on spot. Leela Ram was present there. Leela Ram and his wife had started arguments with PW-1. On hearing noise, mother and wife of PW-1 had also reached on spot. PW-1 was advising respondent that quarreling was not in the interest of persons living at one and same place and for deciding the dispute elders of village had been called with request to wait for them. PW-3 had also stated to respondent Leela Ram same thing but during the course of arguments respondent Leela Ram had brought sharp edged iron spade and had given a blow on back side of the head of PW-1 and had left the spot but extending threats to kill PW-1. The blood was oozing out from the head injury suffered by PW-1, therefore, he was taken to CHC, Sunni from where he was referred to IGMC, Shimla. Statement of PW-3 Bala Nand under Section 154 Cr.P.C. was recorded and on application moved by HC Dillu Ram Investigating Officer PW-11, Doctor had opined that patient was not fit to make statement. 5. In examination-in-chief PW-1 Gopal Krishan and PW-2 Sarita Sharma have corroborated version of PW-3 Bala Nand. However, there are material contradictions and discrepancies in testimonies of witnesses PW-1 Gopal Krishan, PW-2 Sarita Sharma, PW-3 Bala Nand and PW-4 Mohinder Lal rendering their versions doubtful. 6. Respondent Leela Ram had also examined DW-1 Smt. Sheela Devi his wife as a defence witness who had stated that on 5.4.2011 at about 5 A.M. PW-1 Gopal Krishan had come on the spot and had started demolishing the wall and she had asked PW-1 Gopal Krishan not to demolish the wall and she had advised that in case of any objection, the same be brought to the knowledge of respectable persons of the village. In response to the same, PW-1 had started abusing her and had called her and her family as thieves. PW-1 had caught hold her neck and had also slapped her, her shirt was also torn from the front side and PW-1 had severely beaten her with his hand, as a result of which blood had started oozing out from her nose and her bangles were also broken. She was trying to rescue herself from the clutches of PW-1. During this course, she had pushed PW-1 back to save herself, upon which PW-1 had lost his balance and had fallen on a stone. She was trying to rescue herself from the clutches of PW-1. During this course, she had pushed PW-1 back to save herself, upon which PW-1 had lost his balance and had fallen on a stone. On raising hue and cry, her husband, family members, labourers and masons had also come out. 7. She had further stated that police officials did not register their complaint for one and half hours. Shyam Lal and Mohinder Lal friend of PW-1 Gopal Krishan had reached in Police Post, Sunni and had beaten her husband with fists and kicks blow in presence of police officials. Her husband was rescued by police officials. She had stated that Shyam Lal and Mohinder Lal had beaten her husband in the month of January in presence of police officials. The police officials thereafter forced to enter into compromise with Shyam Lal and Mohinder Lal. After recording rapat Ex.DX in Police Post, Sunni, she and her husband were taken for medical examination to CHC, Sunni vide rapat Ex.DZ and on medical examination, simple injuries were found on their bodies and a rapat No. 8 was recorded in this regard in Roznamcha in Police Post, Sunni. She and respondent (her husband) remained under medical treatment in CHC, Sunni. OPD slips of their treatment were Ex.DZ-1 to Ex.DZ-3. She had stated that due to projection of lintel of PW-1 Gopal Krishan towards their courtyard, raining water had destroyed mud wall and therefore they had started constructing a pucca wall on the same place, where old wall was existing, so as to save their courtyard and also fodder being kept for cattle. She had stated that PW-3 Bala Nand was not Pradhan of village but friend of PW-1 Gopal Krishan who frequently used to take drinks with PW-1. Though in general PW-1 Gopal Krishan, PW-2 Smt. Sarita Sharma and PW-3 Bala Nand had corroborated statements of each other but on scrutiny serious contradictions and discrepancies affecting the genies of the prosecution story are noticeable. 8. PW-1 Gopal Krishan had stated that he was working as OT Assistant in IGMC, Shimla and on 4.4.2011 after performing his duty he went to his village after receiving information from his family that Leela Ram respondent had raised boundary wall. 8. PW-1 Gopal Krishan had stated that he was working as OT Assistant in IGMC, Shimla and on 4.4.2011 after performing his duty he went to his village after receiving information from his family that Leela Ram respondent had raised boundary wall. Whereas PW-2 Smt. Sarita Sharma wife of PW-1 had stated that it was incorrect that she had called her husband from Shimla about starting construction work by respondent, rather she had stated that PW-1 had noticed construction work himself on reaching in the village. 9. As per PW-2, on 4.4.2011 PW-1 had reached village at 2 P.M. whereas PW-1 had stated that on 4.4.2011 after performing his duty at Shimla he went to his residence at 2 p.m. and boarded bus at about 2.30 p.m. to go his village. 10. In his statement under Section 154 Cr.P.C., PW-3 Bala Nand had categorically stated that during the course of arguments respondent had picked up spade and had given a single blow to PW-1 and thereafter respondent had left the place by extending threatening to kill PW-1. However, in cross-examination, he had admitted that PW-1 Gopal Krishan and Smt. Sheela wife of respondent were in the courtyard of respondent Leela Ram where scuffle was going on. Admission of scuffle is in contradiction to the story of prosecution according to which respondent Leela Ram had suddenly picked up spade and had given a blow to PW-1. 11. The story put forward by prosecution witnesses is also falsified from the fact that respondent Leela Ram and his wife Smt. Sheela had also received injuries on their bodies. Injuries to respondent Leela Ram and his wife Smt. Sheela were only possible, in case of scuffle. Prosecution has not explained injuries on bodies of respondent and his wife. 12. As per MLC Ex.PW-13/A of PW-1 Gopal Krishan, there was only one injury on the body of PW-1 which fortifies the defence story propounded by respondent that scuffle had taken place in the courtyard of respondent Leela Ram and during that scuffle PW-1 had fallen on stone, resulting into injuries on back side of his head. To give a blow from back side during the course of arguments is also not possible as in normal circumstances arguing persons are always facing each other. 13. To give a blow from back side during the course of arguments is also not possible as in normal circumstances arguing persons are always facing each other. 13. Prosecution had produced blood stained stones picked up from spot in support of its case but PW-2 had admitted that pieces of stones containing blood were broken from a single big stone and then taken in possession by the police rendering investigation under suspicion. 14. PW-1 Gopal Krishan stated that he had fallen unconscious on the ground and had regained consciousness in the evening. PW-2 Smt. Sarita Sharma stated that PW-1 had become unconscious but in her cross-examination she admitted that her husband had walked upto the ambulance. It had also come in evidence that road from the houses of parties i.e. place of occurrence was at a distance of ten minutes walk. PW-3 stated that PW-1 had become unconscious after boarding the ambulance. He also stated that member of Panchayat Smt. Seema Devi called ambulance and ambulance had reached at the spot within half an hour. Different versions of these three witnesses render their testimonies under suspicion. The version of these witnesses is also falsified by observation of PW-13 Dr. Tarun Shashtri in MLC Ex.PW-13/A, in which he had clearly mentioned “patient was alert well oriented to time, place and person.” 15. It has also come in testimonies of prosecution witnesses that house of Smt. Seema Devi ward member was at a distance of 300 meters and house of one Hem Raj was at about 50-60 meters. It is the case of prosecution that PW-1 Gopal Krishan had called respectable persons on the spot. Being so, such conduct of PW-1 Gopal Krishan and PW-3 Bala Nand was unwarranted and unnatural. There was no occasion for PW-1 alongwith PW-3 to go on spot at 6.30 a.m. and indulge in arguments with respondent prior to arrival of respectable persons particularly, when ward member was residing at a distance of 300 meters. The plea of respondent that PW-1 had started dismantling wall raised by respondent appears to be more nearer to truth. 16. PW-3 Bala Nand was close to family of PW-1 Gopal Krishan. The plea of respondent that PW-1 had started dismantling wall raised by respondent appears to be more nearer to truth. 16. PW-3 Bala Nand was close to family of PW-1 Gopal Krishan. PW-2 Smt. Sarita Sharma had admitted that PW-3 Bala Nand had visited their house on 4.4.2011 in the evening and was sitting with her husband PW-1 Gopal Krishan whereas PW-3 Bala Nand had stated that he did not visit the spot on 4.4.2011 but had visited the spot one month prior to the incident. The spot is in between houses of PW-1 Gopal Krishan and respondent Leela Ram and the wall in question was at a distance of 2-3 meters from the house of PW-1. Therefore, it is unbelievable that PW-3 Bala Nand had visited house of PW-1 Gopal Krishan and was sitting with PW-1 but had not seen the spot, particularly, when PW-1 was called by his wife due to construction being raised by respondent. 17. PW-4 Mohinder Lal has also been examined as a witness to production of spade by respondent to the police and also seizure of articles including blood stained stones. Credibility of this witness is also doubtful as this witness was inimical to the respondent Leela Ram and was close friend of PW-1 Gopal Krishan. He had admitted in cross-examination that he had not signed any compromise in Police Station, Dhalli on the complaint of Sheela Devi wife of respondent, however, in latter part of his cross-examination he had admitted that Shyam Lal was present with him in Police Station, Dhalli where they had given undertaking before police that they would not quarrel with family of respondent in future and also admitted his signatures on mark ‘Y’ within red circle Ex.DA. Therefore, this witness cannot be relied upon against respondent. Moreover, recovery of spade from respondent is also not reliable proof of guilt of respondent for want of trustworthy and convincing evidence of incident. 18. There are material contradictions and discrepancies in the statements of material witnesses of prosecution, which goes to the root of the case rendering prosecution story doubtful. 19. PW-3 Bala Nand in his statement Ex.PW-3/A had stated that he and other villagers had brought PW-1 Gopal Krishan to the hospital from the spot. 18. There are material contradictions and discrepancies in the statements of material witnesses of prosecution, which goes to the root of the case rendering prosecution story doubtful. 19. PW-3 Bala Nand in his statement Ex.PW-3/A had stated that he and other villagers had brought PW-1 Gopal Krishan to the hospital from the spot. He had also stated that Ambulance was called by ward member Smt. Seema Devi, meaning thereby other villagers including ward member had also arrived on the spot, but none of those had been examined by prosecution. Only interested witnesses had been examined and independent witness had been deliberately ignored which cast doubt on fair investigation. 20. It is evident from the aforesaid discussion that prosecution evidence cannot be treated as cogent, reliable, credible and sufficient to prove the guilt of the accused-respondent beyond reasonable doubt. 21. 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. The accused has been acquitted by the trial Court. 22. From perusal and scrutiny of evidence, it cannot be said that the trial court has not appreciated the evidence correctly and completely and acquittal of the accused has resulted into travesty of justice or has caused miscarriage of justice. 23. After considering arguments of respective counsel for the parties and minutely examining the testimonies of the witnesses and other documentary evidence placed on record, we are of the considered view that no case for interference is made out. Consequently, present appeal, devoid of any merit, is dismissed, as also pending applications, if any. Bail bonds, if any, furnished by the accused are discharged. Records of the Court below be sent back immediately.