JUDGMENT : P. S. Rana, J. Present criminal appeal is filed against the judgment of acquittal dated 30.11.2005 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class Court No.3 Hamirpur (H.P.) in Criminal Case No.114-II-02/RBT No.239-11-04 tilted State of H.P. vs. Kanta Devi. Brief facts of the case: 2. It is alleged by the prosecution that on dated 02.09.2002 at about 4.00 P.M. at place Thana Darogan Police Station Hamirpur (H.P.) accused beaten the complainant Narainu Devi and her daughter-in-law and caused grievous hurt to the complainant. It is alleged by the prosecution that FIR Ext.PW-7/B was registered and medical examination of injured Smt. Narainu Devi was conducted by Dr. Ashok Kaushal and MLC Ext.PW-6/A was issued. It is further alleged by the prosecution that site plan Ext.PW-5/A was prepared and statements of prosecution witnesses recorded. Learned Trial Court framed charge against the accused persons on dated 04.03.2003. Accused did not plead guilty and claimed trial. Prosecution examined seven oral witnesses and also tendered documentary evidence. Learned Trial Court on dated 30.11.2005 acquitted the accused qua criminal offence punishable under Section 325 IPC. 3. Feeling aggrieved against the judgment passed by learned Trial Court State of H.P. filed present appeal. 4. Court heard learned Additional Advocate General appearing on behalf of appellant and learned Advocate appearing on behalf of non-appellant. Court has also perused the entire record carefully. 5. Following points arise for determination in the present appeal: 1) Whether appeal filed by the State of H.P. is liable to be accepted as mentioned in memorandum of grounds of appeal? 2) Final order. Findings upon Point No.1 with reasons. 6. PW-1 Smt. Narainu Devi has stated that she does not remember the date as she is illiterate lady. She has stated that at about 4.00 P.M. Sonu came to call her and told that her mother-in-law called the injured alongwith her daughter-in-law. She has stated that thereafter she went and sat in the house of Brahmi Devi. She has stated that Brahmi Devi was also sitting there. She has stated that accused Kanta Devi beaten her and also beaten her daughter-in-law namely Rajni and thereafter she fell unconscious. She has stated that accused also sat on the breast of her daughter-in-law. She has stated that she sustained injuries on her right eye. In cross-examination she has stated that accused has not beaten her. She has stated that accused Kanta Devi beaten her and also beaten her daughter-in-law namely Rajni and thereafter she fell unconscious. She has stated that accused also sat on the breast of her daughter-in-law. She has stated that she sustained injuries on her right eye. In cross-examination she has stated that accused has not beaten her. She has stated that no one rescued her because no quarrel took place between her and accused person. 7. PW-2 Rajni Devi has sated that she alongwith her mother–in-law were in the house. She has stated that Brahmi Devi called her and she went to the house of Brahmi Devi and sat there. She has stated that accused Kanta Devi started abusing and also started beating her. She has stated that accused Kanta Devi uprooted her hair and also uprooted hair of her mother-in-law. She has stated that her mother-in-law sustained injuries upon her eyes. She has stated that Rekha and Veena caught from the arms and accused Kanta Devi sat on her breast. She has stated that thereafter her mother-in-law stood up and shut the door and told that she would call the police agency. She has stated that age of her mother-in-law is 65 to 70 years. She has stated that when police officials came at that time her mother-in-law was admitted in the hospital. She has stated that quarrel took place for about 10 to 15 minutes. She has denied the suggestion that no quarrel took place. She has denied the suggestion that her mother-in-law sustained injuries due to fall. She has denied the suggestion that accused Kanta Devi did not beat anybody. 8. PW-3 Dr. S. K.Soni has stated that he has examined Narainu Devi aged 75 years on dated 04.09.2002 and observed following injuries: (1) Contusion present on right lower lid on tumposal half blue in colour. (2) There was sub conjunctival haemorhage present, all round dark red in colour in the interior half and slightly lighter in the upper half. (3) The lense was present superiorly underneath the conjunctiva from 100 cluell position to 2.300’ cluell position i.e. extended lense through underneath sclenal tear. (4) Cornea old corneal graeities present at 80’ cluell, 90’ cluell part lateral to the central one. (5) Blood present in the anterior chamber extending from 120’ cluell perlion to 100’ cluell vitreous phase disturbed and present in anterior chamber. (4) Cornea old corneal graeities present at 80’ cluell, 90’ cluell part lateral to the central one. (5) Blood present in the anterior chamber extending from 120’ cluell perlion to 100’ cluell vitreous phase disturbed and present in anterior chamber. (6) Pupillary margins torn covered with blood. (7) Lense was absent from normal position and was present superiorly underneath the sclera. Post traumatic aphatia. (8) On examination of funds, no glow was present i.e. hypeame and vikreous haemarge was present. (9) Intra-ocular presence 12.2 mm of the patient was admitted in the eye ward. He has stated that he had given his opinion Ext.PW-3/A. 9. PW-4 Brahmi Devi has stated that accused is known to her. She has stated that accused did not abuse anybody in her presence and did not beat anybody in her presence. The witness was declared hostile. She has stated that she did not give any statement to the investigating agency from portion A to A and B to B Mark X. She has denied the suggestion that accused had inflicted injuries upon injured. She has denied the suggestion that she has resiled in order to save the accused person. 10. PW-5 Ajeet Singh has stated that he investigated the matter and prepared site plan Ext.PW-5/A and recorded statements of the witnesses. He has stated that after investigation FIR was handed over to SHO and thereafter case was filed in criminal Court. He has denied the suggestion that he had prepared site plan Ext.PW-5/A contrary to factual position. He has denied the suggestion that injured has sustained injuries due to fall. He has denied the suggestion that he recorded statements of the witnesses as per his own will in collusion with the injured. 11. PW-6 Dr. Ashok Kaushal has stated that he is posted in Zonal Hospital Hamirpur and he examined injured Narainu Devi. He has stated that he has issued MLC Ext.PW-6/A which bears his signatures. He has stated that probable period of injury was within four hours. He has stated that injured has sustained grievous injuries upon her eyes. 12. PW-7 Ramesh Chand has stated that in the year 2002 he was posted as MHC in Police Station Sadar Hamirpur (H.P.). He has stated that he has brought Rapat No.26 dated 05.09.2002 which is correct as per original record. He has stated that injured has sustained grievous injuries upon her eyes. 12. PW-7 Ramesh Chand has stated that in the year 2002 he was posted as MHC in Police Station Sadar Hamirpur (H.P.). He has stated that he has brought Rapat No.26 dated 05.09.2002 which is correct as per original record. He has stated that copy of roznamcha is Ext.PW-7/A. He has stated that FIR Ext.PW-7/B is written by him and signed by ASI Swami Ram. He has stated that he is familiar with the signatures of ASI Swami Ram. 13. Statement of accused under Section 313 Cr.PC. was recorded. Accused has stated that she is innocent. She did not lead any defence evidence. 14. Following documentaries evidence produced by the prosecution: (1) Ext.PW-7/A Rapat No.26 dated 5.9.2002. (2) Ext.PW-7/B FIR No.210 dated 5.9.2002 under Section 325 IPC. (3) Mark A Rapat No.27 dated 2.9.2002. (4) Ext.PW-6/A MLC of Narainu Devi injured aged 75 years. (5) Ext.PW-5/A site plan. 15. Submission of learned Additional Advocate General appearing on behalf of appellant that impugned judgment passed by the learned Trial Court is based on surmises and conjectures and learned Trial Court has not properly appreciated the oral as well as documentary evidence placed on record by the prosecution and on this ground appeal be accepted is rejected being devoid of any force for the reasons hereinafter mentioned. In the present case eye witnesses of the incident are PW-1 Narainu Devi, PW-2 Rajni Devi and PW-4 Brahmi Devi. Court has carefully perused the testimonies of PW-1 Narainu Devi, PW-2 Rajni Devi and PW-4 Brahmi Devi. PW-1 Narainu Devi has specifically stated in positive manner in cross-examination that accused Kanta Devi did not inflict injuries upon her. PW-1 Narainu Devi has also stated in positive manner that no quarrel took place. PW-1 has also stated in positive manner that no one rescued the injured from the accused. PW-4 Brahmi Devi eye witness has specifically stated that accused did not beat anybody in her presence. PW-4 has stated in positive manner that accused did not abuse anybody in her presence. PW-2 Rajni Devi has stated that accused had inflicted injuries upon injured in her presence. There is material contradictions between the testimonies of eye witnesses i.e. PW-1 Narainu Devi, PW-2 Rajni Devi and PW-4 Brahmi Devi. PW-4 has stated in positive manner that accused did not abuse anybody in her presence. PW-2 Rajni Devi has stated that accused had inflicted injuries upon injured in her presence. There is material contradictions between the testimonies of eye witnesses i.e. PW-1 Narainu Devi, PW-2 Rajni Devi and PW-4 Brahmi Devi. It is well settled law that when two views are possible in prosecution story then view favourable to the accused should be adopted. 16. Submission of learned Additional Advocate General appearing on behalf of appellant that learned Trial Court has illegally discarded the testimonies of official witnesses and on this ground appeal be accepted is also rejected being devoid of any force for the reasons hereinafter mentioned. Court is of the opinion that official witnesses were not present at the place of incident. Official witnesses are not eye witnesses of the incident. Testimonies of official witnesses are only corroborative in nature. In the present case there is material contradiction between the testimonies of eye witnesses i.e. PW-1 Narainu Devi, PW-2 Rajni Devi and PW-4 Brahmi Devi. In view of the above stated facts it is not expedient in the ends of justice to convict the accused. 17. Submission of learned Additional Advocate General appearing on behalf of appellant that learned Trial Court did not properly appreciate the testimonies of PW-3 Dr. S. K. Soni and PW-6 Dr. Ashok Kaushal and also did not properly appreciate the MLC placed on record and on this ground appeal be accepted is also rejected being devoid of any force for the reasons hereinafter mentioned. It is held that PW-3 Dr. S. K. Soni and PW-6 Dr. Ashok Kaushal are not eye witnesses of the incident. It is held that testimonies of PW-3 Dr. S. K. Soni and PW-6 Dr. Ashok Kaushal are only advisory in nature. In the present case there is material conflict between the testimonies of oral eye witnesses and medical evidence. It is well settled law that when there is conflict between oral evidence and medical evidence then oral evidence always prevail. 18. It was held in case reported in 2005 (9) Apex Court of India 765 titled Anjlus Dungdung Vs. State of Jharkhand that suspicion however strong cannot take place of proof. It was held in case reported in 2010 (11) Apex Court of India 423 titled Nanhar and Others Vs. 18. It was held in case reported in 2005 (9) Apex Court of India 765 titled Anjlus Dungdung Vs. State of Jharkhand that suspicion however strong cannot take place of proof. It was held in case reported in 2010 (11) Apex Court of India 423 titled Nanhar and Others Vs. State of Haryana that prosecution must stand or fall on its own leg and it cannot derive any strength from the weakness of the defence. Also See 1984 (4) SCC 116 titled Sharad Birdhichand Sarda Vs. State of Maharashtra. It is well settled law that conjecture or suspicion cannot take place of legal proof. See AIR 1967 SC 520 titled Charan Singh vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh. Also see AIR 1971 SC 1898 titled Gian Mahtani Vs. State of Maharashtra. It was held in case reported in AIR 1979 Apex Court of India 1382 titled State (Delhi Administration) Vs. Gulzarilal Tandon that moral conviction however strong cannot amount to legal conviction sustainable in law. See AIR 1984 Apex Court of India 1622 titled Sharad Birdhi Chand Sarda vs. State of Maharashtra. See AIR 1983 Apex Court of India 906 titled Bhugdomal Gangaram and others Vs. The State of Gujarat. See AIR 1985 Apex Court of India 1224 titled State of UP Vs. Sukhbasi and others. 19. It is well settled law that when two views are possible in prosecution story then view favourable to the accused should be adopted. See SLJ 1998 (2) 1408 titled Shashi Pal & Others vs. State of H.P.. Also see SLJ 1993(1) 405 titled State of H.P. vs. Sudershan Singh. Also see SLJ 1995 (3) 1819 titled State of H.P. vs. Inderjit & Others. Also see SLJ 1995(4) 2728 titled State of H.P. vs. Diwana & Others. Also see SLJ 1992 (2) Apex Court of India 1213 titled Mool Chand vs. Jagdish Chand Bedi & Others. Also see SLJ 1996 (2) Apex Court of India 890 titled Mulak Raj and others vs. State of Haryana. In view of the above stated facts point No.1 is answered in negative. Point No.2 (Final order). 20. In view of my findings on point No.1 above appeal filed by the State is dismissed. Judgment of learned Trial Court affirmed. File of learned Trial Court alongwith certified copy of this judgment be sent back forthwith. Cr. Appeal No.168 of 2006 is disposed of. Point No.2 (Final order). 20. In view of my findings on point No.1 above appeal filed by the State is dismissed. Judgment of learned Trial Court affirmed. File of learned Trial Court alongwith certified copy of this judgment be sent back forthwith. Cr. Appeal No.168 of 2006 is disposed of. Pending application(s) if any also disposed of.