JUDGMENT Heard Shri Sudhir Dixit, learned counsel for the complainant-appellant, who seeks leave to appeal questioning the correctness of the judgment of acquittal dated 4.10.2016 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.9, Aligarh in Complaint Case No.698 of 2016, under sections 452, 354, 323, 504, 506, IPC, P.S. Quarsi, District Aligarh. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that impugned judgment of acquittal is illegal and perverse, the learned trial Judge has misread the evidence and misdirected himself on the basis of documentary evidence. According to him, the complainant has examined five eye witnesses of the occurrence, but without any reason the learned Magistrate has disbelieved them. In brief according to the appellant on 3.2.2009 at 3.00 p.m. his daughters-in-law Chandrawati and Reshma were taking out husk from the burji. Respondent nos.2 to 6 came there, abused them and threatened them. When they had made a complaint to the family members, he ventilated the grievance to the family members of the said respondents. The said respondents scuffled him. When complainant came back to his house, they chased him, had beaten him and his daughters-in-law and threatened to rape the daughters-in-law. During trial on behalf of the complainant Jodh Singh, PW-1, the complainant himself, Smt. Chandrawati, PW-2, Smt. Reshma Devi, PW-3, (daughters-in-law), Bani Singh, PW-4 and Prahlad Singh, PW-5, independent witnesses were examined. Except Prahlad Singh, PW-5 all totally supported the complaint's version, but Prahlad Singh turned hostile and during cross examination he admitted that only a dispute had taken place on the stated date and time. Since complainant-appellant has preferred to enclose copies of the statements of all the witnesses, the Court is in a position to appreciate the arguments advanced on behalf of the appellant. Perusal of the impugned judgment reveals that the learned Magistrate while recording finding of acquittal has given reason that evidence adduced by the complainant is contradictory to the version contained in the complaint. For that reason genesis of the occurrence becomes doubtful. In the present case though allegations of causing hurt have been made, but no doctor was examined, therefore, the alleged injured witnesses have to be treated as eye witnesses, but they would not be enjoined with the confidence of the Court which an injured witness enjoys. For that reason genesis of the occurrence becomes doubtful. In the present case though allegations of causing hurt have been made, but no doctor was examined, therefore, the alleged injured witnesses have to be treated as eye witnesses, but they would not be enjoined with the confidence of the Court which an injured witness enjoys. In the complaint the incident is said to have taken place when the complainant had gone to the house of the accused Buddh Sen, respondent no.2. Only thereafter altercation, scuffle, maarpeet and threat followed, but during the evidence all the four witnesses, who have supported the commission of offences, had given different version. According to some of them all the respondents had misbehaved with the daughters-in-law of the appellant and had beaten them, thereafter, they chased them back and further gave beating to them and threat. Only Reshma, PW-3 had supported verbatim facts mentioned in the complaint. According to her, the occurrence took place in the gher and not in the house whereas in the complaint place of occurrence has been shown house of the complainant. Complainant has to prove his case beyond all reasonable doubt. In the present case there are three places of occurrence. When the appellant could not prove any definite case, I think the learned Magistrate has not erred in giving benefit of doubt to the said respondents. I do not find any infirmity either factual or legal in the impugned judgment. The appeal is bereft of merit, hence, leave to appeal is declined. Appeal stands dismissed in limine.