JUDGMENT : Sandeep Sharma, J. This instant criminal revision petition filed under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is directed against the judgment dated 4.8.2007, passed by learned Sessions Judge, Chamba in Criminal Appeal No. 10/2007, whereby he has affirmed the judgment dated 29.12.2006 passed by learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Dalhousie, District Chamba, H.P., in criminal case No. 119-II of 1998 convicting the petitioners (hereinafter referred to as the ‘accused’) to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months for commission of offence punishable under Section 353 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. In nutshell, case of the prosecution is that the respondent Pardhan Chand (hereinafter referred as the ‘complainant’) was posted as Forest Guard at Hatali as Incharge and at that relevant time, Forest worker Chain Singh was also posted there. On 3.8.1998, when they were on duty/posted at forest check post to check the vehicles and to close the barrier, around 12:00 o’clock, a scooter ridden by three boys allegedly under the influence of liquor came from Draman side at the barrier of forest check post. Since the barrier was close, they started abusing and shouted that “who is the Incharge of the barrier and why the barrier is closed?” Thereafter, complainant-Incharge of barrier asked them to go but accused started abusing and slapped him. Then Forest Worker Chain Singh came to rescue the complainant but accused also pushed him. As per prosecution story, on hearing noise, person namely Raju who resides near the barrier came to the spot and tried to pacify the accused. It has also come in the story of prosecution that boy who was plying/driving the scooter neither abused nor assaulted the complainant. Names of the accused were disclosed by Raju. Story of prosecution further reveals that accused assaulted the complainant and forest worker while on duty. Accused criminally intimidated them while leaving the spot. The complainant reported the matter to his officials and formal FIR Ext.PW5/A was registered. Subsequent to registration of the FIR, investigation was taken up by PW7 HC Krishan Gopal who prepared the spot map and recorded the statements of witnesses and obtained the posting orders of the complainant as well of forest worker. After completion of initial inquiry, accused were arrested. Since Naresh Kumar scooter rider was not found guilty, no charge was framed against him. After completion of initial inquiry, accused were arrested. Since Naresh Kumar scooter rider was not found guilty, no charge was framed against him. The investigating officer after concluding the investigation charge sheeted the accused before the appropriate court of law for their having committed the offences punishable under Sections 353 & 506 read with Section 34 of the IPC. 3. Learned trial Court taking cognizance of the matter framed charges against the accused for commission of offences punishable under Sections 353 & 506 read with Section 34 of the IPC and put notices of accusation to the accused to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Learned trial Court after taking into consideration the prosecution evidence and record made available on record vide judgment dated 29.12.2006 found the accused guilty of commission of offences as aforesaid. However, both the accused were acquitted for the commission of offence punishable under Section 506 read with Section 34 of the IPC. 4. Being aggrieved by the judgment of conviction passed by the learned trial Court, the accused preferred criminal appeal before the learned Sessions Judge, Chamba, District Chamba, H.P. However, the same was dismissed vide judgment dated 4.8.2007 affirming the judgment passed by learned court below. Hence, the present criminal revision petition before this Court on various grounds. 5. Mr. Ajay Chandel, learned counsel appearing for the accused-petitioners herein vehemently argued that the judgments passed by both the courts below are liable to be quashed and set aside as the same are not based upon the correct appreciation of evidence available on record. To the contrary, there are material contradictions and discrepancies put forth by the prosecution and same is required to be brushed aside being untrustworthy. Mr. Chandel, specifically contended that the statements of PW2 and PW3 if examined critically, there would be no doubt that these are full of contradictions and not worthy of any credence. He pleaded that since prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, conviction and sentence awarded by the court below deserves to be quashed and set aside and accused may be acquitted of the charges framed against them. 6. On the other side, Mr. He pleaded that since prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, conviction and sentence awarded by the court below deserves to be quashed and set aside and accused may be acquitted of the charges framed against them. 6. On the other side, Mr. Pankaj Negi, learned Deputy Advocate General appearing on behalf of respondent-complainant supported the judgment passed by both the court below and submitted that bare perusal of the impugned judgment leaves no doubt that at the time of convicting and awarding sentence, both the courts below have correctly appreciated the evidence on record. Mr. Negi, also submitted that while exercising revisionary jurisdiction, this court has very limited scope and since entire evidence has been comprehended/appreciated by the courts below, it is not open to this court to re-appreciate the entire evidence. 7. I have considered the respective contentions of both the parties as well as analyzed the record of the case. 8. Admittedly, while exercising power under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the CrPC, this Court has limited power to re-appreciate the evidence on record but solely with a view to reach fair and just conclusion, this court undertook to critically examine the prosecution witnesses as well as record available on record. 9. In the present case, prosecution with a view to prove its case has examined as many as seven witnesses. 10. PW1, Munishwar Kumar, Range Officer, Forest Range, Sihunta proved Ext.PW1/A, the appointment letter of forest worker Chain Singh allegedly posted at that time at forest check post Hatli. 11. PW2, Pardhan Chand, the complainant in his statement stated that he had been working as forest guard at Check Post Hatli since December, 1996. While he was on duty at the barrier with forest worker, at around 12 o’clock, three persons namely Joginder alias Chhindu, chhotu and Naresh came on scooter and accused Chhindu asked who is on duty and why the barrier is closed? He came out of the check post and disclosed that he is the Incharge of the barrier but accused Joginder Singh @ Chhindu started hurling abuses on him and assaulting him. According to PW2, he also slapped the accused in defence. He stated that both the accused assaulted him and then forest worker came to rescue him who was pushed by them. According to PW2, he also slapped the accused in defence. He stated that both the accused assaulted him and then forest worker came to rescue him who was pushed by them. According to him on hearing noise, PW3 Raju came on the spot and tried to rescue him from the accused and accused Chhindu also slapped Raju. Since he was on duty at that time, he reported the matter to his officers and subsequently the matter was reported to Police Post Sihunta. In his cross-examination, PW-2 admitted that names of the accused were disclosed by PW3 Raju but he denied the suggestion that Raju was not having cordial relations with the accused. Forest worker came to the spot after a minute as per him. At this juncture, it would be pertinent to point out that PW2 in his cross-examination stated that it is correct that check post is situated at main road and for some days, Chain Singh forest officer use to give duty with him and on some other days, some other person used to give duty. But at the same time, he has stated in his cross-examination that at that time i.e. occurrence, one forest worker Puran Chand was doing duty at barrier and he himself stated that no record of duty is kept and they send them for 10-15 days. He also stated that Chain Singh had come within a minute of accident. Interestingly, Chain Singh, who as per the statement of PW1 was present at the time of occurrence, was not associated with the case. Perusal of the file shows that though his written statement was recorded by the police purportedly under Section 161 Cr.PC but same was not exhibited and got proved. It has also remained unexplained that why Chain Singh was not cited as prosecution witness in the present facts and circumstances of the case. As per the complainant, when the accused was hurling abuses on him then within a minute Chain Singh came on the spot and tried to rescue him. He also stated that accused even pushed Chain Singh. It has also remained unexplained that why Chain Singh was not cited as prosecution witness in the present facts and circumstances of the case. As per the complainant, when the accused was hurling abuses on him then within a minute Chain Singh came on the spot and tried to rescue him. He also stated that accused even pushed Chain Singh. It is also ample clear from the incisive reading of statement of PW2 that at the time of occurrence, only possible eye witness could be Chain Singh but for the reason best known to the prosecution, he was not cited as witness and to the worst, his statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.PC was not exhibited and got proved. Even perusal of the complete file nowhere suggests that prosecution had any point of time placed on record the posting order of Chain Singh from where it could be inferred that he was posted on the barrier on the given date with the complainant. In cross-examination, PW2 has admitted that on that day one forest worker Puran Chand was with him on duty. This very statement coupled with the fact that Chain Singh was not cited as prosecution witness compels this court to draw adverse inference that version put forth by the complainant is not correct. Though, in his statement, he has admitted that Chain Singh was present at the site and he was the first person to witness the incident but in the absence of Chain Singh who could be first best person to narrate the incident, his version put forth by PW-2 cannot be relied upon. 12. Now, if we refer to statement of PW-3 Raju, it further creates doubt in the mind with regard to the correctness of the story put forth by the prosecution. As per him, when around 12:30AM, he was watching TV at his home, one girl who was guest at his house informed that some noises were coming from forest barrier. He ran to the spot which as per his statement was 100 meters far from his house. As per his statement, he saw three persons with the scooter arguing with the forest guard. He stated that accused were arguing with the guard and his helper, later on there was scuffle and accused slapped the guard. He ran to the spot which as per his statement was 100 meters far from his house. As per his statement, he saw three persons with the scooter arguing with the forest guard. He stated that accused were arguing with the guard and his helper, later on there was scuffle and accused slapped the guard. At this stage, it also remains un-explained that no attempt was made by police to verify the version put forth by PW3 Raju by investigating the girl on whose saying Raju actually went to the spot. He also stated in cross-examination that neither he knew Chain Singh nor names of the accused. Now if we read the statement of PW3 Raju in conjunction with the statement of PW2, there appears to be major contradiction. The complainant stated that when PW3 Raju tried to rescue him from the clutches of the accused, he too was slapped. But in statement given by PW3, he nowhere stated that he was also slapped by the accused. His admission in the cross-examination to that effect that he did not know Chain Singh coupled with the fact that he stated in his examination-in-chief that at the time of occurrence, accused were arguing with guard and helper raises doubt with regard to the correctness and veracity of statements given by both the prosecution witnesses. PW3 in his statement stated that at that time his father, mother and daughter of his maternal uncle who were residing in house were sleeping. Girl named Sunita, who was guest heard the noise but he categorically stated that he didn’t hear the noise. Even at this stage, he stated that forest guard and Chain Singh were there but stated that he did not know the Chain Singh. 13. Careful reading of statements of PW3 and PW1 casts grave doubt with regard to presence of Chain Singh on the spot at the time of occurrence. Undisputedly, Chain Singh, if story of prosecution witness is to be believed, could be material witness to narrate the incident because in the instant case alleged scuffle took place in front of Chain Singh. Though Raju PW3 stated in his statement that when he reached the spot of occurrence, accused slapped forest guard but he nowhere states that at that time, Chain Singh helper who was allegedly present, was pushed by the accused. 14. Though Raju PW3 stated in his statement that when he reached the spot of occurrence, accused slapped forest guard but he nowhere states that at that time, Chain Singh helper who was allegedly present, was pushed by the accused. 14. Moreover, PW3 Raju alias Tilak Raj, in his statement stated that he arrived at the spot, accused were arguing with the guard and helper and later on, there was scuffle between them. Further, he stated that, accused-Chhindu had slapped forest guard, but he nowhere stated that forest guard was slapped in his presence, meaning thereby, he was not eye witness to the alleged story of the prosecution. 15. If the statements given by the prosecution witnesses, especially, PW2 and PW3 are read in conjunction, there are major contradictions with regard to the presence of Chain Singh, who, as per prosecution story, was allegedly present along with the complainant at the time of incident but the statement made by PW2 and PW3 creates doubt whether Chain Singh was present on the barrier at the time of the incident or not. PW2 Pardhan Chand deposed that on that day Puran Chand, Forest Worker was present on the barrier with him. PW3 Raju also states that one forest worker with forest guard was present but admittedly, he did not name Chain Singh. Though, he later on tried to improve by saying that he did not know Chain Singh. 16. Close scrutiny of the statement given by PW3 so called independent witness also does not appear to be trustworthy, especially, in view of the fact that no person other than him heard noise coming from barrier. Even Raju himself stated that he did not hear the noise but he was informed by a girl named Sunita, who was guest at his place. It also remained unexplained as to why statement of Sunita was not recorded by the police. Omission/absence of Chain Singh, Forest Worker, was allegedly present with the PW2-complainant as a prosecution witnesses has demolished the case of the prosecution because as per prosecution story, he was the only person who was present at the time of the incident and in that event, he could only narrate the incident of assault, if any, on PW2. Omission/absence of Chain Singh, Forest Worker, was allegedly present with the PW2-complainant as a prosecution witnesses has demolished the case of the prosecution because as per prosecution story, he was the only person who was present at the time of the incident and in that event, he could only narrate the incident of assault, if any, on PW2. This very failure of prosecution to not to cite Chain Singh as prosecution witness has forced this court to draw adverse inference that story put forth by prosecution is not trustworthy and lacking confidence. Even the perusal of the statement given by PW5 Shri Hari Ram, Senior Assistant Officer, DFO, nowhere suggests that Chain Singh was on duty with Pardhan Chand on the given date. PW5 in his statement brought posting orders of PW-2 suggesting that he was posted as forest guard Hatli but it remains undisclosed as to why posting order of Chain Singh Forest Worker, if he was present on the given date ,was not placed on record by the prosecution. Statements of PWs 2 and 3, itself suggest that it was not Chain Singh, who was present on the date of incident with PW2. Even Puran Chand, Forest Worker, has not been associated by police. 18. Careful reading of statement of PW6 ASI (Investigating Officer) does not suggest that at the first instance, when complaint was lodged by PW2 with regard to the incident, story of slapping PW2 was narrated to police because as per statement of PW6, he was only informed that accused hurled abuses on PW2 and Chain Singh while they were on duty. Though, Investigating Officer has stated about the assault by the accused but no specific statement, that PW2 was slapped by accused-Chhindu has come in the statement of Investigating Officer. Rather in his cross-examination, he stated that it is correct that complainant had refused to get his medical examination done, though, he further improved that since no injury was caused to him. 19. In view of the close analysis of the statements made by prosecution witnesses, this Court has no hesitation to conclude that there are chinks in the story of prosecution because PWs 2 and 3 have contradicted the statements of each other and if their statements are read in totality, they appear to be unreliable, untrustworthy and don’t inspire confidence. 19. In view of the close analysis of the statements made by prosecution witnesses, this Court has no hesitation to conclude that there are chinks in the story of prosecution because PWs 2 and 3 have contradicted the statements of each other and if their statements are read in totality, they appear to be unreliable, untrustworthy and don’t inspire confidence. Very absence of Chain Singh who was allegedly the first person to witness the incident has forced this Court to form opinion that prosecution has not come forward with correct facts. When prosecution by way of PW5 Hari Ram, Forest Official could get posting order of PW2 proved, it remains un-explained what prevented prosecution to get proved the posting order of Chain Singh who as per the prosecution story was allegedly present with PW2 at the time of the occurrence. 20. Though, narration of the facts given in the present case by the prosecution is very serious in nature and petitioners-accused deserve no leniency in such like cases where there is serious allegation of assaulting public servant while on duty, rather, they need to be dealt with sternly but unfortunately in the present case, prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. Had police made sincere efforts to associate Chain Singh as well as girl named Sunita who had actually heard the noises at the barrier at the first instance, story would have been totally different. Hence, I have no hesitation to conclude that prosecution in this case has suffered due to callous attitude of police while conducting investigation. Consequently, in view of the aforesaid discussion, judgments passed by learned courts below are set-aside and quashed and accused are acquitted of the charges framed against them. Bail bonds, if any, are ordered to be discharged. Petition stands disposed of, so also the pending applications, if any.