JUDGMENT : Vivek Singh Thakur, J. State has filed present appeal against acquittal of respondents assailing judgment dated 29.9.2008 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Mandi, H.P. in Sessions Trial No. 33 of 2004 in case FIR No. 181 of 2004 under Sections 307, 325, 323 read with Section 34 IPC registered in Police Station Sarkaghat. 2. As per prosecution case, on 20.6.2004, PW-2 Reeta Devi reported in Police Station Sarkaghat at 10:15 A.M. stating that she, a house wife was resident of village Kathogan and at about 6:30 A.M. in the morning accused Sher Singh and Savitri Devi were picking up stones of damaged retaining wall of complainant, who on stopping by her from doing so, started abusing her and her father-in-law and also pelted stones upon them, as a result of which she suffered injuries on chest and arm and her father-in-law also suffered injuries on his head, chest and other parts of body and further that accused had caused threat to their life by pelting stones and she wanted medical examination of herself and her father-in-law. On her statement FIR Ex. PW-2/A was registered and investigation was carried on and thereafter on completion of investigation challan was presented in the Court and accused were charged under Section 307, 325, 323 read with Section 34 IPC. 3. We have heard learned counsel for parties and have also gone through the record. 4. Prosecution has examined 11 witnesses to prove its case. PW-1 Dr.Rakesh Kumar was Radiologist under whose supervision C.T. scan of PW-6 Het Ram was conducted. According to him, there was no evidence of intracerebral hemorrhage, no midline shift seen however depressed fracture on left parietal bone was there and he had issued his report Ex. PW-1/B. In cross-examination, he stated that he could not say if the said injuries were dangerous to life, as he had not examined the patient clinically. 5. According to him, there was no evidence of intracerebral hemorrhage, no midline shift seen however depressed fracture on left parietal bone was there and he had issued his report Ex. PW-1/B. In cross-examination, he stated that he could not say if the said injuries were dangerous to life, as he had not examined the patient clinically. 5. Admitted facts emerging out from evidence on record are that retaining wall of field of complaint party had damaged due to heavy rain and as a result of which stones of retaining wall had blocked drain of rainy water (Challa) of accused behind their house and on the issue of removing stones from the spot a quarrel had taken place on 20.6.2004 at about 6:30 A.M., wherein complainant as well as accused received injuries, whereupon matter was reported to police by both sides and cross cases were registered and also cross challans were presented in the Court and complainant party as well as accused faced different trials for one and the same incident. 6. PW-2 in her cross-examination admitted that a cross case with respect to the same occurrence was also pending in the Court of learned Additional CJM, Sarkaghat. She also admitted that accused had also suffered injuries and blood had oozed from their injuries. Whereas, PW-6 Het Ram, through, admitted the cross case, but expressed his ignorance about the fact that the said cross case was with respect to the same occurrence. PW-11 Inspector Prem Lal, Investigating Officer admitted that in the same incident, FIR against complainant party was also lodged and accused had also suffered injuries and he also admitted that he was the investigating officer in both cases. 7. Prosecution has examined PW-2 Reeta Devi, PW-6 Het Ram as injured persons, PW-7 Dinbandhu and PW-9 Murari Lal as eye witnesses to the incident to prove prosecution case. 8. PW-7 Dinbandhu was subjected to cross-examination by learned Public Prosecutor after declaring him hostile witness for resiling his earlier statement made under Section 161 Cr.P.C. 9. Conviction can be based on statements of hostile witness as statement of hostile witness is not to be brushed aside in toto and Court can consider evidence of hostile witness to corroborate other evidence on record. Conviction can be based on statements of hostile witness as statement of hostile witness is not to be brushed aside in toto and Court can consider evidence of hostile witness to corroborate other evidence on record. It is also clearly well settled that mere fact that a witness is declared hostile does not make him unreliable witness so as to exclude his evidence from consideration altogether but the said evidence remains admissible in the trial and there is no legal bar to base conviction or acquittal upon testimony of hostile witness if corroborated by other reliable evidence. Hon’ble Supreme Court in case Raja and others Vs. State of Karnataka (2016) 10 SCC 506 has held as under:- “32. That the evidence of a hostile witness in all eventualities ought not stand effaced altogether and that the same can be accepted to the extent found dependable on a careful scrutiny was reiterated by this Court in Himanshu @ Chintu (supra) by drawing sustenance of the proposition amongst others from Khujii vs. State of M.P. (1991) 3 SCC 627 and Koli Lakhman Bhai Chanabhai vs. State of Gujarat (1999) 8 SCC 624 . It was enounced that the evidence of a hostile witness remains admissible and is open for a Court to rely on the dependable part thereof as found acceptable and duly corroborated by other reliable evidence available on record.” 10. On assessment of statements of PW-2, PW-6, PW-7 and PW-9, we find that their deposition is not reliable and trustworthy for material contradictions and major discrepancies in their statements with respect to facts and circumstances, adversely affecting the geneses of prosecution story. PW-2 Reeta Devi stated that accused were lifting stones from drain and they were stopped by her and PW-6, whereupon accused threatened her and PW-6 and pelted stones upon them. Whereas PW-6 stated that he went to spot alone and started collecting stones from the spot whereupon accused and their two sons pelted stones upon him. He categorically stated that PW-2 Reeta Devi came on spot two hours later and contradicted PW-2. But in cross-examination he contradicted himself also by stating that accused were removing stones from drain to maintain flow of rainy water. 11. He categorically stated that PW-2 Reeta Devi came on spot two hours later and contradicted PW-2. But in cross-examination he contradicted himself also by stating that accused were removing stones from drain to maintain flow of rainy water. 11. PW-6 Het Ram deposed that PW-2 Reeta Devi came on spot two hours later whereas PW-9 Murari Lal stated that accused were throwing stones on PW-6 Het Ram as well as PW- 2 Reeta Devi. PW-7 Dinbandhu tells a different story that he noticed accused Savitri holding a stone in her hand and Reeta Devi was snatching the said stone and on his intervention by shouting for not to quarrel, both of them kept the stone on ground and went away. He also stated that PW-9 Murari Lal was not on the spot whereas PW-9 stated that PW-7 Deinbandhu was also present on the spot along with him. 12. PW-2, PW-6, PW-7 and PW-9, though admitted that accused had also suffered injuries, but are conspicuously silent about the manner in which accused had suffered injuries. 13. As per prosecution story on 21.6.2004, PW-2 Reeta Devi handed over stones to Investigating Officer from the spot. Whereas PW-7 Dinbandhu stated that she had brought stones from her house. PW-9 Murari Lal firstly stated that stones were given by Reeta Devi from her house, but later on stated that Reeta Devi took stones from the spot and handed over to the Investigating Officer. 14. It is also noticeable that on 20.6.2004, PW-7 Dinbandhu and PW-9 Murari Lal were persons who were present as eye witnesses on the spot and on 21.6.2004 also both of them were only persons who were present on the spot to witness handing over of shirt and stone to Investigating Officer vide memos Ex. PW-2/B and Ex. PW-2/C. PW-7 Dinbandhu admitted his signatures on these memos however he denied handing over of shirt in his presence to the police. 15. PW-2 Reeta Devi stated that after incident she along with PW-6 went to Police Station and lodged FIR Ex. PW-2/A and thereafter police sent them to Civil Hospital, Sarkaghat for medical examination. Whereas PW-6 Het Ram stated that after incident Reeta Devi took him to hospital. PW-2 in her cross-examination admitted that stones had fallen in drain (Challa) of accused. PW-2 Reeta Devi stated that after incident she along with PW-6 went to Police Station and lodged FIR Ex. PW-2/A and thereafter police sent them to Civil Hospital, Sarkaghat for medical examination. Whereas PW-6 Het Ram stated that after incident Reeta Devi took him to hospital. PW-2 in her cross-examination admitted that stones had fallen in drain (Challa) of accused. According to her deposition in Court, place of occurrence was Challa, whereas as per prosecution story place of occurrence was road, as it was claimed by Investigating Officer and PW-9 Murari Lal, that Rita Devi had produced stones after picking the same from the spot, i.e. road. However, in her statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. Ex. DA, PW-9 Murari Lal stated that accused were pelting stones upon PW-2 and PW-6 on the road and he was confronted with his statement A to A in Ex. DA, however, he denied to have made such statement. 16. PW-9 Murari Lal stated that there was blockage of water due to stones in drain of accused. Whereas PW-6 Het Ram stated that accused person were removing stones from drain in order to maintain flow of water during rainy season. PW-6 Het Ram firstly stated that they have no dispute over the land with the accused person. However, in later part, he stated that they were having dispute since the time accused person constructed their house. 17. The statements of injured as well as eye witnesses are not only contradictory to each other, but also self contradictory, rendering their version to be doubtful. 18. PW-5 Rangilla Ram was Radiographer, who conducted X-ray of PW-6 Het Ram on reference to him by Dr.Arvind Singh. He proved X-ray film of PW-6 as Ex. PW-5/A. 19. PW-8 Medical Officer Harvinder Singh examined PW-6 Het Ram and PW-5 Reeta Devi and issued MLCs Ex. PW-8/B and Ex. PW-8/C. As per him injuries on person of PW-5 were simple in nature. He found following injuries on person of PW-6. “1. Lacerated wound 3X4X4X1 cm size over left parietal region of scalp. Clotted blood was present. Blood was oozing out. Irregular margin. 2. Lacerated wound 2X3X1 cm size over occipital region of scalp. Blood was oozing out. Irregular margin. 3. Lacerated wound 2X2X1 cm over temporal region left side of scalp. Irregular margin. Blood was oozing out. 4. Daub and tenderness over right side of sterna region. Clotted blood was present. Blood was oozing out. Irregular margin. 2. Lacerated wound 2X3X1 cm size over occipital region of scalp. Blood was oozing out. Irregular margin. 3. Lacerated wound 2X2X1 cm over temporal region left side of scalp. Irregular margin. Blood was oozing out. 4. Daub and tenderness over right side of sterna region. Bruises 2X2 size Bluish coloured present.” In the Court he stated that injury No. 1 was grievous, whereas in MLC Ex. PW-8/B he mentioned injuries No. 1, 2 and 3 simple and opinion about injury No. 4 was deferred by referring PW-6 for X-ray, where-after PW-6 was referred for C.T. scan to Zonal Hospital, Mandi. On the basis of C.T. scan report it was opined that injury No. 1 was grievous and in absence of treatment all these injuries were dangerous to life. From his statement injuries on person of PW-5 and PW-6 stand proved. 20. From medical evidence, it stands proved that PW-2 and PW-6 had suffered injuries, but the manner in which injuries were received by them was to be established by prosecution by leading trustworthy, cogent, reliable and confidence inspiring evidence, but for major contradictions and discrepancies, statements of PW-2 Reeta Devi, PW-7 Het Ram and PW-9 Murari Lal cannot be relied upon to hold accused persons guilty. 21. It is also noticeable that in application Ex. PW-8/A it is mentioned that PW-2 Reeta Devi and PW-6 Het Ram reported in Police Station that they were beaten by accused person and their sons, but Investigating Officer as well as other witnesses in the Court except PW-6, have not uttered even a single word about the involvement of sons of accused person. PW-6 in his deposition in Court stated that accused and their two sons pelted stones. 22. From overall assessment of prosecution witnesses, it cannot be inferred with certainty that accused persons were aggressors and the injured have received injuries in the manner, as has been alleged in the prosecution story. PW-6 in his deposition in Court stated that accused and their two sons pelted stones. 22. From overall assessment of prosecution witnesses, it cannot be inferred with certainty that accused persons were aggressors and the injured have received injuries in the manner, as has been alleged in the prosecution story. There are material variance, not only to each other, but even to the self statements, which renders the version of prosecution witnesses not reliable and creditworthy particularly when for the same incident a cross case was registered against complainant party, which was also investigated by the same Investigating Officer, according to whose investigation complicity of complainant party was also found in committing an offence under criminal law and injuries suffered by accused person also remained unexplained. Therefore, prosecution story is highly doubtful and under cloud of suspicion. 23. From evidence on record, clearly two views are possible and in such circumstances the view favourable to the accused is to be preferred by the Court. Hon’ble Apex Court in P. Satyanarayana Murthy Vs. District Inspector of Police State of Andhra Pradesh and another (2015) 10 SCC 152 has held as under:- “26. In reiteration of the golden principle which runs through the web of administration of justice in criminal cases, this Court in criminal cases, this Court in Sujit Biswas V. State of Assam (2013) 12 SCC 406 had held that suspicion, however grave, cannot take the place of proof and the prosecution cannot afford to rest its case in the realm of “may be” true but has to upgrade it in the domain of “must be” true in order to steer clear of any possible surmise or conjecture. It was held, that the court must ensure that miscarriage of justice is avoided and if in the facts and circumstances, two views are plausible, then the benefit of doubt must be given to the accused.” 24. In its recent decision, Hon’ble Apex Court in case Jose alias Pappachan Vs. Sub-Inspector of Police, Koyilandy and another (2016) 10 SCC 519 has held as under:- “56. It is a trite proposition of law, that suspicion however grave, it cannot take the place of proof and that the prosecution in order to succeed on a criminal charge cannot afford to lodge its case in the realm of may be true but has to essentially elevate it to the grade of must be true. It is a trite proposition of law, that suspicion however grave, it cannot take the place of proof and that the prosecution in order to succeed on a criminal charge cannot afford to lodge its case in the realm of may be true but has to essentially elevate it to the grade of must be true. In a criminal prosecution, the court has a duty to ensure that mere conjectures or suspicion do not take the place of legal proof and in a situation where a reasonable doubt is entertained in the backdrop of the evidence available, to prevent miscarriage of justice, benefit of doubt is to be extended to the accused. Such a doubt essentially has to be reasonable and not imaginary, fanciful, intangible or non-existent but as entertainable by an impartial, prudent and analytical mind, judged on the touch stone of reason and common sense. It is also a primary postulation in criminal jurisprudence that if two views are possible on the evidence available, one pointing to the guilt of the accused and the other to his innocence, the one favourable to the accused ought to be adopted.” 25. Respondents have advantage of being acquitted by the trial Court which strengthens presumption of their innocence. Onus to rebut such presumption heavily lies upon prosecution, to which prosecution has miserably failed. 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. 26. Thus, present appeal, devoid of any merit, is dismissed and also pending applications, if any. Bail bonds, if any, furnished by or on behalf of respondents are discharged. Records of the Court below be immediately sent back.