JUDGMENT ; Chander Bhusan Barowalia, J. 1. The present appeal has been maintained by the appellant-State of Himachal Pradesh against the judgment of acquittal of accused persons in a case under Sections 325 and 323 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Court No.III, Hamirpur, District Hamirpur, (H.P), dated 5.2.2007, in Criminal Case No.107-II-98/455-II/04. 2. The key facts, giving rise to the present appeal, as per the prosecution story, are that on 16.7.1998 at Aghar, accused persons, namely, Hari Ram, Mehar Chand, Kehar Chand, Karam Chand and Sarota Devi (here in after referred to as ‘accused persons’) in furtherance of common intention of all have beaten the complainant Amar Nath (PW-2) and his family members. The injured were moved to the hospital and case FIR was registered. Medical examination of the complainant (PW-2) revealed that he had sustained simple as well as grievous injuries. Police visited the spot and prepared site plan. Police thoroughly investigated the matter and after conclusion of investigation challan was presented in the Court. 3. The prosecution, in order to prove its case, examined as many as eleven witnesses. Statements of accused persons were recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, wherein they have denied the prosecution case and claimed innocence. No defence evidence was led by the accused persons. 4. Learned Deputy Advocate General appearing on behalf of the appellant has argued that the impugned judgment passed by the learned Court below is against the law, without appreciating the facts, which have come on record to its true perspective and statement of prosecution witnesses have not been properly appreciated and the judgment of acquittal is required to be set aside and accused are liable to be convicted, under the offence for which they have been charged, after re-appreciating the evidence. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of accused persons has argued that the independent witnesses have not supported the prosecution case and taking into consideration the alleged injuries and contradiction in the prosecution story, case of the prosecution is palpably false and based upon the concocted story. She has further argued that the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of accused beyond the shadow of reasonable doubt and so, the appeal deserves to be dismissed. 5. She has further argued that the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of accused beyond the shadow of reasonable doubt and so, the appeal deserves to be dismissed. 5. To appreciate the arguments of learned Deputy Advocate General and learned counsel for the accused, this Court has gone through the record in detail and minutely scrutinized the statements of the witnesses. 6. PW-1 Smt. Rajo Devi, deposed that they have dispute with Karam Chand (accused) regarding the land. On 3.8.1998, accused untied their buffaloes and removed their poles (khuntas), when she asked them, they started beating her. Mehar Chand, Haria, Kehar Singh and Karam Chand (accused persons), had also beaten her. There after, her sister-in-law Maya Devi (PW-5) came and tried to rescue her, however, she was also beaten. The accused had beaten her with sticks. On hearing noise, her mother-in-law, father-in-law and husband also came there. Hari Ram (accused) threatened to kill her husband. Her husband was held from his leg and arm. Gambri Devi (PW-4) and Gian Chand (PW-6) rescued them. Thumb of her mother-in-law was also broken. The stick Ex.P-1 was taken into possession, vide recovery memo Ex.PW1/A. PW-2 Amar Nath, has deposed that they have land dispute with Karam Chand and Hari Ram etc. (accused persons). He has stated that the ladies of his family were being beaten by the accused. He has further stated that his cattle shed is at a distance of 20 meters from his house, where the beatings were given. When he reached at the spot, he saw that his parents and wife were lying there and crying. Hari Ram, Karam Chand and Mehar Singh, were beating them with sticks, when he tried to rescue, they over powered him. Hari Ram (accused) had beaten him with sticks. Gambri Devi (PW-4) and Gian Chand (PW-6) had rescued them. He had reported the matter to the police. PW-3 Garibo Devi, has deposed that one morning at about 7:30 AM, accused untied their buffaloes and on asking the accused started beating her. She was beaten with sticks, due to which, her right thumb was broken. Her daughter Maya Devi (PW-5) also sustained injuries. PW-4 Gambri Devi, deposed that accused persons removed the poles (khuntas) of buffaloes. Amar Nath (PW-2) and his wife were laid down by the accused and given beatings. There was bleeding from the mouth of Amar Nath (PW-2). She was beaten with sticks, due to which, her right thumb was broken. Her daughter Maya Devi (PW-5) also sustained injuries. PW-4 Gambri Devi, deposed that accused persons removed the poles (khuntas) of buffaloes. Amar Nath (PW-2) and his wife were laid down by the accused and given beatings. There was bleeding from the mouth of Amar Nath (PW-2). Amar Nath (PW-2) was beaten with kicks and sticks. Garibo Devi (PW-3) and Rajo Devi (PW-1) also sustained injuries. PW-5 Maya Devi, has deposed that on 11.7.1998, at about 7:00 AM, Rajo Devi (PW-1) had gone to the cowshed. The accused had removed the poles (khuntas) and on asking, they started beating Rajo Devi (PW-1) and Garibo Devi (PW-3). They were beaten with sticks. Her brother Amar Nath (PW-2) was laid down and had been beaten with kicks and fist blows. There were bleeding from the mouth and nose of Amar Nath (PW-2). Gian Chand (PW-6) and Baldev Singh (PW-9) rescued Amar Nath (PW-2) from the accused. The thumb of Garibo Devi (PW-3) was also broken by beatings with sticks. 7. Gian Chand (PW-6), Ravi Kumar (PW-7) and Baldev Singh (PW-9) have turned hostile and did not support the prosecution case. PW-8 Dr. Anil Kaushal, deposed that on 16.7.1998, he had examined Amar Nath (PW-2) and observed the following injuries on his person : “(i) Lacerated wound on the inner side of upper lip on left side opposite to left incisor about 1 cm in length. (ii) Complained of pain in left leg. (iii) Upper lateral left incisor is having pain.” The patient was referred to the Dentist, advised X-ray left leg AP lateral, X-ray opinion left thigh show no fracture. After receipt of opinion of Dentist, injury No.3 grievous and injury Nos.1 and 2 are simple in nature. He issued MLC Ex.PW8/A. PW-10 Prem Chand, deposed that in the year 1998, he was posted as MHC in Police Station, Hamirpur. Rapat No.5, dated 16.7.1998, Ex.PW10/A, was prepared by him. PW- 11 Inspector Som Dutt, deposed that on 14.8.1998, after registration of the case, file was handed over to him for investigation. After visiting the spot, spot map Ex.PW11/A was prepared. Stick Ex.P-1 was taken into possession, vide recovery memo Ex.PW1/A. The injured were medically examined and statements of witnesses were recorded, as per their version. 8. PW- 11 Inspector Som Dutt, deposed that on 14.8.1998, after registration of the case, file was handed over to him for investigation. After visiting the spot, spot map Ex.PW11/A was prepared. Stick Ex.P-1 was taken into possession, vide recovery memo Ex.PW1/A. The injured were medically examined and statements of witnesses were recorded, as per their version. 8. From the entire evidence, it is clear that as far as the injuries are concerned, these are simple in nature, but for the injury on the incisor of one of the complainant, which is as per Dr. Anil Kaushal (PW-8), is grievous in nature. The long standing dispute inter se the parties, which is civil in nature, makes it clear that the prosecution witnesses, who are the interested witnesses can be believed only in case, they are supported by independent witnesses. The independent witnesses in the present case have not supported the prosecution case, when though they were cross-examined at length by the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor. 9. Hon’ble Supreme Court in Mohammed Ankoos and others vs. Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad, (2010) 1 Supreme Court Cases, 94. Relevant para-15 of the judgment (supra) is reproduced here in below : “15. This Court has, time and again, dealt with the scope of exercise of power by the Appellate Court against judgment of acquittal under Sections 378 and 386, Cr.P.C. It has been repeatedly held that if two views are possible, the Appellate Court should not ordinarily interfere with the judgment of acquittal. This Court has laid down that Appellate Court shall not reverse a judgment of acquittal because another view is possible to be taken. It is not necessary to multiply the decisions on the subject and reference to a later decision of this Court in Ghurey Lal v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2008 10 SCC 450 shall suffice wherein this Court considered a long line of cases and held thus : "69. The following principles emerge from the cases above: 1. The appellate court may review the evidence in appeals against acquittal under Sections 378 and 386 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973. Its power of reviewing evidence is wide and the appellate court can reappreciate the entire evidence on record. It can review the trial court's conclusion with respect to both facts and law. 2. The accused is presumed innocent until proven guilty. Its power of reviewing evidence is wide and the appellate court can reappreciate the entire evidence on record. It can review the trial court's conclusion with respect to both facts and law. 2. The accused is presumed innocent until proven guilty. The accused possessed this presumption when he was before the trial court. The trial court's acquittal bolsters the presumption that he is innocent. 3. Due or proper weight and consideration must be given to the trial court's decision. This is especially true when a witness' credibility is at issue. It is not enough for the High Court to take a different view of the evidence. There must also be substantial and compelling reasons for holding that the trial court was wrong. 70. In light of the above, the High Court and other appellate courts should follow the well-settled principles crystallised by number of judgments if it is going to overrule or otherwise disturb the trial court's acquittal: 1. The appellate court may only overrule or otherwise disturb the trial court's acquittal if it has "very substantial and compelling reasons" for doing so. A number of instances arise in which the appellate court would have "very substantial and compelling reasons" to discard the trial court's decision. "Very substantial and compelling reasons" exist when: (i) The trial court's conclusion with regard to the facts is palpably wrong; (ii) The trial court's decision was based on an erroneous view of law; (iii) The trial court's judgment is likely to result in "grave miscarriage of justice"; (iv) The entire approach of the trial court in dealing with the evidence was patently illegal; (v) The trial court's judgment was manifestly unjust and unreasonable; (vi) The trial court has ignored the evidence or misread the material evidence or has ignored material documents like dying declarations/report of the ballistic expert, etc. (vii) This list is intended to be illustrative, not exhaustive. 2. The appellate court must always give proper weight and consideration to the findings of the trial court. 3. If two reasonable views can be reached--one that leads to acquittal, the other to conviction--the High Courts/appellate courts must rule in favour of the accused." 10. It has been held in K. Prakashan vs. P.K. Surenderan (2008) 1 SCC 258 , that when two views are possible, appellate Court should not reverse the judgment of acquittal merely because the other view was possible. It has been held in K. Prakashan vs. P.K. Surenderan (2008) 1 SCC 258 , that when two views are possible, appellate Court should not reverse the judgment of acquittal merely because the other view was possible. When judgment of trial Court was neither perverse, nor suffered from any legal infirmity or non consideration/misappreciation of evidence on record, reversal thereof by High Court was not justified. 11. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in T. Subramanian vs. State of Tamil Nadu (2006) 1 SCC 401 , has held that where two views are reasonably possible from the very same evidence, prosecution cannot be said to have proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. 12. In view of the aforesaid decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and discussion made here in above, I find no merit in this appeal and the same is accordingly dismissed. Record of the learned trial Court be sent back forth with.