JUDGMENT : Vivek Singh Thakur, J. 1. Present appeal has been preferred by State of Himachal Pradesh against judgment dated 21.3.2006 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge (Presiding Officer Fast Track Court), Solan camp at Nalagarh in Case No. 2-FTN/10 of 2005/2004, whereby judgment dated 29.5.2004, convicting and sentencing respondent, passed by Sub-Divisional Magistrate Nalagarh in Case No. 193/2 of 2000 in Case FIR No. 52 of 2000, registered under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 325 and 326 IPC in Police Station, Nalagarh, has been reversed and respondents have been acquitted. 2. I have heard learned Deputy Advocate General as well as learned counsel for the respondents and have also gone through the record. 3. Prosecution case in brief is that on 11.4.2000 at about 9:00 P.M. at village Nawangraon, respondents have committed rioting causing injuries to Kartar Singh, Jaspal Singh, Amarjeet Singh and Beant Singh, on account of a dispute arisen with respect to user of path for crossing the tractor. Matter was reported to the police and statement of Kartar Singh (not examined as he expired during the trial before recording his statement in the Court), Ex. P-14, under Section 154 Cr.P.C. was recorded, wherein he alleged that on 11.4.2000 at about 9:00 P.M. he had objected the crossing of tractor from a path adjacent to their house, whereupon respondents attacked him causing injuries to him and his son Jaspal Singh, Amarjeet Singh and Beant Singh and they were rescued by Papu and Kuldeep. The said statement was sent to the Police Station as a rucka, whereupon FIR Ex. P-15 was registered and investigation was carried out. During investigation site map Ex. P-16 was prepared. Injured were got medically examined and their MLCs Ex. P-12 to P-14 were obtained. Statements of witnesses were recorded. On finding prima facie complicity of respondents in commission of offence, challan was presented in the Court. On conclusion of trial, respondents were convicted under Sections 148, 323 and 324 IPC and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for a period of 6 months, 3 months and 6 months respectively along with fine of Rs. 500/- each under Sections 148 and 324 IPC and failure in making payment of fine, to further undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 1 month each. 4. In appeal preferred by respondents, learned Additional Sessions Judge has acquitted them. Hence, present appeal. 5. 500/- each under Sections 148 and 324 IPC and failure in making payment of fine, to further undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 1 month each. 4. In appeal preferred by respondents, learned Additional Sessions Judge has acquitted them. Hence, present appeal. 5. Complainant Kartar Singh had expired during the trial before recording his statement in the Court. His statement under Section 154 Cr.P.C. has been proved by PW-7 ASI Mani Lal. PW-1 Jaspal Singh, PW-2 Beant Singh and PW-3 Amarjeet Singh sons of Kartar Singh were examined as spot and injured witnesses. PW-1 Jaspal Singh has narrated the incident in his examination-in-chief as a eye witness, but contradictory to his father Kartar Singh, he deposed that they were rescued by Gopal (not examined) and Tarlochan Singh (PW-6). Whereas, Kartar Singh, in his statement Ex. P-14 recorded under Section 154 Cr.P.C. had stated that Papu and Kuldeep had rescued them. Kuldeep and Papu mentioned in the statement of Kartar Singh were neither cited as witnesses in the challan nor examined in the Court. Gopal, mentioned as rescuer by PW-1 Jaspal Singh, was also neither cited nor examined in the Court. Tarlochan referred by PW-1 Jaspal in his statement as rescuer, though has been examined as PW-6, but in his statement he is silent in this regard. 6. PW-2 Beant Singh in his cross-examination has categorically stated that PW-1 Jaspal reached on the spot later on and by that time they had already received injuries and Jaspal had picked up injured from the spot. This witness in his examination-in-chief has also alleged that respondent Shyam Singh had given blow of axe on his head, whereas there is no corresponding injuries on his body more particularly on head caused by axe and other injuries received by Beant Singh was simple in nature. 7. As per statement Ex. P-15, PW-1 Jaspal Singh and PW-2 Beant Singh prosecution case is that Kartar Singh had objected the crossing of tractor from a path adjacent to their house. However PW-3 in his examination-in-chief has stated that Sonu and Radhey Shyam came in tractor and parked the same in front of their house and started abusing his father Kartar Singh. He has narrated the entirely different version of the dispute. 8. However PW-3 in his examination-in-chief has stated that Sonu and Radhey Shyam came in tractor and parked the same in front of their house and started abusing his father Kartar Singh. He has narrated the entirely different version of the dispute. 8. It is the case of the prosecution that tractor was being driven by Sonu, whereas in the statement recorded with the police PW-3 had stated that tractor was being driven by Gurmail Singh. On confrontation with his earlier statement, he explained that on the day when statement was recorded, his brain was not working properly. He has also been confronted with another portion of his statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. which was disowned by him by stating that he had not given such statement to the Police. However, he had admitted that he himself had narrated his statement to the police, which was read over and explained to him. He further stated that name of Papu and Tarlochan etc. came in his knowledge later on and these names were disclosed to him by Jaspal. 9. Though PW-1 Jaspal Singh, PW-2 Beant Singh, PW-3 Amarjeet Singh are real brothers and all sons of Kartar Singh complainant, but at the same time they are injured witnesses. Therefore, their veracity cannot be discarded only on the ground that they are related witnesses, but at the same time it is to be examined that as to whether at the relevant point of time independent witnesses were available or not. It is also settled law that the conviction can be based on the basis of statements of related witnesses in case their veracity is found cogent, reasonable, convincing and reliable and therefore, in present case if factum of non-joining and non-examining independent witnesses is ignored, whether statements of PW-1 and PW-3 are sufficient and can be relied upon to convict the respondents. 10. It is admitted by PW-2 Beant Singh as well as PW-3 Amarjeet Singh that at the time of incident entire village has gathered on the spot. PW- 9 ASI Muni Lal, Investigating Officer has also deposed that during investigation he had inquired Papu and Kuldeep who were cited as rescuer by Kartar Singh in his statement Ex. P-15, but he is silent about the reason for not citing them as witnesses and their non-examination in the Court. PW- 9 ASI Muni Lal, Investigating Officer has also deposed that during investigation he had inquired Papu and Kuldeep who were cited as rescuer by Kartar Singh in his statement Ex. P-15, but he is silent about the reason for not citing them as witnesses and their non-examination in the Court. It is not case of prosecution that other villagers on the spot were inquired and asked to depose, but they refused to depose. It is also not the case of prosecution where independent witnesses were associated but not examined in the Court. No reason, much less, plausible reason has been brought on record for not associating and examining independent witnesses present on the spot. Therefore, this omission on the part of prosecution is fatal. 11. So far as testimonies of PW-1 Jaswant Singh, PW-2 Beant Singh and PW-3 Amarjeet Singh are concerned, for material contradictions in their statements, creating doubt about the genuineness of dispute between the parties, rendering prosecution version doubtful that the respondents were aggressor party and thus their statements cannot be made basis for conviction of respondents, more particularly, as admitted by prosecution witnesses that a cross case arising out of the same incident, was registered under Section 325 IPC vide FIR No. 53 of 2000 in the same Police Station, copy whereof has been placed on record as Ex. D-1. 12. In absence of examination of independent witnesses, the statements of PW-1, 2 and 3 are to be scrutinized minutely with more care and caution. As per Ex. P-15, Papu and Kuldeep were rescuer, whereas according to PW-1 Jaswant Singh, Gopal and Tarlochan were rescuer. However, except Tarlochan none of them were cited as witnesses nor examined and PW-6 Tarlochan has not deposed anything about rescue of injured by him. 13. Different version of PW-2 Beant Singh and statement of PW-1 Jaspal Singh with regard to time of arrival of Jaspal on the spot also creates doubt about his presence on spot. According to PW-1 Jaspal Singh he witnessed the entire incident, whereas if statement of PW-2 Beant Singh is believed, then he was not present on the spot when others received injuries and as stated after arrival Jaspal Singh had removed them from the spot. In such a sequence of events, there was no possibility of receiving injuries by Jaspal Singh. All this render statement of PW-1 Jaspal Singh doubtful. 14. In such a sequence of events, there was no possibility of receiving injuries by Jaspal Singh. All this render statement of PW-1 Jaspal Singh doubtful. 14. Only Tarlochan has been examined as PW-6, but his name does not find figure in the statement recorded under Section 154 Cr.P.C. Further PW-3 has categorically stated that his name came to his knowledge at the instance of Jaspal Singh. PW-3 claims himself to be present on the spot, but he has not having knowledge about the persons who were present on the spot at the time of incident and who rescued him from the clutches of attackers. As stated supra, PW-6 Tarlochan Singh has not uttered even a single word in this regard. Such statements render statement of Jaspal and Tarlochan unreliable and also create doubt about their presence on the spot as claimed. 15. PW-4 Bhagat Singh was examined to prove the recovery of axe and sticks from the respondents, but he was declared hostile and nothing material was elucidated in favour of prosecution in his lengthy cross-examination. 16. PW-5 Rajinder Singh has been examined as witness qua production of clothes by PW-1 Jaspal and PW-3 Amarjeet Singh to the police. For resiling his earlier statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. he was declared hostile and subjected to cross-examination, wherein he admitted his signatures on Ex. P-7. However, production of clothes by PW-1 and PW-3 is not sufficient to prove guilt of respondents. 17. Tarlochan has been examined as PW-6, who in the Court deposed that 11.4.2000 at about 8:00 P.M., he and Gurpal were bringing sand from Sarsa river and on hearing noise he reached on spot and saw 5-6 persons having sticks in their hands and one of them was having axe and others were having stones in their hands. They were not known to him. He had also stated that person having axe with him was not present in the Court. He had identified the respondents as those assailants, but he has not corroborated his entire statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. He had denied the portion of his statements when confronted with the same. He also stated that axe blow was given to Sarvjeet. According to him before his arrival on spot large number of persons had already gathered there. He is resident of a village situated at 14-15 kilometers from the spot. He also stated that axe blow was given to Sarvjeet. According to him before his arrival on spot large number of persons had already gathered there. He is resident of a village situated at 14-15 kilometers from the spot. He deposed in contradiction to his earlier statement as well as to prosecution story and his statement cannot be relied upon to corroborate or fortify the case of the prosecution, particularly when his silence qua rescuing PWs. 1 to 3 is contrary to statement of PW-1. 18. PW-7 Preetpal Singh is photographer, who had taken photographs of the spot. Incident of quarrel is not disputed, therefore, his statement is not of much relevance. 19. PW-8 Dr. M.R. Verma and PW-10 Dr. Sharat Gargia have examined the injured persons issued MLCs Ex. P-11, Ex. P-12, Ex. P-13 and Ex. P-21. Testimony of these witnesses only proves injuries suffered by PW-1 Jaspal, PW-2 Amarjeet, PW-3 Beant Singh and Kartar Singh, but the manner in which these persons received injuries, for which statements of PW-1 to PW-3 and PW-6 are to be scrutinized. For reasons discussed herein above, testimonies of these witnesses are not reliable and confidence inspiring. 20. PW-9 ASI Muni Lal is Investigating Officer. He, in his cross-examination, admitted that he had also investigated the cross case in the same incident and had filed challan against the complainant party under Section 325 IPC. One party was aggressor and another was victim, but here strange enough, the same Investigating Officer in the same incident on the basis of different FIRs filed self contradictory challan in the Court. It is informed that in cross case also the accused were convicted by the trial Court, but acquitted by learned Sessions Court and State has not preferred any appeal in that case. Whereas, in present case State has preferred appeal. Another challan was presented under Section 325 IPC, meaning thereby grievous hurt was caused to some of respondents. Prosecution witnesses are silent about the manner in which injuries were received by respondents. It is not case of prosecution that respondents were aggressors and respondents had suffered injuries on account of use of force by PW-1 to PW-3 in their defence. From record it is not clear who was aggressors. It emerges from record that prosecution witnesses had not deposed complete truth and the incident had occurred in different manner than has been claimed by prosecution. From record it is not clear who was aggressors. It emerges from record that prosecution witnesses had not deposed complete truth and the incident had occurred in different manner than has been claimed by prosecution. Prosecution version is doubtful and where there is doubt, benefit is to be extended to accused. 21. In view of above discussion, it is apparent that prosecution has miserably failed to prove its case against the respondents beyond reasonable doubt and there is no cogent, reliable, convincing or confidence inspiring evidence on record to convict respondents and as such they are entitled to be acquitted for benefit of doubt. Therefore, it cannot be said that findings returned by learned Additional Sessions Judge has caused miscarriage of justice of resulted in travesty of justice. Therefore, impugned judgment is upheld and acquittal of respondents is affirmed. 22. Appeal along with pending application is dismissed. Bail bonds furnished by and on behalf of respondents are discharged. Record be sent back.