JUDGMENT/ORDER : Vivek Singh Thakur, J. This appeal has been preferred by State against the acquittal of respondents vide judgment, dated 16th March, 2009 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hamirpur, in criminal Case No. 72-I of 2005/28 II of 2007, in case FIR No. 197 of 2004, dated 25th July, 2004, registered under Sections 447, 323, 427, 325 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code (for short "IPC") in Police Station Hamirpur. 2. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record. 3. Prosecution case, in brief, is that on 25th July, 2004, at about 4.30 p.m., respondents had been demolishing the wall and gate of complainant PW2 Laskari Ram. On raising objection by PW2 Laskari Ram, he was given kick blow by respondent No.1-Bidhi Chand, an iron rod blow on head by respondent No. 3-Sushil Kumar and a blow of knife like weapon by respondent No. 2-Mansa Devi on his little finger of left hand. On raising alarm by PW2 Laskari Ram, his wife PW3 Geeta Devi came on the spot, both of them visited the police station and lodged FIR Ex. PW2/A, whereafter PW2 Laskari Ram was medically examined by PW5 Dr. Archana Soni, on whose advice, x-ray of little finger and skull was conducted by PW1 Dr. P.C. Verma. PW2 Laskari Ram was referred to PGI, Chandigarh, where he remained under treatment for two days. MLC with regard to medical examination of PW2 Laskari Ram Ex. PW5/A was issued by PW5 Dr. Archana Soni. She had also given final opinion on 21st October, 2004, opining that the head injury inflicted upon PW2 Laskari Ram was grievous. Investigation was carried out by PW14 ASI Swami Ram, who recorded the statements of witnesses, prepared the spot map, seized iron rods and collected the MLC. On completion of investigation, finding prima facie complicity of the respondents in commission of offence, challan was prepared by PW4 SI Parkash Chand and presented in the Court. 4. Prosecution has examined fifteen witnesses in all. It is apt to record herein that two witnesses, namely Sukh Dev and HC Khem Chand, have been numbered as PW11 while recording their statements before trial Court. 5. 4. Prosecution has examined fifteen witnesses in all. It is apt to record herein that two witnesses, namely Sukh Dev and HC Khem Chand, have been numbered as PW11 while recording their statements before trial Court. 5. After recording statements under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short "CrPC"), respondents have examined MHC Vijay Parkash, Police Station Hamirpur as DW1 who had produced record of FIR No. 214 of 2003, registered in Police Station Hamirpur under sections 452, 307 and 34 IPC against Ram Pal, who is son of PW11 Sukh Dev, copy whereof has been placed on record as DW1/A. The said witness had also admitted that statement of Sushil Kumar, S/o Bidhi Chand (respondent No. 3 herein) Ex. PA was also recorded in the said case. 6. Pw2 Laskari Ram, in his statement Ex. PW2/A recorded under Section 154 CrPC, had specifically stated that on objecting demolition of boundary wall, respondent-Bidhi Chand kicked in his stomach, respondent-Sushil Kumar hit on his head with an iron rod and respondent-Mansa Devi inflicted injury on the finger of left hand with knife like weapon. However, in his deposition in the Court, he was silent about the kick blow given in his stomach by respondent-Bidhi Chand and had improved his version by stating that respondent-Mansa Devi had hit his left hand with iron rod. 7. After recording the FIR, PW2 Laskari Ram was medically examined, wherein the Doctor found all the injuries to have been caused with a blunt weapon. Probably, to have corroboration with the medical evidence, PW2 Laskari Ram had improved his version in his statement while appearing as a witness in the Court. 8. There is another discrepancy in his statement Ex. PW2/A wherein he had clearly stated that two-three other persons were also accompanying respondent-Bidhi Chand, who had caused damage to the wall and gate. However, in the Court, he had specifically stated that one Madan Lal and Ishwar Chand, i.e. only two persons were accompanying the respondents. Further, the challan, besides Bidhi Chand, his wife Mansa Devi and son Sushil Kumar, was presented only against Ishwar Dass and who was Madan Lal, who was said to have been accompanying the respondents, had never been disclosed either by the prosecution or by the complainant. 9. Further, the challan, besides Bidhi Chand, his wife Mansa Devi and son Sushil Kumar, was presented only against Ishwar Dass and who was Madan Lal, who was said to have been accompanying the respondents, had never been disclosed either by the prosecution or by the complainant. 9. Fir was recorded immediately after the incident without any delay and definitely, it was first version of the complainant, i.e. PW2 Laskari Ram, with regard to the incident. However, the said version is contradicted by PW2 himself in his deposition in the Court, which renders the truthfulness of the statement of PW2 Laskari Ram recorded under Section 154 CrPC doubtful. 10. It is the case of the complainant that none else except respondents and complainant alongwith his wife had come on the spot. Meaning thereby there were only complainant party and the respondents present on the spot and number of persons present on the spot was not so huge that the complainant could not remember as to how many persons were accompanying respondent-Bidhi Chand. 11. According to PW2 Laskari Ram, his wife PW3 Geeta Devi came on the spot when he raised alarm after receiving injuries in the hand of respondents whereas PW3 Geeta Devi, in her statement, had deposed categorically like an eye witness stating that when her husband objected demolition of wall, Mansa Devi inflicted injury in his left hand causing fracture of finger and Sushil Kumar hit her husband with iron rod on the head. 12. In his cross-examination, complainant has categorically stated that during the occurrence, none from the village or his family except his wife had come on the spot whereas prosecution has introduced PW7 Jeet Ram, resident of another village, PW10 Jindu Ram, resident of the same village and PW11 Sukh Dev as eye witnesses to the incident. It is also noticeable that, though, PW10 Jindu Ram claimed his presence on the spot at the time of the incident, however, he conspicuously remained silent about the attack by respondents-Bidhi Chand, Sushil Kumar and Mansa Devi upon the complainant, i.e. PW2 Laskari Ram. This witness only deposed about demolition of boundary wall and gate. 13. The version of PW2 Laskari Ram and PW3 Geeta Devi qua the timing of arrival of PW3 Geeta Devi on spot is contradictory. This witness only deposed about demolition of boundary wall and gate. 13. The version of PW2 Laskari Ram and PW3 Geeta Devi qua the timing of arrival of PW3 Geeta Devi on spot is contradictory. Further, PW3 Geeta Devi had specifically stated that respondent kept on demolishing the wall and she took her husband to the police station whereas PW11 Sukh Dev, in his statement, had categorically stated that PW3 Geeta Devi, on the spot, was massaging head of her husband and was cleaning the blood oozing out from his head. 14. As per the case of the prosecution itself, PW2 Laskari Ram was got medically examined after lodging of the FIR in the police station. However, PW11 Sukh Dev deposed in the Court that PW2 Laskari Ram was lying unconscious having 10-11 stitches on his head. How and when PW2 came on the spot with 10-11 stitches on his head, fell unconscious on the spot during the occurrence and was noticed by PW11 Sukh Dev is also not reconcilable. 15. Pw11 Sukh Dev appears to be a witness introduced for padding the prosecution story, who was having enmity with respondent-Sushil Kumar, as has been proved by the respondents by placing on record Ex. DW1/A FIR No. 214/2003 and statement of respondent-Sushil Kumar Ex. PA recorded during investigation in the said FIR, wherein Ram Pal son of Sukh Dev (PW11) was accused for inflicting injuries to respondent-Sushil Kumar which were dangerous to his life resulting into registration of FIR under Section 307 IPC. 16. Pw7 Jeet Ram is another witness who has been examined as a spot witness. This witness had deposed halfheartedly in favour of the prosecution by stating that he heard noise and saw the quarrel between the parties but did not know what were they saying. He stated that there was an iron rod in the hands of Mansa Devi and did not know what was being carried by others and as to whether it was iron rod or something else. He did not know whether the accused persons had hit with saria or not. He only stated that blood was oozing out from the head and finger of PW2 Laskari Ram. In his cross-examination, PW7 Jeet Ram had also admitted that in another case pending between PW2 Laskari Ram and respondent-Bidhi Chand, he had appeared as a witness in favour of the complainant party. He only stated that blood was oozing out from the head and finger of PW2 Laskari Ram. In his cross-examination, PW7 Jeet Ram had also admitted that in another case pending between PW2 Laskari Ram and respondent-Bidhi Chand, he had appeared as a witness in favour of the complainant party. He is not resident of the village of the parties. He appears to be a stock witness. 17. Pw8 Rup Lal, the witness examined to prove recovery of iron rod and pipe (weapons of offence) from the respondents vide memos Ex. PW8/A and Ex. PW8/B, has not supported the prosecution case, was declared hostile and nothing material in favour of the prosecution could be extracted from the said witness during the cross-examination by the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor. The another witness to the said memos, i.e. one Shri Vijay Kumar, has not been examined by the prosecution. 18. Another iron rod, claimed to have been produced by respondent-Bidhi Chand, was intended to be proved by examining PW9 Dhyan Singh and PW11 HC Khem Chand. PW9 Dhyan Singh was a Home Guard working in Police Station Hamirpur. Similarly, HC Khem Chand was a police official posted in the same police station at relevant time. The Investigating Officer, for the reasons best known to him, has not associated any independent witness from the village during recovery and seizure of the said iron rod. 19. From the aforesaid discrepancies, contradictions and improvements of the complainant, his wife and other witnesses claimed to be spot witnesses, it is apparent that from the initial stage, there is manipulation of facts and truth was not disclosed, which creates doubt with respect to veracity of the prosecution evidence. 20. It appears that reality of incident is something else. When there is doubt about the manner in which incident has been reported, there is always possibility of another view and when two views are possible, the view beneficial to the accused is to be preferred. 21. As the statements of complainant and other prosecution spot witnesses are not inspiring confidence, therefore, evidence of other witnesses, who were associated during investigation for its completion, are not relevant and there is no necessity to discuss their evidence on record. 22. 21. As the statements of complainant and other prosecution spot witnesses are not inspiring confidence, therefore, evidence of other witnesses, who were associated during investigation for its completion, are not relevant and there is no necessity to discuss their evidence on record. 22. In view of the above discussions, I am of the opinion that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt by leading cogent, reliable, trustworthy and convincing evidence, which can be made basis to convict the respondents. 23. Respondents also have advantage of being acquitted by the trial Court fortifying the presumption of their innocence which stands unrebutted for want of pointing out any cogent, reliable, convincing and trustworthy evidence against the respondents. The trial Court has appreciated the evidence on record completely and correctly and it cannot be said that acquittal of respondents has resulted into travesty of justice or has caused miscarriage of justice. Therefore, no case for interference is made out. 24. Viewed thus, the appeal is dismissed. Bail bonds furnished by the respondents and their respective sureties are discharged. Record be sent back to the learned trial Court.