JUDGMENT Dharam Chand Chaudhary, J —This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 22.11.2006 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Court No. 1, Paonta Sahib, District Sirmour in Criminal Case No. 35/2 of 2003 whereby the respondents (hereinafter referred to as the accused persons) have been acquitted of the charge under Sections 147, 148, 149, 341 and 323 IPC framed against each of them while arriving at a conclusion that the prosecution has failed to prove its case against them beyond all reasonable doubts. 2. The prosecution case in a nut shell is that PW1 (complainant) Sukhbir Singh accompanied by PW4 Sukhdev Singh and PW8 Razak Ali while on their way the house of Baldev Singh, Numberdar for carrying ''PRALLY'' (remains of paddy plants after its thrashing) were restrained by accused Gurmeet Singh from moving ahead and started beating the complainant with danda. His co-accused Ajeet Singh and Surender Singh followed him and slapped him. They also administered fisticuffs to the complainant party. On hearing the cries of complainant PW2 Harnam Singh, PW5 Paramjeet Singh and PW3 Baba Singh arrived at the spot. In the meanwhile accused Sulender Kaur and Narender Kaur also arrived there. They picked up the bricks and inflicted injuries thereby on the head of PW Harnam Singh and PW Paramjeet Singh. They also received injuries on their person. 3. At the instance of complainant, rapat No. 4 Ext.PW6/A came to be entered in police diary of Police Post Majra. On the basis thereof FIR Ext.PW9/A came to be registered in Police Station, Paonta Sahib, District Sirmour. The investigation was conducted by PW9 Parkash Chand. All the injured namely Sukhbir Singh, Harnam Singh and Paramjeet Singh were got medically examined at Civil Hospital, Paonta Sahib and their MLCs Ext.PW7/A, Ext.PW7/B and Ext.PW7/C collected and added in the record. The injuries they allegedly received in the occurrence were found to be simple in nature. The I.O. has also prepared map Ext.PW9/B of the place of occurrence. PW5 Paramjeet Singh has produced his blood stained T-shirt and blood stained patka whereas PW2 Harnam Singh has also produced one blood stained parna which were taken into possession vide recovery memo Ext.PW5/A and Ext.PW2/A, respectively. The I.O. has also prepared map Ext.PW9/B of the place of occurrence. PW5 Paramjeet Singh has produced his blood stained T-shirt and blood stained patka whereas PW2 Harnam Singh has also produced one blood stained parna which were taken into possession vide recovery memo Ext.PW5/A and Ext.PW2/A, respectively. Accused Gurmeet Singh has also produced the danda Ext.P1 during the course of investigation which was taken in possession vide recovery memo Ext.PW1/A. Besides the complainant PW1, injured witnesses Harnam Singh and Paramjeet Singh, PW3 Baba Singh, PW4 Sukhdev Singh and PW8 Razak Ali were associated as independent witnesses who allegedly witnessed the occurrence. PW6 C. Pramod Kumar has proved the copy of rapat Ext.PW6/A. PW7 Dr. Anand has conducted the medical examination of the injured persons PW1, PW2 and PW5 namely Sukhbir Singh, Harnam Singh and Paramjeet Singh, respectively. 4. On the completion of investigation challan was filed against all the accused persons. On prima-facie finding a case made out against them charge under Sections 147, 148, 341, 323/149 IPC was framed against each of them. They, however, pleaded not guilty to the charge. The prosecution, as already pointed out, has examined the injured witnesses PW1 Sukhbir Singh, PW2 Harnam Singh and PW5 Paramjeet Singh in support of its case. Besides the so called eye witnesses PW3 Baba Singh, PW4 Sukhdev Singh and PW8 Razak Ali were also produced in the Court in order to sustain the charge against the accused persons. Formal witnesses are PW6 C. Pramod Kumar and PW7 Dr. Anand whereas the I.O. H.C. Parkash Chand PW9. 5. On the other hand, the accused besides their statements recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. have also examined S/Shri Meen Singh DW1 and Malkiat Kaur DW3 in their defence. They have also examined Dr. Anand DW2 to prove the injuries they also received in the occurrence. 6. Learned trial Court on appreciation of the oral as well as documentary evidence has concluded that no case against either of the accused persons is made out for the commission of offence punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149, 341 and 323 IPC. Consequently, they all have been acquitted of the charge framed against each of them vide impugned judgment dated 22.11.2006. 7. Consequently, they all have been acquitted of the charge framed against each of them vide impugned judgment dated 22.11.2006. 7. The legality and validity of the impugned judgment has been questioned on the grounds, inter alia, that the evidence available on record has not been appreciated in its right perspective and to the contrary the findings whereby the accused persons have been acquitted of the charge framed against them in a slip-shod and perfunctory manner. No plausible reason has been assigned to discard the evidence including the statements of the injured witnesses produced by the prosecution. The evidence produced by the prosecution has been brushed aside erroneously. 8. Learned Additional Advocate General during the course of arguments has pointed out from the evidence available on record that the charge framed against each of the accused persons stand fully established from the cogent and reliable evidence available on record. As per his further version such evidence has wrongly been brushed aside and not taken into consideration. No plausible reasoning is forthcoming to justify the acquittal of the accused persons of the charge framed against them. Therefore, the impugned judgment has been sought to be quashed with further prayer that on conviction of each of the accused persons they may be punished for the offence they have committed. 9. Learned defence counsel while repelling the arguments addressed on behalf of the prosecution has contended that the evidence produced by the prosecution is not consistent and rather is full of discrepancies. The witnesses have improved their statements and came forward with an exaggerated version of the occurrence. The factum of the complainant party in this case have been acquitted in the cross case i.e. Criminal Case No. 16/2 of 2004/03 has been concealed. It has been argued that in the cross case the complainant party stand acquitted of the charge framed against them, therefore, no finding of conviction could have been recorded against the accused persons also and as such, they have been rightly acquitted of the charge by learned trial Judge. The impugned judgment which according to learned defence counsel is reasoned one call for no interference by this Court. 10. The impugned judgment which according to learned defence counsel is reasoned one call for no interference by this Court. 10. On close scrutiny of the evidence available on record and taking into consideration the rival submissions, it would not be improper to conclude that learned trial Court has not committed any illegality or irregularity while acquitting the accused persons of the charge framed against each of them for the reasons that admittedly two cross cases pertaining to the same occurrence i.e. FIR No. 411 of 2002 (Ext.PW9/A) came to be registered against the accused persons in this case under Sections 147, 148, 149, 341 and 323 IPC on 5.11.2002 at 11:20 a.m. whereas FIR No. 415 of 2002 (Ext.DW1/A) under Sections 323, 325 read with Section 34 IPC against the complainant party. The time of occurrence in both FIRs has been entered as 08:00hours (8:00 a.m.) The information qua occurrence as per FIR Ext.DW1/A was received by the police prior in time i.e. 09:40 hours (9:40 a.m.) as compared to the FIR Ex.PW9/A wherein such time has been recorded as 11:20 hours (11:20 a.m.) . Similarly, while the information received in the cross case i.e. Ext.DW1/A supra, the entries were recorded against daily diary No. 7, whereas the information received by the police in this case was entered at serial No. 13, meaning thereby that it is the accused party which had given the intimation qua the occurrence first to the police followed by the complainant party on which this case against the accused persons came to be registered vide FIR Ext.PW9/A. The complainant party (accused in cross case FIR Ext.DW1/A) have already been acquitted by learned trial Court vide the judgment passed on the same day, therefore, how the accused persons with almost similar evidence could have been convicted. 11. Interestingly enough, as per the facts of this case the occurrence had taken place near hand-pump whereas as per the FIR Ext.DW1/A the place of occurrence was the field belonging to the accused persons. The police has conducted the investigation of both cases and even filed reports under Section 173 Cr.P.C. also in the Court. 11. Interestingly enough, as per the facts of this case the occurrence had taken place near hand-pump whereas as per the FIR Ext.DW1/A the place of occurrence was the field belonging to the accused persons. The police has conducted the investigation of both cases and even filed reports under Section 173 Cr.P.C. also in the Court. While in this case the place of occurrence has been claimed by the police the hand-pump, in the cross case the field of the accused party meaning thereby that the investigating agency itself is not specific as to at what place the occurrence had taken place. No findings of conviction could have been recorded against the accused persons on the basis of such type evidence available on record. Not only this but as per the judgment passed in cross case i.e. Criminal Case No. 16/2 of 2004/03, a copy whereof has been produced on the record of this case, the accused therein (complainant party in this case) have been acquitted of the charge framed against them. Admittedly accused Ajeet Singh, Mahender Singh and Surender Singh (members of complainant party in the cross case) had also received injuries on their persons in the same occurrence. The reference in this behalf can be made to the testimony of Dr. Anand DW2. As per his version while in the witness box on examination of the aforesaid accused persons he noticed injuries on their person and issued MLCs Ext.DW2/A, Ext.DW2/B and Ext.DW2/C respectively. In his opinion the injuries he noticed on their persons could have been inflicted with sticks. Shri Meen Singh DW1 examined by the accused persons has proved the FIR Ext.DW1/A which was registered at the instance of the accused party against the complainant and others in this case. Smt. Malkiat Kaur DW3 an eye witness to the occurrence examined by the accused persons in their defence tells us that it is the complainant party in this case who were aggressors and they administered beatings not only to this witness but also accused persons Ajeet Singh, Surender Singh and Mahender Singh. Smt. Malkiat Kaur DW3 an eye witness to the occurrence examined by the accused persons in their defence tells us that it is the complainant party in this case who were aggressors and they administered beatings not only to this witness but also accused persons Ajeet Singh, Surender Singh and Mahender Singh. Therefore, in view of such evidence produced by the accused in their defence and also that in the cross case the complainant party (accused in that case) have already been acquitted of the charge, the accused in this case could have also not been convicted with the help of evidence produced by the prosecution which in the opinion of this Court is neither sufficient nor reliable. 12. Interestingly enough, the I.O. PW9 who is common in both cases has expressed his ignorance about the injuries received by accused persons Ajeet Singh, Mahender Singh and Surender Singh (the members of the complainant party in the connected case) , whereas as per the evidence produced by the accused in their defence accused persons Ajeet Singh, Mahender Singh and Surender Singh have also received injuries on their persons in the same occurrence and as the prosecution has failed to explain the injuries they sustained on their persons, therefore, the manner in which the occurrence has taken place, as claimed by the prosecution in this case, is highly doubtful. Learned trial Judge has very appropriately considered this aspect of the matter while drawing support from the judgment of the Hon''ble Apex Court in Laxmi Singh and others Vs. State of Bihar , (1976) AIR(Supreme Court) 2263 and Gurbachan Singh and another vs. State of H.P. , (1977) ShimLC 153. As per the law laid down in these judgments the failure to explain injuries sustained by the accused persons in an occurrence by the prosecution is fatal to its case. The prosecution seems to have suppressed the genesis and the manner in which the occurrence has originated. The possibility of the accused party was aggressor cannot be ruled out. 13. As already pointed out the prosecution itself is not certain about the place of occurrence because as per this case the occurrence has taken place near hand-pump, whereas as per the connected one in the field of the accused party. The possibility of the accused party was aggressor cannot be ruled out. 13. As already pointed out the prosecution itself is not certain about the place of occurrence because as per this case the occurrence has taken place near hand-pump, whereas as per the connected one in the field of the accused party. It is significant to note that the complainant PW1 Sukhbir Singh was accompanied by PW4 Sukhdev Singh and PW8 Razak Ali while on the way to the house of Baldev Singh Numberdar for carrying ''PRALLY''. PW2 Harnam Singh and PW5 Paramjeet Singh arrived at the place of occurrence later on. It is not understandable as to why no injury was sustained by aforesaid Sukhdev Singh and Razak Ali and why the accused party chosen to hit only Harnam Singh and Paramjeet Singh who allegedly had come to the spot late with bricks and fisticuffs. As a matter of fact, had it been PW4 Sukhdev Singh and PW8 Razak Ali alone with PW1 Sukhbir Singh they would have also received injuries on their person. PW2 Harnam Singh rather turned hostile to the prosecution because he failed to disclose the name of the assailants who were fighting with the complainant party. In his lengthy cross examination conducted by learned APP, nothing material lending support to the prosecution case could be elicited for the reasons that he did not support the prosecution case qua it is the accused party which was fighting with the complainant party and were having sticks in their hands. He also did not support the manner in which as per the prosecution story the occurrence has taken place. He also expressed his ignorance that he suffered injuries on his head because of the ladies accused pelted stones on them. Therefore, learned trial Judge has rightly concluded that PW2 has not supported the prosecution case nor any contemporaneous material has come on record to show that he was in connivance with the accused party and it is for this reason deposed falsely. Significantly during the course of his further cross-examination conducted by learned defence counsel he was very specific and categoric in stating that when he reached on the spot several people had already gathered there. He, however, failed to disclose their names. 14. Significantly during the course of his further cross-examination conducted by learned defence counsel he was very specific and categoric in stating that when he reached on the spot several people had already gathered there. He, however, failed to disclose their names. 14. No doubt, PW5 Paramjeet Singh has supported the prosecution case, however, being the cousin of PW1 Sukhbir Singh is not dependable because the possibility of he having deposed falsely to help the prosecution cannot be ruled out. Otherwise also, as per his testimony when he reached on the spot all the accused were present there and causing beating to Sukhbir Singh, the complainant. Being so, he has deposed somewhat which even is not the part of prosecution case also for the reasons that it is only accused persons Gurmeet Singh, Ajeet Singh and Surender Singh were present on the spot. The remaining accused Sulender Kaur and Narender Kaur arrived there later on. As regard the remaining accused persons nothing was reported to the police at the time of making report Ext.PW6/A. Therefore, this witness has deposed contrary to the prosecution case and as such, is neither dependable nor reliable. 15. Now if the testimony of another eye witness PW3 Baba Singh is concerned, the same is again neither cogent nor reliable and trustworthy, hence inspires no confidence. As a matter of fact, he has changed his statement at every stage and the same is not only full of discrepancies but he has also improved his earlier version while in the witness box. As per his version when he reached on the spot it is accused persons Gurmeet Singh, Ajeet Singh and Surender Singh were quarreling with complainant Sukhbir Singh. Accused Ishwar Singh was not present at that time. Harnam Singh suffered injuries on his head with danda or stone he failed to disclose. According to him, the ladies accused were already present on the spot. He also failed to disclose the names of ladies accused. He was also declared hostile and subjected to lengthy cross examination. In his cross-examination conducted by learned APP though he disclosed the names of remaining accused who according to him were also present on the spot. However, expressed his ignorance that each of the accused were having danda and stones. He also failed to disclose the names of ladies accused. He was also declared hostile and subjected to lengthy cross examination. In his cross-examination conducted by learned APP though he disclosed the names of remaining accused who according to him were also present on the spot. However, expressed his ignorance that each of the accused were having danda and stones. He stated in the same breath that the danda was with accused Ajeet Singh who dealt with a blow therewith upon PW1 Sukhbir Singh. Therefore, in examination-in-chief he expressed his ignorance about the manner in which the injuries were sustained by the complainant party but in the cross-examination came forward entirely with an altogether different version. This witness, as such, has changed his stand again and again, hence not reliable nor dependable. 16. The prosecution evidence as has come on record by way of the testimony of injured witnesses PW1 Sukhbir Singh, PW2 Harnam Singh and PW5 Paramjeet Singh nor from that of the so called eye witnesses namely PW3 Baba Singh, PW4 Sukhdev Singh and PW8 Razak Ali hardly find any support. As a matter of fact, the manner in which the occurrence has taken place is not at all proved from the evidence so produced by the prosecution. On the other hand, all the accused have explained the circumstances appearing against each of them in the prosecution evidence in their statements recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. The plea they raised in their defence also finds support from the testimony of the witnesses DW1, DW2 and DW3 they produced in their defence. On the other hand, the prosecution has miserably failed to prove its case against the accused persons beyond all reasonable doubts. They, as such, have rightly been acquitted of the charge framed against each of them. 17. For all the reasons hereinabove, this appeal fails and the same is accordingly dismissed. The personal bonds executed by each of the accused persons shall stand cancelled and the sureties discharged.