JUDGMENT : Vivek Singh Thakur, J. 1. This appeal has been preferred by the State against the judgment dated 29.9.2007 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Solan, District Solan, H.P. in Police Challan No. 303/2/04/2003 in FIR No. 354/02, dated 31.12.2002, registered in Police Station Sadar, District Solan, H.P. under Sections 341, 323 and 506 IPC read with Section 34 IPC, whereby respondents/accused persons have been acquitted. 2. I have heard Sh. R.P. Singh, learned Deputy Advocate General, and learned counsel for the respondents and have also gone through the records. 3. As per prosecution case, respondents on 31.12.2002 at about 3:00 P.M. at Saproon had wrongly restrained the complainant PW-1 Joginder Singh, caused him injuries by giving beatings and threatened him to do away with his life in furtherance of common intention, when he was coming back to his rented room along with PW-2 Bali Ram after taking tea in kiosk of one Panditji PW-3 Ramesh Kumar at Saproon. According to the report lodged by the complainant, at that time four persons, namely, Chandan Singh, Hari Singh, Lal Singh and Kuldeep, who were in the influence of liquor, slapped him and one of them had caught hold of his neck and started beating him with kick and fist blows without any reason, however, he was rescued by PW-2 Bali Ram and one taxi driver. 4. Complainant Joginder Singh has been examined as PW-1. In his deposition in the Court he has stated that on the date of incident at about 4:00 P.M., he was taking tea along with his daughter, a boy and PW-2 Bali Ram at the kiosk of Panditji (PW-3 Ramesh Kumar) and as it was raining, they were standing on the side of kiosk and accused persons were consuming liquor inside the kiosk and they had started beating him and he was rescued by the police personnel and they had taken him to Police Station and his statement was recorded by the Police and thereafter he was taken to the hospital for treatment. In his cross-examination, he has stated that he did not know Chandan Singh and other accused persons, nor he knew their names. In his cross-examination, he has stated that he did not know Chandan Singh and other accused persons, nor he knew their names. According to him he had not gone to Police Station for lodging report, but had got recorded his statement on the spot and thereafter they had went to Police Chowki and name of accused persons were inquired by the Police itself and Police Officials had incorporated their names in the FIR. He did not know their names. According to him, police personnel of the rank of Hawaldar, who were two in number and were in dress, rescued him and apprehended the accused persons along with liquor and the occurrence had taken place in their presence. PW-3 Panditji and PW-2 Bali Ram were also present on the spot. Thereafter he stated that quarrel had taken place inside the kiosk. 5. PW-2 Bali Ram has stated that four years ago he had come to Solan to meet PW-1 Joginder Singh and at about 3:30 P.M., they were sitting in the shop of accused Chandan Singh at Saproon Chowk. At that time PW-1, Joginder Singh had not said anything, but 2-3 persons, present in Court, had come and slapped him, and thereafter Police officials had come and taken them to Police Chowki. In cross-examination, he has stated that Chandan Singh is a tea seller and quarrel had taken place inside his shop. He has further stated that shop of PW-3 Panditji is also there, but he and Joginder had not gone to the shop of Panditji on that date. He further stated that in his presence only 7-8 slaps were given to PW-1 and nothing else had happened and these slaps were given by Chandan Singh. This witness is uncle of PW-1 Joginder Singh. 6. PW-3 Ramesh Chand is Panditji. He has different story to tell. According to him, PW-1 Joginder Singh accompanied by one person was leaving his kiosk after taking tea, as it had started raining, they had taken shelter in the adjacent kiosk and thereafter he was busy in preparing tea and in the meanwhile occurrence had taken place. He was declared hostile and in his cross-examination by the learned Public Prosecutor, he has stated that it is wrong to suggest that all four accused, were under influence of liquor and were abusing PW-1 Joginder Singh with threat to kill. He was declared hostile and in his cross-examination by the learned Public Prosecutor, he has stated that it is wrong to suggest that all four accused, were under influence of liquor and were abusing PW-1 Joginder Singh with threat to kill. He has also denied that he had rescued PW-1. In cross-examination by the defence, he has stated that no one was injured in his presence and on the spot it could not be noticed that who had beaten whom, as there were large number of people on the spot. According to him, quarrel had taken place on the spot, but no one was injured. 7. PW-5 Dr. Ashok Handa and PW-6 Dr. Navneet Handa are doctors, who after examination and treatment of PW-1 had issued MLC Ex. PW-5/A and PW-6/A respectively with respect to PW-1 Joginder Singh and MLCs with respect to examination of accused Chandan Singh and Hari Singh Ex. Pw-5/B and Ex. PW-5/C respectively. 8. Evidence of PW-5 and PW-6 only proved that PW-1 had received injuries on the date of incident and accused Chandan and Hari Singh had consumed alcohol, but were not intoxicated. The manner in which the incident had taken place and PW-1 has received injuries and role of accused persons in the said incident, is to be assessed on the basis of spot witnesses i.e. PW-1 Joginder Singh, PW-2 Bali Ram and PW-3 Ramesh Chand. 9. PW-3 Ramesh Chand has not supported the case of prosecution, except ascertaining the fact that a quarrel had taken in front of his kiosk. PWs 1 and 2, who are related to each other, have come out with different stories in their statements. Not only this, statement of PW-1 Joginder Singh is self contradictory as he has stated in the Court that his daughter and a boy had also accompanying him at the time of incident, whereas the first information report is silent about it and PW-2 Bali Ram as well as PW-3 Ramesh Chand have categorically stated that only two persons i.e. PW-1 and PW-2 were on the spot. However, in the report lodged with the Police, it is stated that PW-2 Bali Ram and one taxi driver has rescued PW-1, whereas in the Court, it has been stated that Police officials had rescued him. However, in the report lodged with the Police, it is stated that PW-2 Bali Ram and one taxi driver has rescued PW-1, whereas in the Court, it has been stated that Police officials had rescued him. Further as per prosecution case, PW-1 had come to the Police Station to lodge report, whereas according to PW-1, his statement was recorded on the spot and thereafter they had went to Police Station. In the report lodged by PW-1 Joginder Singh with the Police, accused person have been named specifically, whereas in his cross-examination he has stated that he did not know the accused persons either by face or by name and their names were inquired by the Police and mentioned in the report and they were apprehended along with liquor. Whereas, prosecution story is not so. There are more than two versions on record. Taxi driver, Police Officials, daughter of PW-1 Joginder Singh and unnamed boy who were present on the spot, are not cited as witnesses. 10. The contradiction with respect to manner in which the incident has taken place and role of the accused are touching the genesis of case and thus material in nature, as it casts a doubt about the veracity of PW-1 as well as with respect to fair investigation. It appears that real story has been concealed and true facts have not been brought on record, which creates doubt on the credibility of injured/complainant and other prosecution witnesses. Therefore, it cannot be said with certainty that incident had occurred in the same manner, as has been claimed by prosecution. It is cardinal principle of criminal jurisprudence that accused cannot be convicted only on the basis of mere suspicion and where there is a doubt, benefit of doubt is extended to the accused. 11. In view of above discussion, I find that the trial Court had appreciated the evidence in right perspective. There is no illegality, irregularity and perversity in the judgment. Accordingly, I find no merit in the appeal and the same is dismissed. 12. Bail/surety bond furnished by and on behalf of respondents/accused are discharged. Records be sent back.