JUDGMENT : GITA GOPI, J. 1. The present appellant was the accused No.1 of the trial proceedings before the Special Atrocity Court, Mehsana in Special Atrocity Case No.5 of 2007. The trial was under Sections 324 , 323 and 114 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE (for short “IPC”) and Section 135 of the BOMBAY POLICE ACT (for short ‘B.P. Act’), and even under Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short “Atrocities Act”). The learned Sessions Judge convicted both the accused under Sections 324 read with Section 114 of IPC and sentenced them with simple imprisonment of six months. 2. The facts of the case, as could be gathered from the record states that on 02.10.2006, on the day of Dashera festival, the complainant - Ajaykumar Kanubhai Chauhan had gone to see ‘Garba’ at 00.30 hours at mid-night, and when he came at Vankarvas, at that time, the present appellant caught hold of him and co-accused – Thakor Ramanji @ Ramalo Sartanji caused injury on his head by inflicting a Dhariya (sickle) blow. It is also the case of the prosecution that two other persons inflicted kick and fist blows. All the accused persons insulted the complainant by his caste. 2.1 The specific charge below Exh.11 drawn by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Mahesana, Camp at Visnagar refers to the incident of 02.10.2006 being the ‘Dashara’ festival and during the night time in the village ‘Garba’ was in progress and the complainant had gone to the village, to see ‘Garba’. During that time accused, on 03.10.2006 at about 00.30 hours, at the corner of Vankarvas at Upera, came near the complainant and since some dispute arose in the adjoining street, accused No.1 caught hold of the complainant and accused No.2 gave blow on the head with Dhariya and he sustained injury from the pointed edge of Dhariya. It is also alleged that the complainant was given kick and fist blows and therefore, accused had committed offence under Sections 324 , 323 and 114 of IPC. Even the accused were charged that they had insulted the complainant by his caste and therefore, were made to face the trial under Section 3(1)(x) of the Atrocities Act and further under Section 135 of the B.P. Act for breach of proclamation of the District Magistrate. 3. Learned advocate Mr. Even the accused were charged that they had insulted the complainant by his caste and therefore, were made to face the trial under Section 3(1)(x) of the Atrocities Act and further under Section 135 of the B.P. Act for breach of proclamation of the District Magistrate. 3. Learned advocate Mr. Rathin P.Raval for the appellant submitted that the learned Trial Court Judge has committed error in convicting the accused, while the appreciation of evidence is contrary to law and unwarranted on record. Mr. Raval submitted that the complainant does not refer to any other person, who had witnessed the incident however, the sister (PW2) deposes as if, she is an eyewitness to the incident, even the father examined as PW-3. The sister came later on and therefore, there were no eyewitness to the incident, which is alleged to have occurred on 03.10.2006 at 00.30 hours. 3.1 Learned advocate Mr. Raval stated that the allegations were against four persons, while the charge and the trial were only against two persons. The complainant could not identify rest of the two persons and their role had not been brought explicitly by the complainant. 3.2 Learned advocate Mr. Raval further submitted that the vicinity had many neighbours, in spite of that, neither of them have been examined to corroborate the say of the victim. Mr. Raval stated that it is a case of over implication of the accused, where the motive does not get clear and the instrument, which has been used as Dhariya with the charge framed as an injury on the sharp pointed area of Dhariya, does not get corroborated by the medical evidence, where the Doctor has stated of injury by hard and blunt object, and the evidence of the Doctor also suggests that such kind of injury can occur by fall on the R.C.C. Road. 3.3 Learned advocate Mr. Raval also submitted that the most important aspect of proving the motive for the assault, has not come on record. The complainant has not named the present appellant before the Doctor and the person, who has been named is not the accused. 3.4 Learned advocate Mr. Raval has relied upon the judgment of Ganesh Datt Vs. 3.3 Learned advocate Mr. Raval also submitted that the most important aspect of proving the motive for the assault, has not come on record. The complainant has not named the present appellant before the Doctor and the person, who has been named is not the accused. 3.4 Learned advocate Mr. Raval has relied upon the judgment of Ganesh Datt Vs. State of Uttarakhand, [ 2014 (12) SCC 389 ], to submit that the medical evidence do not corroborate the ocular evidence and if it is inconsistent, then there can be no guarantee that the depositions with regard to assault would be true. 3.5 Mr. Raval, learned advocate, has also placed reliance on the judgment of Darshan Singh Vs. State of Punjab [ 2024 (3) SCC 164 ], for appreciation of the evidence, to submit that if there is improvisation in the evidence, then it should not be given any significance. 4. Countering the arguments, learned APP Ms. Monali Bhatt submitted that the charge framed requires much consideration, as according to learned APP, the main culprit is the present appellant, who had instigated accused No.2 to cause grievous injury to the complainant. Ms. Bhatt submitted that the conduct of the appellant is of holding the complainant with an intention that the injury inflicted by accused No.2 would be suffered by the complainant with no scope to escape and, thus, Ms. Bhatt submitted that the injury sustained by the complainant is because of the present appellant. 4.1 Learned APP Ms. Bhatt also refers to the medical evidence, to submit that the injury caused is supported by the Doctor and the evidence of the sister as well as the father, who both had immediately come at the place of incident further corroborates the evidence on record; the weapon used was ‘Dhariya’, which was recovered through panchnama and, thus, submitted that the conviction and sentence is fair and appropriate, which requires no interference of this Court. 5. On having heard both the learned advocates on record, perused the record. The charge-sheet was filed under IPC as well as Atrocities Act. The allegations were against four persons and the charge-sheet was filed against only two. The Investigating Officer – Sumanthlal Rambhai Patel was examined as PW9. 5. On having heard both the learned advocates on record, perused the record. The charge-sheet was filed under IPC as well as Atrocities Act. The allegations were against four persons and the charge-sheet was filed against only two. The Investigating Officer – Sumanthlal Rambhai Patel was examined as PW9. According to him, on 02.10.2006 because of Dashera, he was on ‘Garba Bandobast’ and was in the investigation for Kheralu Police Station for atrocity offence and was also for the investigation of the Atrocity Case of Vis Police Station. During that period, he received the message from Unjha Police Station that in Upera village, an incident had taken place at 00.00 hours and he visited the place and instructed Jamadar for ‘Bandobast’. The complaint was taken by in-charge Shree Patel and perusing the complaint he found that on 02.10.2006, at the night hours, the accused No.1-Dharmendra had caught the complainant and accused No.2 had given an injury with Dhariya. On receiving the complaint on the wireless message of S.P., he conducted the investigation. As per his statement, he visited the complainant at the dispensary for his further statement. The panchnama of the physical status of the complainant was drawn, blood stain clothes were seized and thereafter taking the witness, panchnama of the place of offence was drawn in presence of two panchas. 5.1 PW9 further states that he had recorded the statement of the neighbours and the house of the accused was examined and thereafter recorded the statement of other witnesses. As the accused presented themselves on 09.10.2006, he made the arrest and thereafter Dhariya, which had been used in the offence was seized and was sent to the Court within the time period. Thereafter, according to PW9, the treatment certificate of the complainant was procured and after receiving the permission, the charge-sheet was filed on 04.11.2006. 5.2 Exh.38 is the document, which deputed him the investigation by P.S.O., Unjha. The order of registering the complaint by P.S.I. Unjha is produced at Exh.39. The order of deputation for further investigation by the P.S.O. is produced at Exh.40, the notification of District Magistrate, Mehsana at Exh.41, the permission for filing the charge-sheet is at Exh.42. 5.3 In the cross-examination, the witness stated that surrounding the place of offence, there were houses of Patels and Thakors. The order of deputation for further investigation by the P.S.O. is produced at Exh.40, the notification of District Magistrate, Mehsana at Exh.41, the permission for filing the charge-sheet is at Exh.42. 5.3 In the cross-examination, the witness stated that surrounding the place of offence, there were houses of Patels and Thakors. He denied the suggestion that in the investigation of the offence, he had only recorded the statements of members of the family and not of independent witnesses, but has affirmed that in the charge-sheet he has not referred to independent witnesses. The witness denied the suggestion that no weapon was seized through the panchnama and the panchnama was drawn at the Police Station, and in spite of having no evidence, false charge-sheet has been framed. 5.4 The investigation was required to be by an officer not below the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police, as per Rule 7 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Rules, 1995. Here, the allegation is of abusing the complainant by his caste. PW9 was specially entrusted to investigate the allegation of atrocities. The fact of evidence of the independent witnesses were required to be brought on record to bring the case under Section 3(1)(x) of the Atrocities Act. 5.5 Section 3(1)(x) of the Atrocities Act reads as under: “3(1)(x) Intentionally insults or intimidates with intent to humiliate a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe in any place within public view.” 5.6 The Investigating Officer was required to bring on record that the insult or intimidation was with an intent to humiliate the member of scheduled castes or scheduled tribes in any place within public view. The Investigating Officer in his deposition stated he had recorded the statements of the neighbours and in the cross-examination, has affirmed that such statements had not been made part of the charge-sheet. 5.7 PW9 has failed to clarify as to why those statements have not been part of the charge-sheet. Was it because, the complainant and the witnesses wanted to hide facts or whether the statements of the neighbours were not corroborating the complainant. The incident, as had occurred in public view was required to be brought on record by the Investigating Officer in the atrocity case. Was it because, the complainant and the witnesses wanted to hide facts or whether the statements of the neighbours were not corroborating the complainant. The incident, as had occurred in public view was required to be brought on record by the Investigating Officer in the atrocity case. Another glaring facts, which came to the notice that though the investigation is by the officer not below the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police in the atrocity case, P.W.9 has not thought it fit to send the weapon Dhariya for FSL examination. Nothing has been brought on record by proving that the injury was connected with the weapon alleged as Dhariya. 5.8 The notification of the District Magistrate, Mehsana dated 18.08.2006 refers to the weapons, does not specify Dhariya as an instrument. However, the notification considers any instrument or weapon causing physical injury as a breach to the notification. It requires a mention that Dhariya is an instrument, which is used in the agriculture purpose. The incident had occurred at 00.30 hours on 03.10.2006. 5.9 Exh.20 is the panchnama of place of offence, which as rightly pointed out by the learned APP Ms. Bhatt, has been admitted by the accused during the course of trial. The panchnama shows that it is a road towards Vankarvas and the house of Hargovin Ganpatbhai Vankar, residential house falls on the R.C.C. Road and the road towards Vankarvas is noted to be as R.C.C. (cement concrete pakka road). The panchnama does not refer to any blood stains on the road. The road approximately is 12 feet in width and after about 15 foot on the eastern side a telephone pole is noted and beside the rear wall of houses of Rabari community, and on the eastern side is a road towards Deodari Mata temple, and on the northern side about 50 foot at a distance, there is an electric pole and the road towards the village, and on southern side there is road to Vankarvas, on western side there is house of Hargovindbhai Ganpatbhai Chamar, and beside his house towards the south is a house of Rameshbhai Chelabhai Vankar. The police could not find any noticeable thing from the place of offence nor anything was seized from the place. 6. The Trial Court acquitted the accused on the charge of Atrocity Act. The learned Judge had decided the issue under Atrocity Act in negative. The police could not find any noticeable thing from the place of offence nor anything was seized from the place. 6. The Trial Court acquitted the accused on the charge of Atrocity Act. The learned Judge had decided the issue under Atrocity Act in negative. Since the complainant had not given any evidence against accused insulting him by his caste, hence, Trial Court did not find any offence under Section 3(1)(x) of the Atrocity Act. Learned Judge was also not ready to believe the breach of notification, as it was found that the prosecution has failed to prove the same. 7. The evidence which becomes necessary to analyse is of the complainant PW1 – Ajaykumar Kanubhai Chauhan. He has referred that he is staying at Upera, Taluka-Unjha at Chamarvas. At the time of incident, he was studying at Unjha college for B.Ed. He was commuting from Upera to Unjha in S.T. Bus. His father was agent in LIC. They were two brothers. He was the eldest and he has two sisters; one of them is Jayshree and another Amruta. 7.1 As per the complainant, the incident had occurred on 03.10.2006, which was a day of Dashera. The ‘Garba’ was organized on that day and he, at about 12.30 night, had started from his street for the Garba, and when he was at the corner of Vankarvas, he stated that, four persons came there. Out of the four, he was knowing two persons. One was Dharmendera and another was Ramanji, and two others were outsiders, whom he was not knowing. According to the complainant, out of the four, the present appellant – Dharmendra Narayan had caught him; another accused Ramanji Thakor had given him Dhariya blow on head and rest of two have beaten him with fist and kick blows. Thereafter, he started shouting. His sister Jayshreeben and father Kanubhai came there and they took him to government dispensary in the jeep, which was belonging to ‘Kahipur Gam Mandli’ of their village. The witness stated, at the dispensary, he had given complaint. 7.2 The fact now becomes relevant is that the place of offence does not refer to the house of the complainant, which could be considered as nearby to the place of incident. The nearest house at the place of incident is of Hargovindbhai Ganpatbhai Vankar and of Rameshbhai Chelabhai Vankar. The witness stated, at the dispensary, he had given complaint. 7.2 The fact now becomes relevant is that the place of offence does not refer to the house of the complainant, which could be considered as nearby to the place of incident. The nearest house at the place of incident is of Hargovindbhai Ganpatbhai Vankar and of Rameshbhai Chelabhai Vankar. The complainant in his complaint has not referred to his sister Jayshreeben coming at the place. According to his complaint during the quarrel, after his shouts, crowd had gathered there and thereafter the accused fled the place leaving him there. According to his complaint, he received injury on his head with Dhariya and while resisting to defend himself, he also sustained injury on the elbow of his left hand and shoulder of his right hand. 7.3 In the chief-examination, the witness does not state of any motive or the cause of the quarrel. He denied the suggestion that he and both the accused from their birth are staying at Upera village. According to his deposition, since last six years he was at Upera village. He affirmed that prior to the incident, he was knowing the accused. At the time of the incident, he was at a distance of 8 minutes from his house and on the date of incident at every streets the ‘Garba’ was organized and were in progress. He also affirmed that there were other residential houses near the place of incident. According to him, the incident had continued for 10 to 15 minutes and he deposed that because of noise of ‘Garba’ the people from the neighbouring area had not come there in spite of his raising alarm, and he states that none had come to rescue him. 7.4 The witness also affirmed that the incident had taken place on the public road and also affirmed that since it was Garba time, the frequency of the people was more on the road. He denied the suggestion that it was dark at the place of incident. He also affirmed that because of the injury he lost lot of his blood, but does not recall whether blood had fallen on the ground. He also affirmed that while reaching the dispensary, he had not informed anything to the Doctor. Further stated that except Jayshreeben, he had not informed anyone about the incident. He also affirmed that because of the injury he lost lot of his blood, but does not recall whether blood had fallen on the ground. He also affirmed that while reaching the dispensary, he had not informed anything to the Doctor. Further stated that except Jayshreeben, he had not informed anyone about the incident. After the incident, his parents and members of the family, Kamleshbhai and Jeep driver, whose name he does not recall, had taken him to the hospital and the complaint was given at the hospital. 8. The noticeable fact about the incident is that the incident had continued for 10 to 15 minutes. Since the complaint had been given from the hospital, which was after the treatment, the Doctor had recorded that complainant had come without any police Yadi. Before the doctor in the history at Exh.31, he refers to the history of assault by Dhariya at 12.30. The person, who alleged to have given him the blow is noted as Ramesh Thakor. While, in the present matter, the name of accused No.2 is recorded as Thakor Ramanji @ Ramalo Sartanji. 9. Learned advocate Mr. Raval for the appellant submitted that since both the accused were known to the complainant and had the present appellant caused any damage or had he caught hold of him in the incident, then surely he would have given his name before the Doctor. Further stated that had accused No.2 given Dhariya blow and since complainant was knowing accused, he would have given the actual name of the accused. 10. The deposition of Doctor – Kamleshkumar Itadariya as PW4, refers to the history of Dhariya. According to the Doctor, there was one CLW of 3x1 cm. on the occipital region and abrasion of 1x1 cm. on the left elbow. The Doctor has referred to the type of injury to have been caused by hard and blunt object. However, the deposition of the injured witness is that he received injury with Dhariya. The charge has been framed that the injury, which has been caused was by the pointed part of the Dhariya, however, no such deposition has been given by the complainant nor such fact was recorded in the complaint Exh.17, nor such injury with pointed weapon is noted in the medical papers. 10.1 The investigation was under Atrocity Act. The charge has been framed that the injury, which has been caused was by the pointed part of the Dhariya, however, no such deposition has been given by the complainant nor such fact was recorded in the complaint Exh.17, nor such injury with pointed weapon is noted in the medical papers. 10.1 The investigation was under Atrocity Act. The Deputy Superintendent of Police was required to enquire about the other two unknown persons, who as per the statement of the complainant, had also given him kick and fist blows. How the incident occurred and what was the role of other two persons has not been clarified by the complainant. It appears that since he knew the name of two persons, he had named them. But the motive for their beating him has not been brought on record. The incident had occurred on public road. The witness also states of quarrel that took place between them, and he states that during the quarrel he sustained injury in the elbow of his left hand and shoulder of the right hand. The allegation against the present appellant-accused is of catching hold of the complainant. If that has been so, then there would not have been any physical quarrel between them and if the appellant had forcibly hold him, then the complainant would have no scope to defend himself. He stated that during this altercation, crowd had gathered there. The Investigating Office had not enquired on that aspect, rather if the deposition of the Investigating Officer is to be examined, then he had recorded the statements of the neighbours, but those statements have not been the part of the charge-sheet. 10.2 The complainant does not show the presence of the sister and father at the place of incident, more specifically, in the complaint, the sister’s presence is not at all recorded. His deposition states that he had merely informed about the incident to his sister Jayshree, which itself proves that she was not present at the place of incident. While, deposition of Jayshreeben Kanubhai Chauhan as PW2, refers that on that day, she was going with her family members for Garba and at 12 O’ clock his brother had come out of the Garba place and a boy came running to her informing that her brother was beaten. While, deposition of Jayshreeben Kanubhai Chauhan as PW2, refers that on that day, she was going with her family members for Garba and at 12 O’ clock his brother had come out of the Garba place and a boy came running to her informing that her brother was beaten. She ran at that place and saw that Dharmendra and Ramanji of their village were beating her brother, and her brother Ajay had received Dhariya blow on the head, and thereafter the accused had escaped from the place. She also refers to her father and villagers taking her brother to the Unjha Cottage Hospital. This witness cannot be relied upon, since the complainant himself does not refer to her presence at the place. 11. In Darshan Singh (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court held as under: “26. If the PWs had failed to mention in their statements u/s 161 CrPC about the involvement of an accused, their subsequent statement before court during trial regarding involvement of that particular accused cannot be relied upon. Prosecution cannot seek to prove a fact during trial through a witness which such witness had not stated to police during investigation. The evidence of that witness regarding the said improved fact is of no significance.” 12. The witness – Jayshreeben has shown her presence at the place of incident, while no such case has been stated by the complainant himself. The prosecution thus, cannot improve the case through the witness and such improvement would not be of much significance. The evidence of the complainant itself shows that Jayshreeben was not an eyewitness to the incident. She is not corroborating the statement of the complainant. The father (PW3) – Kanubhai Nathubhai Chauhan also refers to his presence only after hearing the shouts of his daughter Amruta, who has not been examined in the present matter. According to his evidence, his son was hit by Dhariya by Ramalo. When the witness had gone at the place of incident, he states that he saw his son in the pool of blood and was in the lap of his daughter Jayshree, where he was informed that Dharmendra and Ramanji had beaten him. The fact, which has come on record from the evidence of Kanubhai Chauhan is that his son was lying in pool of blood, in spite of that the panchnama does not notice any blood at the place of offence. The fact, which has come on record from the evidence of Kanubhai Chauhan is that his son was lying in pool of blood, in spite of that the panchnama does not notice any blood at the place of offence. 12.1 The defence has brought on record through the cross- examination of the Doctor that such kind of injury, which are simple in nature, as admitted by the Medical Officer, could occur because of fall on the R.C.C. road, which the Doctor has affirmed. The Doctor has also affirmed that in Exh.30 certificate, it has not been noted that the person, who had given the Dhariya blow, has not been named, but however, reliance was placed by the Doctor on OPD case paper to record that it was Ramesh Thakor and others. The name of the present appellant does not figure out in the medical evidence. The evidence of the complainant notes of altercation between the accused and the complainant, there is no denial to the incident. However, the whole incident has to be clarified by the prosecution. There were presence of four persons, but the allegation is directed only towards two. The charge also does not frame the other two unknown persons. Further, though the weapon has been brought on record as Dhariya (sickle), no FSL report has been placed on record to show any blood stains on the alleged Dhariya. 12.2 The panchnama of place of offence does not find any blood stains. The panchnama of Dhariya at Exh.35/B shows that accused Thakor Ramanji had produced Dhariya from his custody, while no noticeable signs were on Dhariya. No fact has been noted in the panchnama 35/B of seeing any blood stains. In view of these facts, the nature of incident becomes doubtful. 13. In the case of State of Maharashtra Vs. Dinesh [ (2018) 15 SCC 161 ], it has been noted that if the conviction is to be followed by the sole witness, his evidence has to be accepted with an amount of caution after testing it on the touch stone of other material on record. The testimony of the sole witness must be confident in inspiring and beyond suspicion leaving no doubt in the mind of the Court. The testimony of the sole witness must be confident in inspiring and beyond suspicion leaving no doubt in the mind of the Court. For relying upon or basing conviction of the accused on testimony of sole eyewitness all that is needed is that the statement of the eyewitness should be reliable, should not leave any doubt in the mind of the Court and has to be corroborated by other evidence produced by the prosecution in relation to the commission of crime and involvement of the accused in committing such crime. It is the quality of evidence and not quantity of evidence, which is required to be judged by the Court to place credence on the statement. 13.1 In the said case, an observation has also been made that the prosecution had not taken any steps to prove the blood group of the deceased with the blood stains found on the alleged weapon used in the crime. Here, in the present case, the weapon, itself has not been sent for FSL report nor the clothes of the complainant has been sent for FSL report to connect the accused with the weapon Dhariya. 14. In the case of Deny Bora Vs. State of Assam, [ (2014) SCC 42 ], the Hon’ble Supreme Court has referred in Para-14 as under: As we find, the conviction, wholly rests on the sole testimony of PW 14. It is well settled in law that conviction can be based on the testimony of a singular witness. It has been held in Sunil Kumar v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) that: “9. … as a general rule the court can and may act on the testimony of a single witness provided he is wholly reliable. There is no legal impediment in convicting a person on the sole testimony of a single witness. That is the logic of Section 134 of the Evidence Act, 1872. But, if there are doubts about the testimony the courts will insist on corroboration.” The same principle has been reiterated in Namdeo v. State of Maharashtra by stating that it is open to a competent court to fully and completely rely on a solitary witness and record conviction, if the quality of the witness makes the testimony acceptable.” 15. But, if there are doubts about the testimony the courts will insist on corroboration.” The same principle has been reiterated in Namdeo v. State of Maharashtra by stating that it is open to a competent court to fully and completely rely on a solitary witness and record conviction, if the quality of the witness makes the testimony acceptable.” 15. Here, in the present case, significant aspect is that the case under Section 3(1)(x) was invoked, where the allegation is of the incident having occurred in the public view. None of the independent person from the public has been examined to corroborate the case of the complainant. Mere, reliance on the testimony of the complainant himself, where no investigation has been conducted by the Investigating Officer to search for rest of two accused and to bring their role in the matter, becomes vital and that itself shacks the evidence of the complainant. 16. In the case of Anil Phukan Vs. State of Assam, [ (1993) 3 SCC 282 ], it has been held that the appreciation of evidence in connection with the case under murder was found on the testimony of sole eyewitness closely related to the deceased. According to the witness, one accused assaulted the deceased on head with crowbar, two other accused also assaulted him with their respective weapons (crooked dao and kupi dao); deceased sustained only two head injuries of almost same dimension. It was held on facts that possibility of only one accused causing the head injuries with crowbar cannot be ruled out and therefore his conviction under Section 302 was confirmed. But, considering the unnatural conduct of the sole eyewitness and infirmities in his evidence in respect of other two accused, it was found that it was not safe to rely upon his testimony without seeking independent corroboration and corroboration furnished by prosecution being negative in character, benefit of doubt was granted to two accused. 17. Here in this case too, the prosecution could not bring on record the role of the other two accused. Further, the weapon which was used and as alleged that it was used on the instigation of the present appellant could not be proved by independent witnesses. Cogent evidence in the form of FSL report of the weapon as well as clothes of the complainant also is not on record to corroborate all the surrounding facts. Further, the weapon which was used and as alleged that it was used on the instigation of the present appellant could not be proved by independent witnesses. Cogent evidence in the form of FSL report of the weapon as well as clothes of the complainant also is not on record to corroborate all the surrounding facts. The defence has put a suggestion that such kind of injury could be caused because of fall on the R.C.C. road and having notice the fact that there was altercation between the complainant and the accused, this suggestion and the injury sustained cannot be ruled out, where the Doctor himself affirmed that the injury was by hard and blunt substance, when the Doctor does not state of injury caused by any sharp substance and the charge is of injury by the sharp edge of the sickle, which does not get proved during the trial, thus benefit of doubt is required to be given to the accused, since the prosecution has failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt. 18. The analysis of the evidence by the learned Judge does not fall in line in accordance to the evidence recorded. The learned Judge has not found any case under Section 3(1)(x) of the Atrocity Act. The incident has not been proved in the public view. The statements of independent witnesses were record, however, those were not made part of the charge-sheet. None had come forward for corroborating the say of the complainant. The improvisation during the trial of bringing the sister as an eyewitness and subsequently the father does not have the corroboration from the evidence of the complainant itself, while the altercation of 10 to 15 minutes between both the sides could lead to injury by a fall on the R.C.C. road. 19. Having notice this fact on record and when the case under Atrocity Act has not been proved and the sole eyewitness testimony does not inspire confidence, the appellant is required to be acquitted and is accordingly acquitted. 20. In view of the above discussions and observations, the appeal is allowed. The conviction and sentence of the accused passed by the learned Special Atrocity Judge, 4 th Fast Track Court, Mehsana vide judgment and order in Special Atrocity Case No.5 of 2007 is quashed and set aside. Registry is directed to send the Record and Proceedings back to the concerned Trial Court.