JUDGMENT :

1. The instant appeal filed under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (In short “Cr.P.C.”) is directed against the judgment of acquittal dated 11.11.2014 passed in Case No.82/2/14 by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate-10 (South-East), Saket Courts, New Delhi, acquitting the accused/respondents in a case arising out of FIR No. 273/2008 under Sections 325/34 of the Indian Penal Code (in short “IPC”), 1860 registered at Police Station Jamia Nagar, Delhi.

2. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant states that the impugned judgment passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate (in short “learned MM”) is perverse, erroneous and demonstrably not sustainable in the eyes of law; and is against the basic provision of law. He further submits that the order of learned MM is based on conjectures and surmises and as such cannot stand the scrutiny of law and thus, deserve to be quashed.

3. The case of the respondents is that the learned trial court has rightly concluded that the prosecution has failed to prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt. The reasonings given by the learned trial court are based on the sound legal principle that the accused cannot be convicted unless the prosecution proves the case beyond a reasonable doubt. In the instant case, he submits that the evidence has been created falsely to implicate the respondents and there is no reason to believe the prosecution story.

4. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the record.

5. The case of the prosecution is that on 09.12.2008 at about 9:15 PM, the complainant along with her sister’s husband Antesham had gone to visit the house of her maternal uncle Jiya-ul-Hassan at I-99 Muradi Road, Batla House, New Delhi for wishing Eid. The complainant was sitting along with her maternal uncle and aunt and was in a conversation, when, accused Nos.1 and 2 came from the first floor and started fighting with her. During those heated arguments, both the accused/respondent Nos.1 and 2 started abusing the complainant. Accused No.2 caught hold of the hair of the complainant and respondent/accused No.1 hold her by her hand and caused injuries to her finger and pushed her towards the motorcycle parked in the gallery. Due to the same, the complainant suffered injuries on her hand. The respondent/accused No.2 even gave her beatings with fists and blows. In the mean meanwhile, when the complainant's sister's husband Antesham tried to rescue her from respondent/accused No. 1 and 2, the accused Nos. 1 and 2, pushed him out of the house. During the incident, many public persons gathered at the spot however, she reached back her house, whereupon she informed her husband about the incident. Thereafter she went to the Holy Family Hospital for medical aid.

6. Thereafter an, FIR was registered and the investigation was carried out, and on conclusion of the investigation, the chargesheet was filed and charges were framed against the accused/respondents on 13.05.2010 under Sections 325/334 of the IPC to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. To prove its case, the prosecution examined as many as eight witnesses. The prosecution evidence was closed on 27.07.2013 and subsequently, the statement of the accused/respondents under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. was recorded on 17.08.2013. The list of prosecution witnesses is as under: -

7. The learned MM after taking into consideration the entire material available on record acquitted the respondents/accused.

8.