JUDGMENT 1. - This is an appeal by Ram Sawrai against the judgement of the Munsiff Magistrate Nagaur dated 15.4.1971 by which he acquitted the accused Badri, Prabhu, Gopal Hira, Khinya and Rekharam under section 147, 447 and 323, Indian Penal Code. 2. Mst. Ram Sawrai & Chuki filed complaints Ex. P5 & P6 before the Nyaya Panchayat, Chenar District Nagaur that they were beaten by the accused in Khasra No. 463 at 12 noon on 10.7.1965. The Adhyaksha Chattar Singh PW6 directed them to lodge a complainant in the court of the Magistrate First Class. 3. On 15.7.1965 Mst. Ramsawrai & Mst. Chuki filed two complaints Ex.D3 and Ex.D4 in respect of the same occurrence that the accused came to the filed Khasra No. 463 and delivered lathi below to both of them. The case of the accused was that they were innocent and were falsely implicated because the accused and Kishan Lal husband of Mst. Chuki had a land dispute and further because there was enmity on account of elections. The medical reports were that Ramsawrai received 12 injuries, and Mst. Chuki eight. All the injuries were simple and caused by blunt weapons. 4. The eye witness of the occurrence were Dhanna PW3 and Jainarain PW4. The learned Magistrate found that both were chance witnesses. Dhanna PW3 had no land of his own near about and he maintained that he had gone to plough the field of some Ram Dayal but Ram Dayal was not produced. He could also not explain how it was that he went to the field of Ram Dayal whether on wages or in friendship. Moreover, accused Rekha Ram had lodged a complaint under section 107, Criminal Procedure Code against the father of the witness and therefore, he was not expected to be an independent witness. 5. Jai Narayan PW4 was the brother of Mst. Ram Sawrai and lived in Nagaur. The reason given by him of his presence on the spot was that he had gone to call his sister from the field. He had never been to that field before but in the second breath he said that he knew the field already and was able to reach the field straight. He also admitted that he once appeared in a case of theft on behalf of the complainant and against the accused. 6. He had never been to that field before but in the second breath he said that he knew the field already and was able to reach the field straight. He also admitted that he once appeared in a case of theft on behalf of the complainant and against the accused. 6. The learned Magistrate rejected the evidence of both these witness. He was thus left with the evidence of that two injured women and he discussed their evidence whether they were able to prove their case. It was an admitted fact that Kishan Lal husband of Chuki on the one hand and the accused on the other were engaged in a dispute in respect of the land where the occurrence is said to have taken place. It was also brought on record that Kewal Chand is the brother of Ram Sawrai and Kewal Chand and Rekha Ram accused were opposing candidates in the election of Sarpanch Kishan Lal's sister was married to accused Hira but was divorced. The cumulative effect of these facts according to the learned Magistrate was that there was bad blood between the parties. Initially the complaints stated that 8 persons had witnessed the occurrence but only two were led in witness box. Both of them were found to be interested persons. Withholding of all the other witnesses caused a doubt upon the evidence of the prosecution. Explanation for non production of the other witnesses, which was given by Ram Sawrai and Mst. Chuki was that the complaints Ex.P5 and Ex.P6 and Ex.D3 and Ex.D4 did not contain correct facts though they were present when the complaints were drawn. The time of occurrence was crop season and other persons were working in the neighbourhood could be produced but were not so produced. 7. In this background the main factor which weighed the scales in favour of the accused in the lower court was the difference in the identity of the place of occurrence. In the complaints Ex.D3 and Ex.D4 and Ex.D5 and Ex.D6 (which were made in Nyaya Panchayat) the Khasra number of the field mentioned was 463 but at the time of the trial, the witnesses said that the occurrence took place in the field Khasra No. 450. When both the injured were questioned with regard to this change, the only answer provided was that they could not now remember. When both the injured were questioned with regard to this change, the only answer provided was that they could not now remember. It was urged before the learned Magistrate that women were not expected to be familiar with the Khasra numbers of the field, and Kishan Lal PW5, who was giving Khasra number wrongly got them stated in the aforesaid documents. Mohammed Hussain DW5, who was the scriber of the complaints stated that the Khasra numbers were written by him as directed Hussain DW5. His view was that there was a dispute regarding the land Khasra No. 450 and it was not possible for Kishan Lal to state the wrong Khasra number. The learned Magistrate therefore, arrived at the conclusion that in the beginning the complainant party were not certain whether they should give Khasra No. 463 or 450. Since Khasra No. 463 was not a subject matter of dispute it was later on considered safe to shift the occurrence from Khasra No. 450 to Khasra No. 463. This change in the place of occurrence was considered by the learned Magistrate to make prosecution story a very doubtful one. He finally concluded that thought Ram Sawrai and Chuki sustained injuries but it was not established beyond any manner of reasonable doubt that the accused were responsible for causing those injuries. These findings are challenged in this appeal. 8. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the learned Magistrate fell into error in holding that Dhanna PW3 and Jai Narain PW4 were chance witnesses, and that they were actuated by malice. His contention was that there was no enmity between the witnesses and the accused and there was no reason to disbelieve the explanation which both the witnesses gave for their presence at the scene of occurrence. Since the reason given by the learned Magistrate was palpably wrong, there was miscarriage of justice and this Court was entitled to interfere. The learned Magistrate was further not correct in disbelieving Dhanna because Ram Dayal should have been produced to corroborate him. Dhanna was not an interested witness, but was an independent witness. It was further pointed out that Jai Narayan was the brother of Mst. Ram Sawrai and had stated that he had gone to call her because there was some 'Sradh' ceremony at his house. This was a valid reason which could not have been discarded without any evidence against it. It was further pointed out that Jai Narayan was the brother of Mst. Ram Sawrai and had stated that he had gone to call her because there was some 'Sradh' ceremony at his house. This was a valid reason which could not have been discarded without any evidence against it. Enmity is a double edged weapon and it should have been held that the accused beat both these women on account of the past enmity. The learned Magistrate did not even consider the explanation which Jai Narayan has offered for his presence. Both the women had categorically stated that they were beaten by the accused and they should have been believed. The confusion regarding the place of occurrence took place because in the charge framed on 20.2.1969, the field was described as Khasra No. 463 on the basis of the complaint wherein the number was not correctly stated. The witnesses Jai Narayan and Dhanna Lal said that the occurrence took place on the well of Bhiyan Ram Sawrai also said the same thing. But Mst. Chuki PW2 stated that the occurrence took place on the smaller field "Chhota Khet". The complaints made an application for correcting the number. The learned Magistrate accepted the request of the prosecution and amended the charge by replacing the Khasra No. with the words "in the smaller field on Bhiyan-wala well". It appears that he allowed the accused further cross examination after this change. The prosecution evidence was that the occurrence took place in the Chhota Khet and the learned Magistrate was not justified in throwing the prosecution case because the number of the field of occurrence was not accurately given. 9. It was urged on behalf of the respondents that enmity between the accused and the witnesses has been admitted and therefore, both Dhanna and Jai Narayan can be expected to be ready to depose anything against the accused. It was further pointed out that all the injuries were on the hips which could as well be self inflicted. The witnesses were disbelieved in the case of Chuki and therefore, it was not possible to believe them in case of Ramsawrai. Chuki had not even appealed and is since then dead. The appeal has been filed only on behalf of Ram Sawrai. The witnesses were disbelieved in the case of Chuki and therefore, it was not possible to believe them in case of Ramsawrai. Chuki had not even appealed and is since then dead. The appeal has been filed only on behalf of Ram Sawrai. According to Ramsawrai, Jai Narayan came over on Ashad Sud 13, while the 'Sradh, ceremony fell exactly after three months thereafter and there could be no occasion for Jai Narayan to come to fetch her for 'Sradh' purposes. Ram Sawrai said that at the time of occurrence, they had gone to watch the crop but there could be no crop in the 'Chhota Khet' Khasra No. 450 as it was only a sowing time. She was also silent as to why & how the trouble began. They first approached the Panchayat and Chhitar Singh PW6 advised them first to go to hospital and himself did not note their injuries. The complaint was filed after five days of the occurrence. After manipulations were made and introduced in the complaint by the brother of Ramsawrai, namely Kewal Chand. Jai Narayan even denied that Kewal Chand was his real brother. It is in evidence that Rekha Ram delivered 8 to 10 injuries and he is now dead. If this version is believed, then there was no scope to hold that there was any other injury which could be delivered by any of the remaining accused. The police station fell on way to the hospital but no report was lodged there even though the offence of criminal trespass under section 447, Indian Penal Code was a cognizable one. Since Khasra number 450 was a disputed field, the prosecution shifted the place of occurrence. It was finally submitted that the case has gone on for 10 years and the village Chenar was flood affected and there was dislocation in the village. In these circumstances, there was no proper time and justification to reverse the order of the acquittal made by the learned lower court. 10. Many attention was also drawn to Anne Nageswara Rao v. Public Prosecutor, AIR 1975 SC 1327 , in which it is held that when two views were possible, the High Court would not be justified in setting aside the order of the acquittal and recording the conviction of the accused. 10. Many attention was also drawn to Anne Nageswara Rao v. Public Prosecutor, AIR 1975 SC 1327 , in which it is held that when two views were possible, the High Court would not be justified in setting aside the order of the acquittal and recording the conviction of the accused. Another case cited was Podda Nerayana and others v. State of A.P., AIR 1975 SC 1252 where in it is held that acquittal can be reversed where the lower Court has given untenable reasons and where its approach was not only perverse, but also legally erroneous. 11. I have given careful consideration of the facts and arguments in the case. The law is well settled that the powers of the High Court in considering an appeal against acquittal are the same as they were in an appeal against conviction, and the whole case is at large. Two things are to be noted in such cases that the accused has a presumption of innocence to his favour reinforced by the order of acquittal and further that the lower court had the advantage of watching the demeanour of the prosecution witness which advantage the appellate Court does not possess. If the judgement of the lower Court is palpably erroneous or perverse, then, the order of the acquittal can definitely be set aside. Upon considering the whole aspect of the matter, I am not persuaded to interfere in the case. The reasons given by the learned lower Court that the witnesses of the prosecution were interested and also bore an enmity are not untenable. There was a dispute between the parties in regard to the possession of the field Khasra No. 450 & it is quite obvious that the parties had shifted the place of occurrence & the learned Magistrate considered it a very weighty factor against the prosecution. I do not therefore, find anything erroneous or perverse in the judgement, even if another view can be possible. I have also to take into consideration the length of time that has gone by since the event and prevailing situation in the area. This is hardly a case in which the power of the High Court should be exercised to intervene even though the victims were women. 12. I, therefore, dismiss this appeal. *******