Judgment M. P. Singh, J. 1. The three respondents, Jagdish Dubey, Prem Dubey and alagoo Dubey were acquitted of the charge of assault by the 1st Assistant sessions Judge, Arrah. Respondent No.1 Jagdish Dubey was acquitted of the offence under section 326 of the Indian Penal Code and the rest two of the offence under section 323 of the Indian Penal Code. The injured was Khublal Sao (P. W.3) who was the informant of this case. The occurrence of assault took place in village Dasiaon within Police Station Nawanagar, in the district of sahabad (now Bhojpur ). The case for the prosecution was simple. 2. According to the prosecution the three accused persons were grazing the Makai filed of the informant, Khublal Sao, on the 14th August, 1968, at about 3 p. m. That Makai field had been given to Ramjan Mian and Matuk mian on Batai by the informant. A protest was made by the informant. A quarrel ensued and then Jagdish Dubey gava a Bhala blow into the abdomen of the informant and the remaining two respondents assaulted htm with lathies. As a result of the assault the informant fell down in the Makai field. The defence of the accused respondents was that they had been falsely implicated. The place and manner of occurrence were also challenged. I have looked into the evidence and have also read the judgment of the trial court. The reasonings given by the trial court for acquittal are these :- (i) that the field being the Batai land of Ramjan Mian and Matuk mian, it was they who were primarily concerned with the crop, but curiously enough none of them was involved in the riot ; (ii) that no blood was found in the field which was the place of occurrence according to the prosecution case ; (iii) that the story of chasing and of further assault in the ditch near the mango tree by lathi was not mentioned in the first information report by the informant ; and (iv) that two of the respondents, namely, Jagdish Dubey (respondent no.1) and Alagoo Dubey, Hari Keshwar Dubey (respondent no.3) had injuries on their person which have not been explained by the prosecution. In my opinion, all these reasonings are weighty reasonings supported by evidence on record. In my opinion, all these reasonings are weighty reasonings supported by evidence on record. Undoubtedly, the informant had sustained one Bhala injury on his abdomen and had some lacerated wounds also on his person besides a swelling with an abrasion as found by the Dr. N. C. Chakraborty (P. W.7), but at the same time it should be noticed that respondent no.1, Jagdish Dubey had three injuries including one incised wound and the other respondent Hari Keshwar dubey (respondent no.3) also had four injuries including a lacerated wound on his head as found by Dr. Brij Ballabh Sahai (D. W. t ). These injuries were not explained by the prosecution. As already stated, there was no mention of chasing the victim Khub Lal Sao (P. W.3) in the first information report. Evidence was presented at the trial that he was chased for a distance of about 150 yards and thereafter he fell down in a ditch near a mango tree. This development was falsely made by the prosecution only to explain the absence of blood at the spot. It was said in the prosecution case as presented by their evidence at the trial, that there was water in the ditch and, therefore, blood could not be found out. It may be pointed out that it was the definite case of the prosecution that the informal t received Bhala and lathi injuries in the Makai field and fell down there. Subsequent development regarding running away for a distance of about 150 yards and then falling into the ditch was simply to fill up the important gap in the prosecution case. This ground alone was sufficient for acquitting the accused persons. Another important ground was that two of the respondents had sufficient injuries on their persons The manner of occurrence was obviously suppressed by the prosecution. In the circumstances, I see no infirmity in the judgment of the trial court. The reasonings which the trial court gave for acquittal cf the respondents are supported by evidence on record. The three eye-witnesses, namely, P. Ws.2, 3 and 4 made serious development in the prosecution case when examined in court Their evidence was, therefore, rightly rejected. It is well settled that if the view taken by the trial court is a reasonable one the High Court will not interfere with the order of acquittal. The three eye-witnesses, namely, P. Ws.2, 3 and 4 made serious development in the prosecution case when examined in court Their evidence was, therefore, rightly rejected. It is well settled that if the view taken by the trial court is a reasonable one the High Court will not interfere with the order of acquittal. In this case the view taken by the trial court has not at all been shown to be unreasonable, i would not, therefore, interfere with the acquittal. 3 The result is that the appeal fails and is dismissed. 4. Criminal Revision no.950 of 1973 has been filed by the informant, khublal Sao, against the acquittal. It is not pressed and is accordingly dismissed. Appeal dismissed.