Short Note : This is an appeal filed by State against the acquittal of the respondents from charges under sections 307 read with 149 and 148 IPC. 2. The prosecution case at the trial was that on 11-10-1972 at about 11.30 or 12.00 noon the respondents went to the field one Sauji and attacked Mansingh and others who were working there. Respondent Bherulal was armed with a fire-arm. It is alleged that he first shot the fire-arm in the air and then towards Mansingh which caused injuries on his left thigh. It was further alleged that the respondent Badri dealt knife blows to Mansingh and caused injuries. Later Badri threw Mansingh on the ground and broke Mansingh's teeth by means of a stone. The other respondents dealt Lathi blows to Mangilal and respondent Kanhaiyalal dealt a Lathi blow to Balu. Mangilal snatched the gun from the hands of Bherulal and thereafter the respondents ran away. 3. The learned Court below, after considering all the evidence led by the prosecution and the circumstances that appeared in the evidence felt-that the plea of the defence appears to be more probable and discarded the prosecution evidence and acquitted the respondents from the charges levelled against them. Therefore the State has preferred this appeal against the acquittal of the respondents. 4. Held: Learned Deputy Government Advocate appearing for State contended that although all the witnesses examined by the prosecution are interested witnesses belongins to the party of the complainant and no independent witness had been examined, but according to learned counsel the evidence could not be rejected merely on the ground that the witnesses have failed to explain the injuries on the respondents and that the circumstances appearing in evidence are such which cannot be reconciled with the prosecution story. Learned counsel for the respondents on the other hand contended that the prosecution witnesses and the respondents are two sets of persons arrayed against each other with history of ill will and incidents. According to him the prosecution's own case indicated that it was the party of the complainant which had a serious grudge against the respondents on account of earlier incidents, especially, the overrunning of ten bullocks belonging to the complainant party by a railway train. According to him the prosecution's own case indicated that it was the party of the complainant which had a serious grudge against the respondents on account of earlier incidents, especially, the overrunning of ten bullocks belonging to the complainant party by a railway train. He also contended that the circumstances which emerge from the evidence of the prosecution, namely, that the respondent Bherulal first fired in the air and when he fired a second time it also was in a manner which would not be fatal, coupled with the fact that the bullock-cart of the complainant was found in the field of the respondent and an empty and a loaded cartridge was recovered from the field of the respondent Bherulal, these circumstances which have been relied on by the learned Court below, are such which make the story of the prosecution improbable. Thus, according to learned counsel for the respondents the Court below was right in acquitting the respondents. 5. The learned Court below on the basis of the prosecution evidence found, - (i) that respondent Bherulal fired first in the air and the second shot in such manner that it may not fatally injure anyone; (ii) that the bullock-cart of the complainant party was found in the field of respondent Bherulal; (iii) that a few days before the incident respondents had lodged a report that enraged by the bullock incident the complainant party is not permitting them to go to their own fields; (iv) that six respondents received injuries in the incident and the prosecution witnesses not only did not explain those injuries but denied that any of the respondents received injury during this incident; although in the FIR Ex. P/I it was mentioned that respondents also received injuries during the incident, the prosecution witnesses in their statements at trial suggested that the respondents may have fought amongst themselves which resulted in these injuries; and lastly, (v) that there is no independent evidence in the case. The learned Court below felt that these circumstances do not justify the prosecution story as according to the prosecution case respondent Bherulal first fired in the air and the second time fired at Mansingh pointing towards his chest. The learned Court below felt that these circumstances do not justify the prosecution story as according to the prosecution case respondent Bherulal first fired in the air and the second time fired at Mansingh pointing towards his chest. This evidence was not accepted by the Court below as it was inconsistent with the earlier version and on the basis of all these circumstances the learned Judge felt that these circumstances clearly indicate that it was the party of the complainant which was the aggressor. Therefore, the respondents were acquitted. 6. Learned Deputy Government Advocate did not challenge the findings on the aboved circumstances arrived at by the learned Court below. The seizure of the bullock-part in the field of respondent Bherulal and an empty and a loaded cartridge from that field clearly go to show that one shot was fired when Bherulal was inside his own field. It is also clear that Bherulal fired the first shot in the air which could b~ for no other purpose except to scare away the complainants. It is also clear that failure of the prosecution witnesses to explain the injuries on the accused persons dearly indicates that the prosecution witnesses are suppressing part of the story especially when in the FIR PII which lodged by Mangilal immediately after the incident it was stated that the complainant party also in order to save themselves beat the respondents with sticks. But this story was given up at the trial and all the witnesses categorically denied that they in any manner inflicted injuries on the respondents. Considering this evidence led by the prosecution coupled with the fact that no independent witness has been examined and the circumstances referred to above, the learned Court below held that the prosecution has failed to prove its case and benefit of doubt must go to the accused-respondents. This view taken by the learned Court below could not be said to be erroneous. Appeal dismissed.