JUDGMENT P.N. Goel, J. 1. THIS appeal is directed against an order dated 21-9-1974 passed by the Munsif Magistrate, Rampur, acquitting respondent Peer Bux, resident of village Dalelnagar, Police station Tanda, district Rampur of an offence punishable under section 394 IPC. 2. THE case of the prosecution against the respondent was that on 1-4-1973 at about 11 A.M. he bundled some of the harvested masoor crop of Ranjeet Singh in village Ateria, police station Kotwali Rampur and began to leave the field of Ranjeet Singh. Ranjeet Singh happened to reach there. He raised alarm and attempted to catch hold of the respondent.. The respondent threw the load of masoor and assaulted Ranjeet Singh with a daranti. Persons in the neighbouring fields came up. Consequently the respondent was caught on the spot and was assaulted with lathis. Ranjeet Singh got a report written by Sohan Singh, P. W. 4 on the spot. Then the respondent was taken to the police station Kotwali which is 3 miles away and produced there at 1.30 P.M. with the written report, daranti and load of masoor. Dr. S. C. Wadia, P. W. 6, examined Ranjeet Singh on that date at 2 P. M, and found following injuries -.-(Injuries quoted-Editor) 3. THE respondent was also sent by tie police for medical examination. Dr. O. P. Rajanwala, D. W. 1, examined hum on the date of occurrence at 7.45 P. M. and found following contusions on his person-(Injuries quoted-Editor). 4. THE case was investigated into by S.N. Singh, S.I., P. W. 5. The respondent did not admit the allegations of the prosecution He contended that he had gone to work as labourer at the wheat field of Riyasat whose field is by the side of the field of Ranjeet Singh, that Ranjeet Singh stopped him and asked him to uproot his masoor, that he replied that he would first harvest the wheat crop of Riyasat, that then he would uproot his masoor, that thereupon Ranjeet Singh gave him abuses and assaulted him with lathi, that he caught his lathi and as such Ranjeet Singh fell down, that there was a daranti in his hand and that he did not know how Ranjeet Singh was injured with the daranti. At the end of his statement under section 342 CrPC, he added that he assaulted Ranjeet Singh with his daranti in self defence. At the end of his statement under section 342 CrPC, he added that he assaulted Ranjeet Singh with his daranti in self defence. The prosecution examined Ranjeet Singh, Daleep Singh, Balkar Singh and Sohan Singh, P. Ws. 1 to 4 to prove its case. The first three are eye-witnesses of the occurrence. Sohan Singh reached the scene of occurrence a little after the occurrence. He found a bundle of masoor lying tied on the spot in a white chadar as well as a daranti. Then he scribed report at the scene of occurrence on the dictation of Ranjeet Singh. The respondent did not examine any witness on facts. He simply examined Dr. D. P. Rajanwala. 5. THE learned Munsif Magistrate wrote a perfunctory judgment and disposed of the case by a very brief order/judgment. His judgment reads:- "In support of its case the prosecution examined P. W. 3, Sri Balbir Singh admittedly father-in-law of the complainant's brother Sri Ranjeet Singh i.e. he is relative and is an interested witness. P. W. 4 also has admitted himself as the relative of the complainant. P. W. 2 has shown in his evidence interests towards the complainant. The accused also has pleaded self defence. Therefore, the circumstances arid the evidence on record create doubt in the mind of the court about the occurrence of the incident complained of due to which the accused is entitled to a benefit of doubt and consequently to acquittal and I have to order accordingly." 6. THE learned counsel for the parties have been heard and the record has been examined with their assistance. The learned State counsel pointed out that the Magistrate was not justified in observing that P. W. 2 had shown in his evidence interests towards the complainant and that the Magistrate was wholly in the wrong in appraising the evidence and the material on record. 7. A perusal of the judgment of the Magistrate shows that the Magistrate has given bald reasons for acquitting the respondent and as such he has not complied with the provisions of section 367 of the old CrPC corresponding to section 354 of the new Code. The Magistrate should have discussed and analysed the evidence of the prosecution witnesses with care and thoroughly. Simply because the witnesses are related or interested, no offender can be acquitted on this ground alone. The Magistrate should have discussed and analysed the evidence of the prosecution witnesses with care and thoroughly. Simply because the witnesses are related or interested, no offender can be acquitted on this ground alone. In the present case the Magistrate completely forgot notice that it was a day-light occurrence and that there was no enmity between the parties from before the date of occurrence. Therefore, Ranjeet Singh, Daleep Singh and Balkar Singh would not have falsely implicated the respondent. There is no material on record to show that Daleep Singh, P. W. 2 is in any way interested in the complainant. The observation of the Magistrate that he had shown interest towards the complainant is wholly erroneous. 8. THE Magistrate further missed to notice that the respondent did not examine Riyasat Hussain on whose field he was going to work. The occurrence took place on 1st of April. According to the respondent himself he was carrying a daranti with a view to harvest the wheat crop of Riyasat. If really the respondent was engaged to cut the wheat crop, he could have gone to his field early in the morning. Wheat crop or other crops in summer season are generally not harvested at mid day. The evidence of the prosecution witnesses clearly showed that the masoor crop of Ranjeet Singh had been harvested prior to the occurrence. The masoor crop was lying in his field. Out of this crop the respondent tied some of it in a cloth. In this way the respondent had committed on offence of theft. He was attempting to take it away from the field of Ranjeet Singh who happened to reach there. He tried to catch hold of tike respondent. The respondent then assaulted him with daranti. On the alarm raised by Ranjeet Singh, Daleep Singh and Balbir Singh came from the neighbouring (fields, caught the respondent and assaulted him with lathis. This version of the occurrence is a very natural and probable one. There was hardly any occasion for these three witnesses to concoct a wholly false case against the respondent. The defence of the respondent for the reasons already set out above is wholly false and unbelievable. He stated that he did not know how his daranti caused injury to Ranjeet Singh. This shows tha he had absolutely no explanation to offer for the injuries of Ranjeet Singh. 9. The defence of the respondent for the reasons already set out above is wholly false and unbelievable. He stated that he did not know how his daranti caused injury to Ranjeet Singh. This shows tha he had absolutely no explanation to offer for the injuries of Ranjeet Singh. 9. IN view of the above, the appraisal of evidence by the Magistrate in a perfunctory manner is wholly perverse and his order of acquittal is wholly unjustified, The respondent in the instant case is clearly guilty of the offence punishable under section 394 IPO. 10. THE learned counsel for the respondent has urged that the occurrence took place 8 years ago and that leniency be shown to the respondent in the matter of sentence. The record shows that the occurrence took place on 1-4-1973 at midday, that the respondent was produced at the police station at 1.30 P. M., that the police sent the respondent for medical examination which was conducted in the evening of 1st April, 1973 and that the bail bonds of the respondent were taken by the Magistrate on 2-4-1973. In this way the respondent has not remained in jail even for a single day. Taking into consideration the age of the respondent at the time of occurrence (30 years), the manner of occurrence, the injuries caused to Ranjeet Singh as well as the respondent, ends of justice will meet if the respondent is made to suffer 6 months imprisonment. 11. APPEAL is allowed and the order dated 21-9-1974 passed by the Munsif Magistrate, Rampur acquitting the respondent in criminal case No. 130 of 1974 u/Sec. 394 IPC is set aside. The respondent is convicted u/Sec 394 IPO and sentenced to undergo R. I. for 6 months. He will be taken into custody forthwith to serve out the sentence. Appeal allowed.