JUDGMENT N.N. Sharma, J. 1. This appeal is directed against acquittal of respondents under sections 452 and 323 of Indian Penal Code by Sri D.N. Sinha, learned Munsif Magistrate Allahabad in case No. 1992 of 1976. 2. It appears that these proceedings were initiated on a complaint by complainant against respondents Shamsher Bahadur and his son Udai Singh, under sections 323, 452, 504 and 506 of Indian Penal Code, filed on 25-3-1975. The incident giving rise to these proceedings took place on 5-3-1975 at about 8 A.M. Parties are next door neighbours; there is a latrine in the house of respondents on the roof; it has not been enclosed by walls; the lattice enclosing the same does not obstruct the view of the latrine from the Zanana house of complainant. On the morning of incident the latirine was being used by some stranger, who was seen sitting naked in that latrine and indulging in some obscene activity by the ladies of the house of complainant complainant took an exception to it and reached the house of respondents for expostulation. Both the appellants armed with lathis, hurled abuses on complainant and chased him. Complainant entered his house for safety. He was not spared there also by respondents who intruded his house and belaboured him with lathis Smt. Jagrani mother of complainant, ran to his rescue but was also belaboured. Complainant lodged a report at police station Daraganj in the same forenoon at 8.45 A.M. This report was taken down under sections 323, 504 and 506 of Indian Penal Code. It was not recorded under section 452 of Indian Penal Code by Sri Babu Singh (DW 1) the then clerk constable, who registered the case in general diary vide Ext. Ka-2. Writing of Babu Singh was proved by Mohd. Sharif PW 3 who was acquainted with the same. 3. Complainant also got himself examined in the same forenoon at 10.45 A.M. by Dr. C.B. Singh PW 4, who happened to be Medical Officer, M. L. N. Hospital on that date. Following injuries were detected 1. Lacerated wound 1-1/2 x 1 /2 x bone deep on scalp 2 above left ear, bleeding. 2. Hacmetoma 1/2 x 1/2 on scalp 1 above right ear. 3. Abrasion 1/2 x 1/2 on back of left elbow joint movements normal. 4. All injuries were caused by some blunt object and were recent at time of examination. Lacerated wound 1-1/2 x 1 /2 x bone deep on scalp 2 above left ear, bleeding. 2. Hacmetoma 1/2 x 1/2 on scalp 1 above right ear. 3. Abrasion 1/2 x 1/2 on back of left elbow joint movements normal. 4. All injuries were caused by some blunt object and were recent at time of examination. Injury No. 3 was simple. Injuries Nos. 1 and 2 were kept under observation for which x-ray was advised vide report Ext. Ka-3 proved by doctor, who opined that the injured could have sustained these injuries in that morning at about 8 A.M. The injuries could have been caused by lathi blows. Injury No. 1 was not capable of being caused by a brick bat. In support of his complaint, complainant examined himself and one Dinesh Pande. Both these witnesses testified about respondents being the authors of the injuries sustained by complainant on 5-3-1975 at about 8 A.M. in connection with the invasion of privacy of Zanana house of complainant from the latrine of respondents, which was used on that morning by some male stranger. 5. Both the respondents in their statements denied all these allegations and alleged their implication to ill-will. 6. Complainant examined himself and Dinesh Pande in support of the aforesaid version constable Mohd. Sharif PW 3 and Dr. C.B. Singh PW 4 were also examined to support the prosecution case. In his statement recorded under section 2113 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, Udai Singh stated that witnesses perjured oia account of ill-will, 7. A similar statement was made by Shamsher Bahadur. 8. In defence Babu Singh, Head Constable was examined to prove the original report, which is Ext. Khal to show that at that stage the complainant did not allege the venue of occurrence being inside his house. Learned trial Magistrate acquitted respondents giving rise to this appeal. 9. I have heard learned counsel for parties and perused the record. 10. On behalf of the appellants it was pointed out that the judgment drawn by learned trial Magistrate is simply telegraphic it did not give the cases of parties nor discussed the evidence nor gave reasons, which impelled the learned trial Magistrate to record an order of acquittal. It was no judgment in the eye of law, as contemplated by section 354 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It was no judgment in the eye of law, as contemplated by section 354 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It did not contain the points for determination, the decision thereon and the reasons for decision. 11. Learned counsel for respondents supported the judgment on the ground that the view taken by learned trial Magistrate was reasonably possible. It is correct that the learned trial Magistrate did not detail the reasons in his judgment he also tried to support the judgment by fresh grounds, which were not laid by learned trial Magistrate. He also pointed out that in such a simple case of section 323 of Indian Penal Code, there was no point in remanding the case for fresh trial after a big time-gap. 12. I have carefully considered over the matter. In Baldeo v. Deo Narain, AIR 1954 Allahabad 104, it was pointed out that this Court should be reluctant to interfere with an order of acquittal unless such order is full of errors, which indicated that the Court had deliberately shut its eyes to patent facts on record and provides an instance of flagrant breach of fundamental principles regarding judgment. The controversy about the scope of appeal against acquittal has been settled by Supreme Court in Sanwa Singh, AIR 1961 SC 715 at page 719 wherein the legal position has been summed up thus:- 1. An Appellate Court has full power to review the evidence upon which the order of acquittal is founded (2) the principles laid down in Sheo Swamp's case, AIR 1934 PC 227, afforded a correct guide for the Appellate Court's approach to a case disposing of such an appeal; (3) the different phraseology used in the judgment of this Court such as (a) substantial and compelling reasons (b) good and sufficiently cogent reasons (c) strong reasons are not intended to curtail the undoubted power of an Appellate Court in an appeal against acquittal to review the entire evidence and to come to the own conclusion, but in doing so it should not only consider every matter an record laving a hearing on the questions of fact and the reasons given by the Court below in support of its order of acquittal, butt should express the reasons in its judgment which led it to hold that the acquittal was not justified." 13. To those were added two more in Ramphupala Reddy, AIR 1971 SC 400 (463 and 464), by Hegde, J. "To those tests we may add that (i) the Appellate Court should also bear in mind the fact that the trial court had the benefit of seeing the witnesses in the witness box, and (ii) the prosecution of innocence is not weakened by the order of acquittal. If two reasonable conclusions can be reached on the basis of the evidence on record, the Appellate: Court should not disturb the findings of the trial court." 14. As regards this case, I find that the learned trial Magistrate has simply enumerated the points for discarding the prosecution case in the following terms 1. No independent witness has been produced. PW 1 Dinesh Pandey is a tenant in the house of complainant. 2. PW 1 is an interested witness. 3. No witness in the FIR has been named. 4. Medical report is not complete, as deposed by PW 4 Dr. C.B. Singh. 5. Smt. Jagrani was not medically examined of her injuries nor was she produced as a witness. In the circumstances the evidence against the accused is not proved and I allow benefit of doubt to accused. 15. While discussing the evidence, he disposed of the witnesses in a summary fashion. He observed the complainant examined PW 1 Ravi Shanker. He is the complainant himself. He has supported his case by his evidence, PW 2 Dinesh Pandey. He is a tenant in the house of the complainant Ravi Shanker. He has supported the prosecution case. PW 3 is Mohd. Sharif. He is a formal witness. He has proved the Exhibits Ka-1 and Ka-2 PW 4 Dr. C.B. Singh is also a formal witness. He has proved his medical report Exhibit Ka. 3. The prosecution closed his evidence. The accused were examined under section 313 Cr PC to explain against the evidence and the offence against them. They stated that they have been falsely implicated and witnesses have deposed due to enmity. 16. Obviously a trial Magistrate should have discussed the evidence and should have given reasons as to why he was going to believe or disbelieve a particular witness. They stated that they have been falsely implicated and witnesses have deposed due to enmity. 16. Obviously a trial Magistrate should have discussed the evidence and should have given reasons as to why he was going to believe or disbelieve a particular witness. In his statement Ravi Shanker testified it was about nine months ago at about 8 A.M. I was in my house; a man was exposing himself by standing naked in their latrine my mother and sister reside in my house I felt offended and approached Shamsher Bahadur and protested. Shamsher Bahadur abused me his son also abused me and both of them chased me armed with rods. I entered my house; the accused entered my house and belaboured me with rods my mother and Sheo Shanker ran to my rescue but were belaboured by Udai Singh. 17. He further testified that his report was, not accurately drawn at police station. 18. He conceded that while lodging the report he did not mention that respondents intruded his house. He also did not mention in the report that he was belaboured inside his house. Dinesh Pande, who resides in the house of Ravi Shanker, testified that on that morning at about 8 A.M. one stranger was standing naked in the latrine of the accused complainant objected to it; respondents chased him and entered the house of complainant and belaboured him and his mother with rods. Ravi Shanker and his mother sustained injuries. He further testified that he also intervened at time of occurrence. 19. Obviously the story about intrusion by respondents inside the house of complainant smacks of embellishment and learned trial Magistrate rightly based himself on Ext. Kha-1 and discarded the prosecution story about respondents having committed an offence under section 452 of Indian Penal Code. 20. However, as regards the offence under section 323 of Indian Penal Code, which was testified by complainant and his witness Dinesh Pande and was confirmed by medical report as well as the prompt FIR lodged at police station by informant, no good reason was given to discard this evidence by learned trial Magistrate. Even testimony of witnesses not cited in FIR cannot justify its rejection if ruch witnesses are natural as was held in Narpal Singh v. State of Haryana, 1977 Criminal Law Journal 643. Even testimony of witnesses not cited in FIR cannot justify its rejection if ruch witnesses are natural as was held in Narpal Singh v. State of Haryana, 1977 Criminal Law Journal 643. The finding of learned trial Magistrate about acquittal of respondents from the offence under section 323 of Indian Penal Code is simply perverse and against the evidence on record and does not give any reason to discard the testimony of injured complainant. That testimony was cogent and weighty. Its rejection was not entailed by the circumstances of the case. So the respondent 20-A. Cr. R. must have been convicted under section 323 read with section 34 of Indian Penal Code on the evidence on record. 21. On behalf of the appellant there was a prayer for remand. I do not subscribe to this view. After such a big time-gap and for such petty offence I do not think that remand order, which result in clongation of proceedings, is called for. Learned counsel for respondents also pointed out that under the aforesaid circumstances, there was no occasion for remand when this Court is competent to impose the sentence awardable by learned trial Magistrate. It was further pointed out that in view of the nature of offence and circumstances of the case a lenient view is merited so far as the sentence is concerned. Accepting this submission, while altering the acquittal into conviction of respondents under section 323 read with section 34 of Indian Penal Code I sentence each appellant to a fine of Rs. 100/- each. The defaulter shall undergo one month's simple imprisonment only. 22. In the result appeal is allowed. Order of acquittal under section 323 IPC only as recorded by learned trial Magistrate is set aside. Respondents are convicted under section 323 read with section 34 of Indian Penal Code each respondent is sentenced to a fine of Rs. 100/- only to be deposited within two months from today. Defaulter shall undergo one month's simple imprisonment. Impugned order is modified accordingly. Appeal allowed.