S. K. SETH, J. ( 1 ) AT the relevant time in the year 1917, P. W. 2 Munpadevi (twenty-eight years) was working as a teacher in a girls primary school in village Parsatola of Rajnandgaon district. P. W. 1 Bansilal (thirty years) was her husband and lived with her in the said village. P. W. 11 Surjibai was mother-in-law of Munnabai and she too lived with her in the said village. ( 2 ) THE case of the prosecution against the eight accused persons Chiman Singh. Gendobai, Mehtarinbai, Narbad Singh, Damesai. Narayan Singh, Dhaniram and Arjun Prasad was that on the date of the incident i. e. 15-1-1971 at about 2. 30 in the afternoon the said persons acting in prosecution of their common object trespassed into the house of P. W. 2 Munnadevi with a view to cause hurt to her and to her bus band P. W. 1 Bansilal and in fact gave a beating to them with fist blows and Chappals resulting in grievous hurt to P. W. 2 Munnadevi and simple hurt to P. W. Bansilal. However, on an appreciation of evidence produced in the case it was found by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Rajnandgaon vide his judgment dated 16-7-1979 passed in Criminal Case No. 127 of 1977 that the prosecution failed to establish its abovesaid case against the accused persons. He, accordingly, acquitted the accused persons of the offences under Sections 452, 323/149 and 325/149 Indian Penal Code alleged against them in the said connection. The present appeal has been filed by the State against the acquittal of the accused persons of the above said offences. ( 3 ) THERE was evidence produced in the case suggesting that a few days prior to the date of the incident P. W. 1 Bansilal, husband of P. W. 2 Munnabai, had tried to take liberty with one of the girls in the village. There was also evidence produced in the case suggesting that the said girl i. e. Gayatribai bad lodged a complaint about the incident with the school authorities and on coming to know about the said fact P. W. 2 Munnadevi had beaten Gayatribai with a Chappal at the village well. Now, out of the eight accused persons, five of them i. e. accused nos. 1 to 5 namely Chimanisingh. Gendobai, Mebtarinbai, Narbad Singh and Damesai were close relations of Gayatribai Accused no. Now, out of the eight accused persons, five of them i. e. accused nos. 1 to 5 namely Chimanisingh. Gendobai, Mebtarinbai, Narbad Singh and Damesai were close relations of Gayatribai Accused no. 8 namely Arjun Prasad was the head master of the middle school in the village. The defence of the accused persons was that it was with a view to counter-blast the charges that had been under investigation against P. W. 2 Munnadevi and her husband P. W. 1 Bansilal that the said two persons concocted a story and implicated them falsely in the matter. ( 4 ) ACCORDING to the prosecution case, there were said to be five eye witnesses to the incident i. e. P. W. 1 Bansilal, P. W. 2 Munnadevi, P. W. 9 Chhavilal, P. W. 10 Ishwar Rao and P. W. 11 Surjibai. Out of them, the evidence of P. W. 9 Chhavilal, P. W. 10 Ishwar Rao and P. W. 11 Surjibai was valueless. P. W. 9 Chhavilal could not be believed for the reason that while according to P. W. 2 Munnabai the said witness was present inside the house at the time of the incident, according to the said witness he had watched the incident from outside the house-standing with the crowd. P. W. 10 Ishwar Rao could not be believed for the reason that the version of the incident given by him was deferent. In material particulars from that given by P. W. 2 Munnadevi and P. W. 1 Bansilal. Moreover, from the improvements that he tried to make in his earlier statement made to the police, it was evident that he was for some reason interested in the complainant party and little reliance could he placed on what was deposed to by him about the incident. P. W. 11 Surjibai was a new comer to the village and did not know any of the accused persons either by names or by faces. She was at no stage asked by the investigating agency to confirm the identity of the persons who were involved in the incident. ( 5 ) IN the circumstances, the only direct evidence that remained to be considered in the case was that of P. W. 2 Munnadevi and her husband P. W. 1 Bansilal. She was at no stage asked by the investigating agency to confirm the identity of the persons who were involved in the incident. ( 5 ) IN the circumstances, the only direct evidence that remained to be considered in the case was that of P. W. 2 Munnadevi and her husband P. W. 1 Bansilal. One thing that was apparent from the evidence of P. W. 2 Munnadevi was that she was given to exaggerating things and dramatizing events. Though the medical evidence produced in the case indicated that the injuries said to have been suffered by her during the course of the incident were simple abrasions and contusions on non-vital parts of her body, she wanted it to, be believed that she became unconscious after receiving the said injuries and regained her consciousness only in the night. Both she and her husband P. W. 2 Bansilal tried to pretend in their evidence that they did not know anything about the Gayatribai episode and yet they tried to implicate the said girl falsely in the present case by mentioning that she too had participated in the incident along with others. The above said conclusion was irresistible from the fact that in the first information report that P. W. 1 Bansilal had lodged with the police within a couple of hours of the incident, the name of Gayatribai was nowhere mentioned amongst the persons who were said to have trespassed into the house and manhandled the husband and wife team. It was remarkable as to how at the stage of evidence the two witnesses divided the miscreants into two groups one that had entered into the house and manhandled them and the other that remained standing out side and merely uttered words of exhortation. ( 6 ) TO sum up, it may be that some such incident did take place in which the husband and wife team of P. W. 1 Bansilal and P. W. 2 Munnadevi were manhandled by certain miscreants who had entered their house for the purpose. However, in view of the fact that both the said witnesses had little regard for truth and had no hesitation in implicating anyone falsely in the matter, it was not safe to base conviction of any of the accused persons on their testimony. However, in view of the fact that both the said witnesses had little regard for truth and had no hesitation in implicating anyone falsely in the matter, it was not safe to base conviction of any of the accused persons on their testimony. ( 7 ) IN the opinion of this Court, for the reasons stated above, the appeal filed by the State against the acquittal of the accused respondents is without any merit. The same is accordingly dismissed. Appeal dismissed. .