JUDGMENT 1. - The eighteen respondents were tried for the offences under sections 148, 303, 302/149, 396, 397, 447 and 323 I.P.C, by the Sessions Judge, Sri Ganganagar. By the judgment dated January 29, 1973 the learned Sessions Judge convicted Surja, Hanuman, Ridmal and Udmi for the offence under section 323 I.P.C. and sentenced the first two respondents to one months R.I. and a fine of Rs. 300/-, in default of payment of fine to undergo R.I. for fifteen days and the other two to R.I. for three months and a fine of Rs. 500/-, in default of payment of fine to undergo R.I. for one and half months. Rest of the respondents were acquitted for all the charges levelled against them. 2. Being dissatisfied by the acquittal of the respondents for the various charges, the State of Rajasthan has preferred this appeal in this Court with the prayer that they may be convicted for the offences under sections 302, 302/149, 396, 397 and 447 I.P.C. and he punished adequately. 3. The dispute which resulted in the death of Pat Ram son of Loona Ram (P.W. 1) related to the land situated in the north west direction of village Dhaniasar. The initial version of the complainant was that fifty bighas of land was inherited by Loona Ram (P.W. 1) and his four brothers viz. Maniram, Begaram, Laxminarain and Sriram from their father. The four brothers of Loona Ram sold 40 bighas of land to respondent Surjaram. The remaining ten bighas of land is said to in possession of Loona Ram. In part of that land he cultivated 'Bajri' crop and the remaining portion was left for 'Hadi'. Similarly Surjaram cultivated 'Bajri' crop in part of the land and left the rest of the land for The prosecution came with the case at the trial that out of fifty bighas of the aforesaid land twenty five bighas continued to be in possession of Loona Ram father of complainant Badri Ram. That on October 2, 1971 when Loona Ram and Pat Ram were in the field in their possession, the respondents armed with 'guns', lathis and axes went to the field and plucked 'Bajri sittis' from the crop sown by Loona Ram. They also took the beddings of Loona Ram, said to be lying in the field. Loona Ram was given a beating by the respondents. They also took the beddings of Loona Ram, said to be lying in the field. Loona Ram was given a beating by the respondents. Pat Ram was also given severe beatings with lathis, slaps and first blows and was tied to a 'Kejri' tree. Badri Ram rushed to the site. Deva Ram owner of the adjacent field rushed to the house of Loona Ram and informed Badri Ram (P.W, 2) son of Loona Ram about a number of persons giving a beating to his father Loona Ram and brother Patram, Badriram rushed to the site.Imarta(P.W.5) another son of Loona Ram and Magnaram also heard the noise and rushed to the site. The accused party is said to have taken to heels along with 'sittis' of 'Bajri' plucked by them & other articles from the field.Badri Ram (P.W. 2) went to Police Station, Rawatsar and reported the matter to the S.K.H. Inder Singh (P.W. 8) who recorded the information Ex.P. 6 and registered the case. The investigation was entrusted to A.S.I. Prakash Singh (P.W. 7). Prakash Singh (P.W. 7) went to the site and conducted necessary investigation. Pat Ram was taken to the Rawatsar hospital at about 11.15 P.M. Dr. Bhimsingh (P.W. 3) examined his injuries and advised x-ray. He was then taken to the Ganganagar hospital on October 3, 1971. S.H.O. Inder Singh (P.W. 6) came to know that Patram had expired. He went to the hospital and prepared the inquest memo. All the respondents were arrested and in pursuance of the information furnished by them, weapons were recovered. In pursuance of information of Nenuram one 'Gadela' and one 'gudri' was recovered. 'Sittis of Bajri' were recovered from the house of Surja Ram. 4. Upon completition of necessary investigation, charge-sheet against the respondents for the various offences stated above, was filed in the Court of Munsif Magistrate, Bhadra. The learned Magistrate after conducting the inquiry committed the respondents for the aforesaid offences and recorded their pleas. On their denial of the indictments, he proceeded with the trial. The prosecution has examined ten witnesses in all. In their statements Under section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Old), the respondents denied the allegations, Surja Ram stated that he had purchased 40 bighas of land from the four brothers of Loona Ram through three registered sale deeds in his favour for consideration. The prosecution has examined ten witnesses in all. In their statements Under section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Old), the respondents denied the allegations, Surja Ram stated that he had purchased 40 bighas of land from the four brothers of Loona Ram through three registered sale deeds in his favour for consideration. He claimed to be in possession of all that land. No defence witness was examined. 5. We heard Mr. M.C. Bhati, learned Public Prosecutor for the State and Mr. S.R. Singhi, learned counsel for the respondents. 6. The learned Public Prosecutor strenuously contended that the learned trial Judge has not properly appreciated the evidence of the prosecution witnesses regarding the possession of the land in dispute. It has also been urged by the learned Public Prosecutor that 25 bighas of land being in possession of Loona Ram (P.W. 1), he and his sons had every right to be there and acts of the respondents amounted to trespass and anything taken from there would amount to dacoity. It has also been contended that it wag with intention to commit the murder of Patram that severe injuries were caused to him and as such there was no justification in acquitting the respondents for the various charges and convicting only four persons and that to for the minor offence under section 323 I.P.C. 7. The learned counsel for the respondents controverting these contentions submitted that from the various sale-deeds produced from the defence side it is evident that the land was purchased by Suja Rain in the name of his sons and he had sown the crop. Mr. Singhi referred to the statements of the witnesses and tried to justify the findings of the learned trial Judge that Surja Ram and his family members were in possession of the field where the incident is said to have taken place and therefore, it cannot be said that the accused party was aggressor. 8. The pertinent question in the case is as to who was in possession of the land in dispute where the incident is said to have taken place. 8. The pertinent question in the case is as to who was in possession of the land in dispute where the incident is said to have taken place. The initial version of the prosecution, as evident in the F.I.R. lodged by Badri Ram (P.W. 2) to which his attention was drawn during the course of his deposition at the trial, was that Loona Ram was in possession of ten bighas of land only while the 40 bighas of land were sold to Surjaram by the four brothers of Loona Ram. The subsequent improvement in the case was that 25 bighas of the land was in possession of Loona Ram. 9. The learned trial Judge has discussed in detail the statement of Loona Ram (P.W.1), Badri Ram (P.W.2), as well as the Patwari Mitra Dev (P.W.9) who has proved the 'gatnabahi' dated May 31, 1971 recorded by Mani Ram. his predecessor, who had gone to the Site under the orders of the Tehsildar and demarcated 45 bighas of land purchased by Udmiram and Maniram. 10. It is important to note that the S.H.O, did not investigate regarding the possession of the land where exactly the occurrence is said to have taken place. The sale-deeds Ex. D.2, Ex.D.3, and Ex.D. 1 A clearly prove the ownership of Surja Ram and his sons over 40 bighas of land. The learned Judge in our opinion has rightly taken into consideration these facts as well as the improvement of the initial version of the prosecution and therefore, it has been rightly held that offence under section 447 I.P.C. is not made out. Regarding the alleged Property of dacoity, the 'Bajri-Sittis' and beddings, there being no definite evidence about the beddings having been taken away by any of the accused, there appears to be no reason to disagree with the findings that prosecution could not prove any dacoity of any article. The 'Bajri-Sittis' were seized from a heap lying there in the house of Surja Ram. The prosecution case even is that Surja has also cultivated 'Bajri'crop. 11. The important point left for consideration is whether the four respondents should have been held guilty for committing the murder of Patram, instead of the offence under section 323 I.P.C. and whether the remaining respondents were also liable for the beating given to Patram which resulted in his death. 12. 11. The important point left for consideration is whether the four respondents should have been held guilty for committing the murder of Patram, instead of the offence under section 323 I.P.C. and whether the remaining respondents were also liable for the beating given to Patram which resulted in his death. 12. The learned trial Judge has disbelieved Loona Ram (P.W.1), and in our opinion rightly so, because Devaram whose presence has been proved by the prosecution does not speak about Loona Ram being there in the field. Imarta (P.W.5) and Magan Singh (P.W.6) also have not proved the presence of Loona Ram at the field on that date. Loonaram has come with a case that he was severely beaten by the assailants but he was not medically examined and there is no reason given for not doing so. The learned trial Judge has taken into consideration the nature of injuries and the opinion expressed by the Doctor, examined from the prosecution side, to arrive at a conclusion that the four respondents convicted for the offences under section 323 I.P.C. must not have caused those injuries other with intention to commit the murder of Patram or with the knowledge that those injuries may prove fatal to him. The Doctor preparing the injury report Ex.P.1 and Post-mortem examination report Ex.P. 2 have noted following injuries of Pat Ram:- 1. Bruise 1/2-3"x 11/4 front side of Rtankle joint and dorsum of Rt. foot. 2. Bruise 5"x2" front, medial and latera 1 side of knee joint. 3. Bruise with swelling 31/2"x 21/2" front side of left knee joint. 4. Partially healed abrasions 3/4"x 1/2" front side of middle of left leg. 5. Bruise and partially healed abrasion 2"xl" back side of left leg upper part. 6. Bruise 4"xl" left gluteal region. 7. Bruise 3"xl" left gluteal region. 8. Bruise 31/2"xl" right gluteal region. 9. Bruise 21/2" x 3/4" back side of knee joint. 10. Multiple marks of bruises over an area measuring 4"x3" outerside of right thigh, 11. Partially healed abrasion 3/4" x 1/4" back side of left hand. 13. It is relevant to observe that Patram was not taken for medical aid till 11.15 P.M. Dr. A.R.Das (P.W.10) has also stated that all the injuries sustained by Patram were not sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. Partially healed abrasion 3/4" x 1/4" back side of left hand. 13. It is relevant to observe that Patram was not taken for medical aid till 11.15 P.M. Dr. A.R.Das (P.W.10) has also stated that all the injuries sustained by Patram were not sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. The Doctor who conducted the autopsy over the dead body was also of the same opinion. The opinion of the Doctor was that collectively the injuries caused shock which resulted in death. According to the medical opinion the injuries were likely to cause death if some complication developed. In the beginning the Doctor suspected some head injuries to the brain but after x-ray no head injury could be detected. According to the medical opinion all the injuries received by Patram were simple in nature. There is uniformity in the version of the prosecution witnesses that Surjaram and Hanuman had given fist blows and slaps to Patram and Udmiram and Bidhmal have caused injuries by thrust blows of lathis. No vital part of the body was involved. In such circumstances, the learned Judge in our opinion has rightly arrived at a conclusion that the four respondents, convicted for the offence under section 323 I.P.C., were responsible only for the causing simple injuries to Patram and no intention or knowledge to cause fatal injuries can be attributed to them. There is the specific evidence against Surjaram, Hanuman, Udai and Ridmal only for causing injuries to Pat Ram. The prosecution case regarding the respondents forming an unlawful assembly has been disbelieved for cogent reasons and therefore, the remaining respondents had rightly been not held even vicariously liable for any injury caused to Patram. The learned trial Judge has given due weight to the fact that all the friends and relatives of Surjaram have been involved in the case without there being any evidence against them. The highest court of the country has propounded the principle in a number of cases that in the absence of any material irregularity, error or illegality, the High Court in appeal should not interfere with the order of acquittal merely because some other view may be taken on the evidence on record. The highest court of the country has propounded the principle in a number of cases that in the absence of any material irregularity, error or illegality, the High Court in appeal should not interfere with the order of acquittal merely because some other view may be taken on the evidence on record. The trial court has the occasion to look into the demeanour of the witnesses at the time of their deposition in the Court and therefore, if the evidence has been properly appreciated taking into consideration the settled principles of law, then it is not expected of the appellate Court to interfere with the order of acquittal. 14. Upon careful examination of the record as discussed above, we have formed an opinion that the trial Court has passed the order of acquittal of the respondents on sound reasoning's and therefore, there is no room for forming an opinion different from that of the learned Sessions Judge. 15. Consequently, the appeal filed by the State of Rajasthan against the respondents has no force and it is accordingly dismissed.Appeal dismissed. *******