I. P. SINGH, J. ( 1 ) THIS appeal has been filed by Deonandan complainant against the judgment and order of Shri Vmakant Tripathi, Vth Additional Musif-Magistrate. Varanasi in Criminal Case No. 186 of 1972 Deonandan v. Keshav and others acquitting the four respondent accused, namely. Keshav. Sheonath. Ram Lakhan and Prabhu of the offences punishable under sections 147. 325. 506 read with section 1491pc. ( 2 ) THE complaint case is that in a civil suit for injunction filed by the complaint against the accused the complainant had taken out a commission and the Vakil Commissioner had gone to the spot on 24-8-1972 at about 7 a. m. along with complainants advocate Parsidh Narain Singh (P. W. 6 ). In execution of the commission the Commissioner had prepared a site plan of the disputed property and had shown things in it which indicated that the complainant was in possession of that property. Accordingly the accused persons got enraged. After the Vakil Commissioner had left the complainant along-with others had tarried at the spot for some time. It was at about 10 a. m. that he along with his counsel Parsidh Narain was going towards his own house. He had to pass by the house of the accused-persons. A well is situated outside their house by the side of the Rasta. The accused persons were sitting there. All the accused shouted to beat the complainant. At this Keshav accused gave a lathi blow on the head of the complainant which was subsequently found to have caused a fracture of the skull bone. The report was lodged at the Police station but it was not faithfully recorded. Later on the complainant got himself medically examined which revealed a fracture of the skull bone. Thereafter the present complaint was filed. ( 3 ) THE complainant Deonandan examined himself (as P. W. 1) Ram Roop (P. W. 2) Nanak Prasad Gupta (P. W. 3 ). Hasan Raza (P. W. 4), Dr. K. C. Tandon (P. W. 5) and Prasidh Narain (P. W. 6) On the other hand the accused examined Lamuna (D. W. 1 ). ( 4 ) THE learned Munsif-Magistrate after assessing the evidence of the parties acquitted the four respondents-accused of the charges against them. It was observed that Ramdhani 5th accused had died during the pendency of the case. ( 4 ) THE learned Munsif-Magistrate after assessing the evidence of the parties acquitted the four respondents-accused of the charges against them. It was observed that Ramdhani 5th accused had died during the pendency of the case. ( 5 ) IN this appeal the learned counsel for the complainant appellant has, taken me through the complainant injury report and X-ray report as well as through the evidence of the witnesses. ( 6 ) THE learned Magistrate had disbelieved the prosecution version of the incident on a few grounds discussed in his judgment. To my mind it would not be necessary to refer to those reasons in detail. I would simply refer to the medical evidence on record. The injury reported shows that the complainant had suffered a contused lacerated would 2h/2h x 1/2 x scalp deep on back part of head left side. Direction downwards and inwards Fresh. Some oozing of blood was still found present at the time of his examination. The statement of Deonandan complainant (P. W. 1) shows that Keshav accused opposite party had given him a lathi blow from his backside but from close quarters. If it be so. then in normal circumstances when both the injured and the assailant were in standing position (as is the case of the prosecution) then from a very close quarter a lathi blow would not cause a contused lacerated wound 21/2 long unless that much length of the lathi comes into direct contact with the seat of injury. This Seat happens to be on the back part of head left side. To my mind, the above injury on this part of the head cannot be caused by a lathi blow given from a close quarter when both the injured and the assailant are in the standing position. It can only be so caused if the head of the injured person was sufficiently bent forward to expose the seat of injury to direct blow of the latbi. But that is not the version of the prosecution. ( 7 ) IN this background the direct evidence of the witnesses which is to the effect that Keshav accused had given a lathi blow to the complainant when be was walking on the Rasta does not inspire confidence. ( 8 ) THE perusal of the judgment of the learned Munsif-Magistrate shows that his appreciation of the evidence cannot be called perverse. ( 8 ) THE perusal of the judgment of the learned Munsif-Magistrate shows that his appreciation of the evidence cannot be called perverse. At any rate, the view taken by him is not such which could not, in the circumstances of the case be taken by a reasonable prudent man. The acquittal of the accused-respondents does not call for any interference. The appeal is hereby dismissed. Appeal dismissed .