S. S. SHARMA, J. ( 1 ) THIS appeal by the State is against the acquittal of the respondents by Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bilaspur in Criminal Case No. 192 of 1981, vide his judgment dated 28/6/1982: ( 2 ) THE prosecution story briefly stated is that respondent Babulal bad a wooden stall on a platform outside the house of Umashanker (P. W. 1 ). It is said that the permission in that behalf had been taken from the father of Umashanker. In July, 1981 the Nazul authorities had statted some proceedings with regard to the alleged trespass committed at that place. Notices in that behalf had been issued to the parties. In those proceedings that wooden stall had been dismounted on 1-7-1981. On 9-7-1981 at about 6. 30 A. M. Umashanker (P. W. 1) from the terrace of his house saw that the respondents were again trying to fix the wooden stall at that very place. He, therefore, informed about it to his uncle Shiv Prasad (P. W. 4) a practising advocate. Shiv Prasad was then sitting in his office. When he wanted to go out, he found that one of the doors which presumably opens on that platform, had been locked by the accused. Umashanker was asked to tell the accused as to why they were committing that unlawful act. Anil Kumar Gupta (P. W. 2) who is the son of Shiv Prasad Gupta (P. W. 4) and is an advocate informed his father Shiv Prasad Gupta about the accused trying to put in their stall. ( 3 ) ON being asked by Shiv Prasad Gupta (P. W. 4), Umashanker (P. W. 1) went to the accused and told them not to fix the stall. The allegation is that the accused started giving abuses and even assaulted Umashanker. Hearing these abuses, Shiv Prasad Gupta (P. W. 4) and his son Anil Kumar Gupta (P. W. 2) came out and even they were manhandled. Umashanker (P. W. 1) lodged the first information report Ex. P. 1 in the Police Station on the same day at about 7-15 A. M. Head Constable Guizar Singh (P. W. 5) recorded this report Ex. P. 1. ( 4 ) DR. R. K. Mishra (P. W. 6) had examined (Umashanker on 9/7/1981. He found abrasions on the right knee, left thigh and right elbow as have been described by him. These injuries were simple. P. 1. ( 4 ) DR. R. K. Mishra (P. W. 6) had examined (Umashanker on 9/7/1981. He found abrasions on the right knee, left thigh and right elbow as have been described by him. These injuries were simple. On examination of Anil Kumar (P. W. 2), he found abrasions on the left side of the chest and the left arm. These injuries also were simple in nature. ( 5 ) THE accused denied the prosecution story and pleaded false implication. They did not examine any witness in defence. ( 6 ) AT the trial the prosecution examined Umashanker (P. W. n, Anil Kumar Gupta (P. W. 2) and Shiv Prasad Gupta (P. W. 4) as eye-witnesses of the incident. Even Umesh Kumar Mishra (P. W. 3) who also is an advocate and was working as a junior to Shri S. P. Gupta, stated that when he had reached the house of Shiv Prasad Gupta, he found a crowd. He also states about the presence of respondents Ram Autar and Babulal as also of Umashanker (P. W. 1) and Shiv Prasad Gupta (P. W. 4 ). According to him the respondents were threatening Umashanker Gupta and Shiv Prasad Gupta that they will bum the house and kill them. ( 7 ) THE respondents were tried for offences under Sections 294, 342. 323 and 506. B Indian Penal Code. The trial Magistrate, after considering the evidence and the circumstances, acquitted the respondents for offence under Section 294 Indian Penal Code. He in support of his conclusion placed reliance on a decision of this Court in Ganpat v. State of M. P. While acquitting the respondents for the off epee under Section 506-B Indian Penal Code, the learned Magistrate placed reliance on the decision of this Court in Roshanlal v. State of M. P. With regard to the offence under Section 342 Indian Penal Code, he, from the evidence, did not find it to be proved. Simi lady with regard to the offence under Section 323 Indian Penal Code, he found the oral evidence to be in conflict with the medical evidence. The evidence as was led by the prosecution did not satisfy the trial Magistrate to record a finding of conviction against the respondents. Yet another fact taking into account by the trial Magistrate was that the witnesses were related inter-se and the prosecution did not examine any other independent witness. The evidence as was led by the prosecution did not satisfy the trial Magistrate to record a finding of conviction against the respondents. Yet another fact taking into account by the trial Magistrate was that the witnesses were related inter-se and the prosecution did not examine any other independent witness. ( 8 ) ADMITTEDLY, Umashanker, Anil Kumar Gupta and Shiv Prasad Gupta are closely related with each other. Umesh Kumar Mishra (P. W. 3) was then working as a junior to Shiv Prasad Gupta (P. W. 4 ). They are, therefore, interested witnesses. Umashanker (P. W. 1) in his cross-examination admitted that a crowd or a bout 60 to 70 persons had connected on the spot. He, however, could not give out the names of anyone of those persons. Anil Kumar Gupta (P. W. 2) also in his cross- examination admitted that there are resident his houses of other persons near about the place of the incident. He further stated that it being the main road, traffic is there on hat road. Even according to him atleast about 10 to 15 persons had collected. That is what flows out even from the evidence of Shiv Prasad Gupta (P. W. 4 ). It is difficult to understand as to why any other witnesses were not examined by the prosecution. The explanation given by the Head Constable Gulzar Singh (P. W. 5), that though he had questioned the residents, they refused to give out. the details, can hardly be accepted. In those circumstances, the trial Magistrate rightly took into account these facts. The evidence, therefore, had to I be scrutinized with care and caution. ( 9 ) UMASHANKER (P. W. 1) made a sweeping allegation that all the accused had given him filthy abuses (ekw cfgu dh xkyh nha ). His evidence does not indicate as to which of the respondents had given what abuses. This sort of a sweeping statement cannot be accepted, so far as an offence under Section 294 Indian Penal Code is concerned. Anil Kumar Gupta (P. W. 2) states that on hearing the filthy abuses, he and Shiv Prasad Gupta reached the spot. Obviously, therefore they could not have seen as to which of the respondents was giving what abuses and to whom. Anil Kumar Gupta (P. W. 2) states that on hearing the filthy abuses, he and Shiv Prasad Gupta reached the spot. Obviously, therefore they could not have seen as to which of the respondents was giving what abuses and to whom. H appears that merely on voice identification Anil Kumar Gupta (P. W 2) made that allegation against the respondents, Shiv Prasad Gupta (P. W. 4) stated that he had heard filthy abuses being hurled from outside towards the lane. ( 10 ) ONE of the ingredients for an offence under Section 294 Indian Penal Code is that the accused had uttered any obscene words. Assuming that the abuses were obscene, the question however arises as to which of the respondents had uttered those words or abuses. As already pointed out, there is merely a sweeping statement by Umashanker against all the respondents. Such a bald statement can not be accepted to attribute the utterance of the obscene language by all the respondents. This is besides the fact that there are some other ingredients also which are required to be proved for an offence under Section 294 Indian Penal Code. Since the aforesaid requirement is not proved. It is not necessary to go into other ingredients. In this connection. I may also refer to the decision in Dalsingh v. State of M. P. In these circumstances, the acquittal for an offence under Section 294 Indian Penal Code cannot be said to be unjustified. ( 11 ) SO far as the offence under Section 342 Indian Penal Code is concerned, no witness had seen the respondents or any of them putting lock on the door. According to Shiv Prasad (P. W. 4), the respondents on being asked had stated that the lock had been put by them. Here again, the statement is a general one. Shiv Prasad (P. W, 4) does not any as to which of the respondents or which of them had told him about they having looked the door from outside. It does not stand to reason that on being asked by Shiv Prasad (P. W. 4), all the respondents would simultaneously confess to have put the lock on the door. Even Umashanker made a Similar version. What he stated was that on being told to remove the lock so that the door may be available for going out, the respondents did not agree. Even Umashanker made a Similar version. What he stated was that on being told to remove the lock so that the door may be available for going out, the respondents did not agree. He thus attributes the denial also to all the respondents. This sort of a simultaneous denial is, beyond comprehension It was urged by the learned counsel for the State that since the respondents were trying to fix a wooden stall, it would be they alone who would lock the door from out I side which would facilitate their running the shop. This could, at best, be a possibility and in criminal trials such a possibility itself is not enough to hold the respondents guilty for the offence. Shiv Prasad (P. W. 4) stood contradicted with his statement to the police. The acquittal of the respondents under Section 342 Indian Penal Code is thus based on appreciation of evidence. The view taken by the trial Magistrate cannot be laid to be that unreasonable which may call for an interference in appeal against acquittal. ( 12 ) WITH regard to the offence under Section 506-B Indian Penal Code, the trial Magistrate from the evidence, seems to have taken the view that the utterances made by the respondents or any of them were mere empty threats and were not intended to criminality intimidate anyone of the witnesses. This question apart, the evidence of Umashanker (P. W. 1) suffers from a similar infirmity as it suffers with respect to the other offences. Umashanker (P. W. 1), in his statement alleged that the respondents had assaulted his uncle and Anil Kumar Gupta, were abusing them, caught hold of the neck of his uncle and had threatened him to kill. He does not attribute any threat to any of the respondents, but a general statement in that behalf has been made, saying that all the respondents had given that sort of a threat. Anil Kumar, Gupta (P. W. 2) also in his examination in chief attributes such a threat by all the respondents which according to him caused an alarm. Shiv Prasad (P. W. 4) also makes a similar general allegation against all the respondents. Such vague and general statement against all the respondents could not have been accepted. The acquittal of the respondents even for an offence under Section 506- B Indian Penal Code does not also call for an interference. Shiv Prasad (P. W. 4) also makes a similar general allegation against all the respondents. Such vague and general statement against all the respondents could not have been accepted. The acquittal of the respondents even for an offence under Section 506- B Indian Penal Code does not also call for an interference. ( 13 ) SO far as the offence under Section 323 Indian Penal Code is concerned, Umashanker (P. W. 1) states that respondent Babulal bad inflicted a blow by JHARA on his right knee. Dr. R. K. Mishra (P. W. 6) had found an abrasion on the right knee of Umashanker. In the description of that injury, he has mentioned that there were dust particles over the injury. Umashanker had admitted that he bad fallen down. Dr. Mishra in his cross-examination opined that Umashanker could have received the injuries even by a jail. No-doubt, be state that there should be repeated falls for all these injuries. This opinion of Dr. Mishra cannot be accepted for the simple reason that the other injury was on the right elbow and while falling down, he would as well receive the injury on-the elbow. As described by Dr. Mishra, dust particles were present even on that elbow injury. The third injury that Umashanker had, was an abrasion on the left thigh. Umashanker does not state about any injury to his thigh, as a result of the assault made on him. Anil Kumar Gupta states about the respondent Babulal having inflicted a low by a JHARA which landed on the right thigh of Umashanker, while the injury as found by Dr. Mishra, was on the left thigh. The blow said to have been inflicted by Ramautar, as stated by Anil Kumar Gupta (P. W. 2) was averted. According to Anil Kumar Gupta (P. W. 2), two others, namely, Kaliya and Dilip had also assaulted Umashanker. Kaliya is pot a respondent and was not an accused either in the Court below. Umashanker does not implicate Dilip as the person who had assaulted him. This is how the evidence with regard to causing of the hurt to Umashanker is found to be conflicting. The trial Magistrate has also found the conflict in the oral evidence and the medical evidence. Anil Kumar Gupta (P. W. 2, states that respondent Babulal had inflicted blow by JHARA. on his right elbow and, back. Dr. This is how the evidence with regard to causing of the hurt to Umashanker is found to be conflicting. The trial Magistrate has also found the conflict in the oral evidence and the medical evidence. Anil Kumar Gupta (P. W. 2, states that respondent Babulal had inflicted blow by JHARA. on his right elbow and, back. Dr. Mishra found abrasions on his chest and left arm. The sequence of events given by Shiv Prasad (P. W. 4) is different than the one given by Anil Kumar Gupta (P. W. 2) According to Anil Kumar Gupta (P. W. 2), after when Umashanker had fled away, he had been caught hold of and assaulted. Shiv Prasad (P. W. 4) stated that after the assault on Umashanker and his running away, he went to pacify the respondents and told them not to do things by force. The respondents then abused him and said that their children were dying of hunger. Thereafter, he was caught hold of by his neck and pushed back. Anil Kumar (P. W. 2) came to his rescue and at this stag. Anil Kumar was assaulted. ( 14 ) AS already stated, the witnesses are either closely related or interested. The -prosecution did not examine independent witness though they could be available. The trial Magistrate has, in the circumstances, for justifiable reasons, not accepted the version of these witnesses even with regard to the offence under Section 323 Indian Penal Code. In the circumstances I find no ground for interference even with the acquittal for offence under Section 323 Indian Penal Code. ( 15 ) CONSEQUENTLY this appeal fails and is hereby dismissed. The bail bonds of the respondents are discharged. Acquittal maintained. .