JUDGMENT O.P. Mehrotra, J. - This State appeal is directed against an order of acquittal passed against respondents Muslim Husain, Shamim Haider and Bhanu in a case under Section 323 and 325, I.P.C. 2. It is alleged that on 1.11.1978, at 7 a.m. the respondents assaulted complainant. Tayyab and his daughter Anwari Begum with Lathis and Dandas causing several injuries including lacerated wounds, contusion and abrasions to them. On X-ray fracture of middle of right humerus and fracture of middle and lower third ulna of Tayyab was found. It is alleged that while the complainant was ploughing his field, the respondents arrived there armed with Lathis and Dandas and started assaulting him and when his daughter Anwari Begum, who was coming to the field with Nashta for her father, tried to intervene, the respondents assaulted her as well. The complainant lodged a report at police station at the same day at 11.30 a.m. and got the injuries examined by Dr. S.C. Roy on the same day at 12 noon and 2 p.m. The report of a non-cognizable offence was recorded, but after X-ray, the case was converted into one under Section 323 and 325, I.P.C. and after investigation by S.I. Ram Prakash Pandey, the respondents were sent up for trial. 3. In support of its case, the prosecution examined four eye witnesses including complainant Tayyab (P.W. 1), his daughter Anwari Bcum (P.W. 2), his son-in-law Syed (P.W.8) and Sukai (P.W. 4). P.W.5 Dr. R.R. Ghosh had done X-ray and proved X-ray report while head constable Ram Anjor Yadav proved F.I.R. and other papers. Dr. S.C. Roy, who had examined the injuries of the 2 injured persons and S.I. Ram Prakash Pandey who investigated this case had not been examined as they did not appear before the court despite several attempts to procure their presence. 4. Accused (respondents) pleaded not guilty and stated that they had been falsely implicated on account of enmity. They did not adduce any evidence. 5. The learned Magistrate acquitted the respondents on the ground that there was no independent and reliable evidence to support the prosecution case. The testimony of the - complainant, his daughter and son-in-law was held to be the testimony of interested witnesses while P.W. 4 Sukai was disbelieved as he stated that he did not see any of the accused assaulting the complainant or his daughter. The testimony of the - complainant, his daughter and son-in-law was held to be the testimony of interested witnesses while P.W. 4 Sukai was disbelieved as he stated that he did not see any of the accused assaulting the complainant or his daughter. As a matter of fact, this witness did not support the prosecution case even in his examination-in-chief, in as-much as he stated that he did not remember as to who assaulted the complainant and his daughter. He was. therefore, declared hostile on the request of the A.P.O. who was permitted to cross-examine him. In his cross-examination by the A.P.O. he stated that he could not recognise the assailants on account of darkness. He further denied that the investigating officer interrogated him and further stated that he could not say as to how the I.O. had recorded his statement under Section 161, Cr.P.C. 6. In this appeal against acquittal, it was contended on behalf of the State that even if Sukai was disbelieved, the trial court should have convicted the accused persons on the testimony of the complainant, his daughter and son-in-law. His contention was that their statements could not be disbelieved on the ground that they were interested persons. It is correct that in a case of this nature it is some-time possible to convict the accused persons merely on the testimony of the injured persons. In this case, however, the presence of Anwari Begum at the field at that early hour of the day was highly suspicious. The evidence on the record shows that the field of the complainant was close to the village so much so that on hearing the alarm several persons had reached the spot soon aftert the occurrence. If that was so, the complainant could lave easily come to his house for taking breakfast, and it. was highly improbable that at 7 in the morning his daughter would have taken his breakfast to the field. It is correct that the complainant and his daughter were assaulted on that morning. The probability that they had been assaulted by some unknown persons in the darkness of the night or early morning and they implicated the respondents on account of enmity cannot entirely be ruled out especially when no independent witness of the locality is coming forward to support the prosecution case. The probability that they had been assaulted by some unknown persons in the darkness of the night or early morning and they implicated the respondents on account of enmity cannot entirely be ruled out especially when no independent witness of the locality is coming forward to support the prosecution case. The learned Magistrate who had recorded the statements and who had an opportunity to note the demeanour of the witnesses was in a better position to judge the veracity of the statements of the witnesses examined before him. He had given reasons for holding that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and I see no ground to take a different view. The view taken by the learned Magistrate cannot be said to be grossly incorrect or perverse so as to call for an interference by this Court in an appeal against acquittal. 7. The learned counsel on behalf of the State urged that so far as Dr. S.C. Roy and the I.O. were concerned. the learned Magistrate was not justified in discharging them without taking coersive steps to procure their presence. He drew my attention to an application filed by the complainant on 22.12.1980, in which it was requested that Dr. S.C. Roy should be summoned from Mental Hospital, Varanasi, and A.B.O. had made an endorsement at the foot of that application that Dr. S.C. Roy may be summoned throughout coersive process. In this connection I may refer to an application dated 28.11.80 filed by complaint Tayyab Husain in which he prayed for one more opportunity to produce Dr. S.C. Roy. This opportunity was provided and thereafter one more opportunity was allowed on 15.12.80. On which date the court mentioned in its order that last opportunity was being allowed to produce the witnesses. At that time no request was made to take coersive measures. No doubt the court could have taken coersive measures, yet this will not be of any use now especially in view of the fact that the evidence on record was not such on which implicit reliance could be placed and conviction could be based. It cannot be said that the Magistrate committed gross error in acquitting the respondents. This appeal, has, therefore, no merit. 8. In view of the above, I find that this appeal has no merit and the same is hereby dismissed.