K. N. SHUKLA, J. ( 1 ) THIS is an appeal by the complainant against respondents acquittal of an offence under section 325 I. P. C. ( 2 ) IT was alleged in the complaint that on 1. 3. 1976 at about 9 p. m. when complainant Harisingh was returning from a Pan Shop, respondents who were armed with iron rods, iron angles and hockey sticks (all blunt weapons) ambushed and attacked him causing five injuries. He was medically examined, the same night. Report of the incident was lodged but the police did not take any action. ( 3 ) RESPONDENTS denied the allegations and pleaded that, in fact, the complainant himself had attacked Rajendra Singh, father of respondent No. 3 causing several injuries and during that fight the complainant might also have received some injuries. ( 4 ) THE Court below after closely examining the evidence adduced by the complainant held that the incident as narrated in the complainant was not true. Accordingly he acquitted the respondents. ( 5 ) MEDICAL report shows that the complainant had received only simple injuries. There is no medical report to support the charge that the appellant had received any grievous injury. Dr. R. K. Shastri (P. W. 4) in his report (Ex. P-2) noted an incised wound on the upper lateral aspect of the left arm but the weapons allegedly used by the respondents could not have caused an incised wound. Besides, Dr. R. K. Shastri had opined that the duration of the injuries was about two to three hours before examination but if the complainant were to be believed, the injuries were caused within few minutes of his medical examination. There was no explanation on behalf of the complainant about the injuries sustained by D. W. 1. Rajendra Singh who had stated that the complainant had assaulted him with a view to forcibly evict him from a plot which he had taken on lease from him and in respect of which a civil suit had also been filed. ( 6 ) THUS, the inference drawn by the Court below about the credibility of the witnesses can not be called totally unreasonable. ( 7 ) IN these circumstances no interference is warranted in the judgment of acquittal recorded by the learned Magistrate. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed. Appeal dismissed. .