JUDGMENT U. K. Verma, J. - This is a Government appeal against the judgment and order of Shri Bhagwan Deen, III Additional Sessions Judge, Hamirpur dated 30-9-1978 acquitting the respondents Hari Das, Ghan Shyam, Bhuj Pal, Har Narain, Duli Chaad, Tijaiya, Nandu, Chhana, Gokul, Hardayal, Tulasiya, Sarjua, Balram and Chiranji of the charges under Sections 147, 333 and 395 of the Indian Penal Code, 24 of the Cattle Tresspass Act and 26 of the Indian Forest Act. 2. The prosecution case briefly stated is that the respondents Chhana, Gokul, Har Dayal, Tulasiya, Balram, Sarjua and a woman whose name was not known about 3 p. m. on 27-l1-1976 had let loose their sheep and goat numbering 500 or so in the 65 Kohania Plantation of the Forest Department in village Lohar Gaon. The Forester Nizamuddin asked Chhanna, Gokul, Har Dayal, Tulasiya, Balram and Sarjua to take out the cattle and remonstrated against the loping and felling of the plants in the plot No. 397 of the reserved Kohaniya Forest. They did not pay heed. The complainant Nizamuddin Forester, Ram Saran Forester, Kirti Mohan Singh, Forest Guard and Veer Singh, Forest Watch thereupon decided to take the sheep and goats to the cattle pound. Hardly had they taken the cattle up to a distance of 50 to steps, Gokul respondent to incite his companions gave a heavy lathi blow to a kid which spontaneously died. He cried for help from the other shepherds. Hearing his call Chiranji, Hat Das, Ghanshyam, Bhuj Lal, Har Narain, Duli Chand Tijaiya, Nandu arrived with their lathis. They assaulted the public servants of the Forest Department named Nizamuddin, Ram Saran, Kirti Mohan and Veer Singh and in the meantime the daughter of the shepherd Basanta and also a womans whose name was not known took away the cattle of the respondents to their houses. The respondents seized the licenced gun of Ram Sharan Maurya when it fell on the ground as a result of the lathi blow hitting it. They threatened to cut Ram Saran Maurya to pieces and to throw him in the river as food of the fishes but due to the timely arrival of Baijnath, the Forest Watch along with Khoob Chand and Paras, they could not do so and went away. 3. The written report of the incident Ext. Ka. 1 was lodged in the police station Mahobkanth. The check report Ext. 3. The written report of the incident Ext. Ka. 1 was lodged in the police station Mahobkanth. The check report Ext. Ka 7 was prepared on its basis at 6.30 p. m, on 27-11-1973. The injuries of Nizamuddin, Ram Saran and Kirti Mohan were examined. Dr. V. K. Tandon P. W. 4 proved his medical report in respect of Nizamuddin and Dr. A. K. Vyas, P. W. 2 proved his medical report in respect of Ram Saran and Kirti Mohan. The prosecution had examined Nizamuddin, Ram Saran and Kirti Mohan as the witnesses of the occurrence. Ram Khelawan Singh P. W. 7 narrated as to how he had investigated the case. 4. The respondents had set up a counter-case. According to them the cattle of some of the respondents were grazing on the Gaon Sabha land. The informant Nizamuddin alongwith Ram Saran Maurya, Kirti Mohan, Baij Nath, Rajdeo, Manna, Bhairav, Chakiyan, Ram Sewak, Veer Singh of Saura, Veer Singh of Kotra and Iqbal alongwith seven or eight other persons arrived and stated rounding up their cattle. Nizamuddin demanded Rs. 2,000,/for releasing their cattle. The respondents refused to pay this amount by way of illegal gratification. Nizamuddin and others then started driving their cattle to the cattle pound. Iqbal and Veer Singh while their cattle were being driven tried to outrage the modesty of the wife of the respondent Hari Das. The respondents protested against the immoral behaviour of Veer Singh and Iqbal. The informant Nizamuddin thereupon asked his men to give a beating to the respondents. He exhorted Ram Saran Maurya also to fire which he did thrice with a view to kill the respondents on account of the firing by Ram Saran Maurya, a kid, shegoat and a lamb of the respondents died. Apprehending a threat to their life, the respondents Chiranji, Balram, Tulasiya, Nathu, Tijaiya, Bhuj Pal and Ghanshyam disarmed Ram Saran Maurya and took his gun to the police station where they deposited it. The incident according to the respondents had taken place near the Nigra Nala and not in the plantation area of the forest department. 5. We have gone through the evidence on record and also the impugned judgment. The incident according to the respondents had taken place near the Nigra Nala and not in the plantation area of the forest department. 5. We have gone through the evidence on record and also the impugned judgment. The Investigating Officer Ram Khelawan Singh, P. W. 7 during his spot inspection on the day following the incident did not found find twigs and leaves of plants in the Kohaniya 65 Plantation Block of the Forest Department. The Additional Sessions Judge as such was not unjustified in arriving at the conclusion that the incident did not start on account of the loping and felling of the plants in the reserved forest area. He has also arrived at this conclusion on the basis of the circumstance that no trace of blood had been found there although the prosecution witnesses had stated about the fall of the blood in the plantation area as a result of assault by the respondents. The prosecution witness Kirti Mohan, it has further been discussed by the Additional Sessions Judge, had stated that the incident took place at a distance of two furlongs from the Konarao Nala which rules out the correctness of the prosecution version regarding the origin of the incident. 6. It then, is to be noted that it was highly improbable that as a result of the fall of the gun there would have been automatic firing from it which had resulted in the death of three cattle admittedly. The respondents suggested that death to the cattle had been caused when Ram Saran Maurya fired at them. At any rate, it cannot be doubted that it had been falsely alleged that in order to incite the shepherds, one of them had killed their own kid. The circumstance that three animals of the respondents had sustained fire arm injuries does show that there had been indiscriminate firing by Ram Sharan Maurya. The respondents under the circumstances could not be said to be unjustified in depriving him of his gun and making it over to the police moreso when there was no dishonest intention to rob the gun and use it. The Additional Sessions Judge justifiably held that the offence of dacoity had not been made out. The respondents under the circumstances could not be said to be unjustified in depriving him of his gun and making it over to the police moreso when there was no dishonest intention to rob the gun and use it. The Additional Sessions Judge justifiably held that the offence of dacoity had not been made out. There is no improbability in the defence suggested that when the body of the wife of Hari Das respondent had been touched by the Forest Watch and on more person, the respondents became infuriated. There is no unnaturalness in this defence for on the prosecution's own snowing the women were stated to have driven back the cattle to the houses of the respondents. The prosecution evidence regarding the origin, place and manner of the incident having been found to be shaky, the Additional Sessions Judge was justified in acquitting the respondents. This appeal against their acquittal as such has no force. ORDER 7. The appeal is dismissed. The respondents are on bail under the order of this Court dated 9-4-1979. They need not surrender. Their bail bonds are discharged.