JUDGMENT G.D. Dube, J. - This appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 31.7.1979 passed by the Munsif Magistrate, Sagari, District Azamgarh acquitting the respondents of the charges under Sections 147, 323/149 and 325/149 I.P.C. 2. The respondents Sahgu Balihari, Sattan, Buddhu, Mattan, Lalta, Maghu, Chhattu and Pujan are said to have arrived in the Sehan of the complainant Munnar and Sunnar situated in village Gangtiya, P.S. Kandharapur, District Azamgarh. It is alleged that at the time of occurrence, the complainant, his cousin and mother Kallo were working in their khaliyan and cleaning it with spade. The respondents were armed with lathies, and after coming to the spot they threw basket and spade. They claimed that the land belonged to them and they will fill it with mud. When the complainant objected the respondents assaulted them with lathies. Balihari gave a blow with the end of his lathy on the mouth of Munnar. The teeth of Munnar was broken. The witnesses came to the spot and intervened. 3. After the occurrence, Munnar went to the police station and lodged a report at 9.15 am. on 20.10.1975. 4. The injured Smt. Kailashpati, Munnar and Sunnar were examined in the District Hospital of Azamgarh. The investigation was taken up by Brij Narain Singh Station Officer of Police Station Kandharapur.After completing the investigation, he submitted the charge-sheet. 5. The prosecution has examined 9 witnesses in support of its case. Munnar P.W. 1, Sunnar P.W. 2, Smt. Kallo, P.W.3 Ram Awadh P.W. 4, Ram Darash Pathak P.W. 5, were the eye witnesses. P.W. 9 Dr. O.P. Khatri had examined the injuries of Sunnar and Munnar at 8.30 p.m. and 8.25 p.m. respectively on 19.10.1976 These two persons were examined again by Dr. T.N. Singh, P.W. 6, on 20.10.1975. Dr. T.N. Singh had also examined the injuries of wife of Kailashpathi. He had also examined the injuries of Smt. Dukhani wife of Buddhu, wife of Balihari and Mattan, the persons belonging to the respondents side. P.w. 8 Kamlakar Singh had proved the lodging of the report. 6. The respondents had pleaded not guilty to the charges. They had examined two witnesses, namely, Jagmohan and Budhram Upadhyaya as defence witnesses. 7. A report has been lodged from the side of the respondent by Smt. Dukhani at 7.05 p.m. on 19.10.1975. P.w. 8 Kamlakar Singh had proved the lodging of the report. 6. The respondents had pleaded not guilty to the charges. They had examined two witnesses, namely, Jagmohan and Budhram Upadhyaya as defence witnesses. 7. A report has been lodged from the side of the respondent by Smt. Dukhani at 7.05 p.m. on 19.10.1975. In this case it was alleged that at about 4 p.m. on that very day she was throwing the earth around the cattle trough when Sukhoo, Munnar, Sunnar and Dukhani came forward and started throwing spade and basket when objections were raised the aforesaid persons assaulted in that marpit some persons of respondents' side who received injuries. After assessing the evidence of the parties, the learned Magistrate held that the prosecution has failed to prove its case. 8. We have heard the learned counsel for the State. None has appeared for the respondents even the list was revised. 9. The lower court has rightly held that the main question in this case was as to how the occurrence had started and which party was the aggressor. 10. The learned Magistrate noted that the investigation officer had found some earth thrown on the place of occurrence. The learned Magistrate also noted that the prosecution has not explained as to why this look earth was found thrown on the alleged khaliyan. The learned Magistrate has rightly noted that the house of the two parties are situated near the place of occurrence. The place of occurrence falls in front of Balihari respondent, The investigating officer had noticed some cattle trough in front of the house of Balihari. Look earth was found near the cattle trough. The report on behalf of the respondents was lodged quite promptly, whereas the report of the prosecution's side was lodged on the next day. There was a delay of more than 17 hours. No explanation has come forward as to with such delay in lodging of the report had taken place. 11. We have already noticed the the injured Sunnar and Munnar were examined on 19.10.1975 and 20.10.197 There are discrepancies in the two medic reports. The prosecution has not explain as to why the necessity arose for examination of the injuries of Munnar and Sunni again on 20.10.1975. 12. We have also noticed that some persons from the side of the respondents had also received injuries. The prosecution has not explain as to why the necessity arose for examination of the injuries of Munnar and Sunni again on 20.10.1975. 12. We have also noticed that some persons from the side of the respondents had also received injuries. The prosecution has not come forward with any explanation about these injuries. 13. For the reasons mentioned above, we find that the lower Court had considered the evidence in its right perspectively. His findings cannot be said to be perverse or not based on evidence on record. Hence we do not find any justification to interfere with the order of the learned Magistrate.