JUDGMENT 1. - This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 27-10-93, passed by the Special Judge, S.C./S.T. (Prevention of Atrocities) Case cum Sessions Judge, Balotara, by which the learned Sessions Judge convicted the appellant for the offence under Section 447 I.P.C. and granted him the benefit of Probation of Offenders Act and directed him to keep peace and be of good behaviour for a period of two years. 2. Accused-appellant Punraj Singh was tried by the learned Sessions Judge for the offences under Sections 447 and 323 I.P.C. and Sections 3(1)(x) and 3(1)(iii) of the Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. The prosecution, in support of its case, examined ten witnesses while the accused, in his defence, examined three witnesses. The learned Judge of the trial Court, after appreciation of the evidence on record, acquitted the accused-appellant of the offence under Section 323 I.P.C. as well as of the offences under Sections 3(1)(x) and 3(1)(iii) of the Act, 1989, by holding that the prosecution has failed to prove the case against the accused for those offences and convicted him for the offences under Section 447 I.P.C. While convicting the accused-appellant for the offence under Section 447 I.P.C. the learned trial Court placed reliance over the statement of PW 6 ledan Ram-the informant, PW 7 Durga Ram, PW 8 Ajita Ram, PW 9 Poonma Ram and PW 5 Bhala Ram. The learned Sessions Judge, however, did not place much reliance on the evidence of these very witnesses so far as the other offences are concerned. In view of the fact that these witnesses have not been believed so far as the other offences are concerned; whether on the basis of the statements of these witnesses, the conviction of the accused-appellant under Section 447 I.P.C. can be maintained and for that purpose it is necessary to look-into the statements of these witnesses. 3. PW 5 Bhala Ram is not an eye witness of the occurrence. He has merely stated that about ten months before there was a "Jaagran" of Jogmaya in the village and they were sitting there. ledan Rain came there and stated that accused Punjraj Singh is not allowing him to go to his field. 3. PW 5 Bhala Ram is not an eye witness of the occurrence. He has merely stated that about ten months before there was a "Jaagran" of Jogmaya in the village and they were sitting there. ledan Rain came there and stated that accused Punjraj Singh is not allowing him to go to his field. Thereafter five-ten persons, who were sitting in the Jaagran, namely, Bhola Ram, Poonma, Tejaji, Bhala Ram Master, Dalla and others went towards the place and there they saw the foot-prints of Punjraj Singh but did not see the marks of any quarrel. This witness has been declared hostile and nothing could be elicited from his cross-examination which could support the prosecution case and connect the accused with the crime. 4. PW 6 Iedan Ram is the main witness, who has stated that on 8-8-92, he and his brother Durga Ram were in the field. He was cultivating his field while Durga Ram was levelling the same. At about 3.00 p.m., the accused, armed with a Kulhari, came there and abused him. He threatened him of the dire consequences if the matter is not compromised. Thereafter the accused broke the plough by Kulhari and gave beatings to him. He raised alarm, upon which Durga Ram came there. Ajita Ram Meghwal, also, came there and the accused took-up the kulhari and threatened that if he too will come through this land then he will not permit him to cross the field. In the evening, at about 7.00 p.m., when both the brothers were going to their house, the accused obstructed their way and tried to give beating to them. They, with folded-hands, asked the accused to excuse them. In the cross-examination he has admitted that the litigation is going-on between the parties and the accused has started living in the village after his retirement from the Army. He has, also, stated that there is only one "Pagdandi" for going to his field and the main road is situated at a distance of about two bighas from his house and the field of Punjraj Singh and his brother adjoins to his field and the brothers are living in the Dhani. He has, also, admitted that in the Revenue Records, the field of Punjraj Singh's uncle, namely Binjran Singh, and his Dhani as well as that of Ganpat Singh have been shown in the site-plan. He has, also, admitted that in the Revenue Records, the field of Punjraj Singh's uncle, namely Binjran Singh, and his Dhani as well as that of Ganpat Singh have been shown in the site-plan. He has, also, admitted that the incident took-place near the way which leads to his field. He has, also, admitted that the place where the accused obstructed his way, is the field of Amar Singh. A lengthy cross-examination has been conducted by the learned counsel for the accused which has exposed this witness and a close scrutiny of the statement of this witness shows that the witness is not a reliable one. This witness has not been applied-upon by the learned trial Court for the other offences. 5. The statement of PW 7 Durga Ram, also, does not inspire confidence. There is no reliable evidence on record to show that the accused-appellant trespassed over the land in question. Whatever has been stated by this witness in the cross-examination shows that the incident took place in the field of Amar Singh. So far as the first part regarding hurling abuses by the accused to the complainant, breaking the plough and giving beatings to PW 6 ledan Ram is concerned, that has not been believed by the learned trial Court. There is no convincing evidence on record to show that the accused has committed the offence under Section 447 I.P.C. 6. Even the delay in lodging the report, also, raises a suspicion in the prosecution case. The incident took place on 8-8-92 at about 3.00 p.m. but the report of this incident was lodged on 11-8-92, i.e., after about three days and no reasonable explanation has been given for such a delay. If the incident would have actually taken place then the report of the same could have been made on the same day but it was made on 11-8-92. The report is the result and creation of consultation. There was inimical relation between the complainant and the accused and litigations were going on between them prior to the date. The prosecution has failed to prove the case against the accused for the offence under Section 447 I.P.C. beyond a reasonable manner of doubt and, therefore, the accused deserves to be acquitted. 7. There was inimical relation between the complainant and the accused and litigations were going on between them prior to the date. The prosecution has failed to prove the case against the accused for the offence under Section 447 I.P.C. beyond a reasonable manner of doubt and, therefore, the accused deserves to be acquitted. 7. In the result, the appeal, filed by the accused-appellant, is allowed and the accused-appellant is acquitted of the offence under Section 447 I.P.C. He was given the benefit of probation and he furnished the personal and surety bonds in pursuance to the order. As the accused-appellant has been acquitted, the personal bond and the surety bonds, furnished by the accused-appellant and his sureties, stand discharged.Appeal allowed. *******