VIRENDRA SARAN, J. The present State appeal has been filed against the order of acquittal dated 25. 2. 1983, passed by Sri N. K. Jain, Judicial Magistrate-1st Class, Gonda acquitting the accused respondents of the charges under Sections 323/34 and 325/34 I. P. C. and 506 I. P. C. in Criminal Case No. 253 of 1981. 2. Machinery of law was set in motion by Dinesh who lodged a First Information Report 7-6-1981 at 5-25 P. M. at Police Station Chapia, District Gonda. It was mentioned in that First Information Report that at about 2 P. M. , when he and his brother Rakesh and Ram Yagya were taking bath at the well respondents, namely, Chandra Bhan Misra arrived there with lathi and accosted them and asked them not to take bath at the disputed well. There was some talk between the victim and the respondent, Chandra Bhan Misra and thereupon they were assaulted with lathi. When the informant tried to intervene, the other respondents also arrived at and gave beating to the informant and his brother. Several other persons arrived and intervened and saved the informant and his brothers. 3. A non-cognizable report of the incident was lodged but later on the case was converted one under Sections 323/34,325/34 and 506 I. P. C. 4. After investigation the respondents were charge-sheeted by the police. 5. The learned Magistrate framed the charges which were denied by the respondents and claimed to be tried. 6. In support of its case, prosecution examined Dinesh (P. W. I) who narrated the prosecution case and proved the copy of the first information report. Ram Yagya (P. W2), Rakesh Pratap (P. W3) and Indra Deo (P. W4) were also examined in support of the prosecution case. Dr. S. R. L. Gupta, (P. W. 5) was examined to prove injury report. Ram Asrey Singh, S. I. (P. W6) is the Investigating Officer of the case. 7. After appreciating the evidence learned Magistrate found that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond the shadow of doubt. 8. The State has now come up in appeal. 9. I have heard learned State Counsel, Counsel for the respondents and have also gone through the evidence available on record. 10. The learned trial Court held that there was hardly any motive on the part of the accused to commit the offence. 8. The State has now come up in appeal. 9. I have heard learned State Counsel, Counsel for the respondents and have also gone through the evidence available on record. 10. The learned trial Court held that there was hardly any motive on the part of the accused to commit the offence. He relied on the admission made by (P. W. I) in his cross-examination that prior to the incident the accused had never stopped him from irrigating his field. The learned Magistrate had disbelieved (P. W. 4) Indra Deo on the ground that his presence on the spot appears to be doubtful and as regards (P. W. 3) he has observed that the witness did not state in his statement under Section 161 Cr. P. C. given to the Investigating Officer that he had seen the incident. So far (P. W. 2) Ram Yagya is con cerned the learned Court below has doubted his injuries which were rather superficial in nature and the witness did not state as to how the contusion on his body was caused. Adverting to the injuries, sustained by (P. W. 1) Dinesh it was pointed out that in the G. D. there were only three injuries on his person while at the time of the medical examination five injuries were noted. Due to this discrepancy the learned Magistrate entertained the suspicion regarding genuineness of the injuries on his person. 11. After giving my anxious consideration to the entire facts and circumstances of the case I am of the view that the finding of acquittal, recorded by the learned Magistrate, cannot be said to be perverse or unreasonable. It is well settled that if two views are possible no interference should be made in the appeal against acquittal. 12. This Government appeal has no force and it is dismissed. Appeal dismissed. .