JUDGMENT 1. - This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 19-10-93, passed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge No.1, Chittorgarh, by which the learned Additional Sessions Judge allowed the appeal filed by the accused-respondents and acquitted them. 2. Accused-respondents Salamat Hussain, Aziz Mohammed and Murtaza Hussain were tried by the learned Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Chittorgarh, for the offences under Sections 451 and 3231.P.C. on a complaint filed by complainant-petitioner Smt. Mehraj. The complainant, in support of her complaint, examined four witnesses. Out of these four witnesses, PW 3 Nathua eye witness of the occurrence - has not supported the prosecution case. The learned Magistrate, after trial, convicted the accused-respondents for the offences under Sections 451 and 323 I.P.C. but instead of sentencing them at-once to any imprisonment, gave them the benefit of probation and directed them to furnish the bonds of Rs.1,000/- each for keeping peace and be of good behaviour for a period of two years. The learned Magistrate, also, ordered each of the accused to pay Rs.100/- to the complainant as compensation. Dissatisfied with the judgment dated 17-7-91, passed by the learned Magistrate convicting the accused, they preferred an appeal, which was decided by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No.1, Chittorgarh, by his judgment dated 19-8-93. It is against this judgment, acquitting the accused-respondents of the aforesaid offences that the complainant has preferred this appeal. 3. It is contended by the learned counsel for the appellant-complainant that from the evidence produced by the prosecution the case against the accused-respondents for the offences under Sections 147, 451 and 323 I.P.C. is made out and the learned lower Court has committed an error in acquitting them of the aforesaid offences. The learned Public Prosecutor, on the other hand, has supported the judgment passed by the Court below. 4. I have perused the judgment passed by the Courts below. 5. The independent witness Nathu, produced by the prosecution, has not supported the prosecution case and the other independent witnesses, who admittedly came at the place of the occurrence immediately after hearing the cries, have not been produced by the complainant because if produced, they would not have supported her case. No sufficient reasons have been given by the complainant for their non-production and this creates a doubt in the prosecution case. No sufficient reasons have been given by the complainant for their non-production and this creates a doubt in the prosecution case. The complaint has been filed after a delay of six days and that delay has not been explained by the complainant. There was a previous enmity between the parties and on the basis of that enmity, the probability of false implication of the accused-respondents in the case, cannot be ruled-out. So far as the injuries found on the person of the injured are concerned, the doctor has opined that these injuries could be caused by a fall, also. In this view of the matter, the learned Additional Sessions Judge has not committed an illegality in acquitting the accused-respondents. The appreciation of the evidence, made by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, cannot be said to be, in any way, perverse or arbitrary. The judgment, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge does not require any interference. 6. in the result, I do not find any merit in this appeal and same is hereby dismissed.Appeal dismissed. *******