JUDGMENT ARUN KUMAR GOEL, J.—Both the respondents who are father and daughter were prosecuted on a complaint having been lodged by one Smt. Nikki Devi (PW-1) against them at Police Station Sadar, Tehsil and District Bilaspur under Sections 325, 323 read with Section 34 of the I.P.C. 2. According to prosecution case on 18-6-1991 at about 12 Noon at Village Jajjar respondents in furtherance of their common intention caused simple as well as grievous hurt to said Smt. JNikki Devi (hereinafter referred to as the complainant). According to complainant she was b6pten by Hari Ram respondent No. 1 with Bharota Ex. P-4 and by Tara Devi respondent No. 2 with bamboo stick Ex. P-3 when she asked both of them not to cultivate her fields. Complainant claims to have been saved by Kanshi Ram (PW-8) as mentioned by her in her complaint lodged after the occurrence. On recording statement of complainant, FIR Ex. PW-11/A came to be registered and investigation was undertaken in hand by the police. Complainant was got medically examined at Civil Hospital, Bilaspur and Medicolegal certificate was issued vide Ex. PW-5/C. 3. Respondents were sent to face trial before the trial court on completion of the investigation by the police. Trial Court being satisfied that there are prima facie circumstances to proceed against the respondents, framed charge sheet under Sections 325, 323 read with Section 34 of the I.P.C, to which the respondents pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. After completion of the trial and recording of statements of the respondents under Section 313 Cr. PC. as well as after considering the whole case including the version put forth by the respondents, trial court acquitted the respondents, hence this appeal at the instance of the State against such acquittal. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and with their assistance record of the court below has also been examined, 5. Shri M.L Chauhan, learned Assistant Advocate General, in support of this appeal has urged that the statement of PW-1 complainant, her daughter Kumari Kaili Devi (PW-2), Jamnu Ram (PW-7) and Kanshi Ram (PW-8) clearly brought home the guilty against the respondents so far respondents having entered upon the property of the complainant and further started ploughing the same. When both the respondents were desisted by the complainant, they had given the beatings and caused simple as well as grievous hurt by weapons referred to here-in-above. When both the respondents were desisted by the complainant, they had given the beatings and caused simple as well as grievous hurt by weapons referred to here-in-above. Injuries have been admittedly found according to Shri Chauhan and in this behalf reference was made to the statement of PW-5 Dr. M.s. Jutshi and medico legal certificate issued by said doctor vide Ex. PW5/C on the application of the appellant. Reference was also made to the statement of Dr. N.K. Sankhayan (PW-6). In these circumstances it was urged that the trial court had fallen into error while acquitting the respondents. 6. On the other hand, Ms. Sunita Sharma, learned counsel appearing for the respondents, has submitted that the submissions made in support of this appeal are without any merits and the acquittal calls for no interference. It was further submitted that the complainant has made substantial improvements in her statement in court, as also there is civil litigation going on regarding the suit land in the court of Sub Judge 1st Class, Ghumarwin who had issued interim orders in favour of respondent Hari Ram as also application under Order 39 Rule 2A CPC has been intiated by the said respondent against the complainant and her husband. Regarding the so called eye witnesses, it was urged that PWs 7 and 8 have reason to depose against the respondents since a both of them are in litigation with Hari Ram respondent. So far as statement of PW-2 daughter of complainant is concerned, Ms. Sharma pointed out that firstly she is an interested witness and secondly the tenor and manner of her statement does not inspire confidence. Her version does not appear to be plausible and further is not worthy of credence. In these circumstances, Ms. Sharma urged that the present appeal is devoid of any merit and the acquittal recorded by the trial court calls for no interference. 7. In the instant case, the scuffle is stated to have continued for the about one and half hour whereafter the witnesses have come as such, it cannot be said in any situation that PWs 7 and 8 were so called eye witnesses. This is an additional fact to discard their statements. 8. 7. In the instant case, the scuffle is stated to have continued for the about one and half hour whereafter the witnesses have come as such, it cannot be said in any situation that PWs 7 and 8 were so called eye witnesses. This is an additional fact to discard their statements. 8. Now coming to the credibility of PW-2, according to this witness in all there were five persons present on the scene of occurrence, meaning thereby that three witnesses plus respondents were the only persons who were there on the spot, whereas PW-1 has stated that there were two other boys also present on the spot. In these circumstances, it is clear that the statement of PW-2 cannot be taken on its face value. Now coming to the statement of PW-1, when she lodged the complaint with the police on the basis of whereof FIR Ex. PW-11/A came to be registered, there is no mention of PW-7, although when the complainant appeared in court she has given the name of this witness, it is not a case that the complainant had forgotten the name of this witness. 9. On the other hand, there is enough evidence on record to show that respondent Hari Ram had initiated action in civil court against the husband of the complainant which position is clear from documents Ex. D-1 to D-4 as well Ex. D-5 to D-10. In addition to this, it is further the case of the respondents that they had not caused any injury to the complainant and similarly they had not entered the fields of the complainant as alleged by her. On the other hand, the case of the respondents was that they were in their own land and were taking care of it where they were attacked by the complainant. In this view of the matter as well as on preponderance of evidence, it cannot be said that the prosecution has been able to travel the distance of "may be true and must be true". Brief reference has been made to the prosecution evidence produced before the trial court. In this judgment to avoid repetition as the same has been discussed in detail in the judgment under appeal. So far, documents Ex. D-11 and Ex. Brief reference has been made to the prosecution evidence produced before the trial court. In this judgment to avoid repetition as the same has been discussed in detail in the judgment under appeal. So far, documents Ex. D-11 and Ex. D-12 are concerned, they further establish that the respondent No. 1 is the owner in possession of land comprised in Khasras No. 1 and 394/344. Exhibits D-1 to D-4 further indicate that the husband of the complainant Jagdish Chand was bound down not to enter upon the said two Khasra numbers, but he refused to be bound down. This further supports the plea of the defence that the respondents were working peacefully in their fields and the complainant had attacked them. In view of the above discussion, once the evidence of PWs 2, 7 and 8 is excluded from the zone of consideration for the reasons set out here-in-above, it is obvious that it will not be safe to accept the statement of complainant PW-1 on its face value and to convict the respondents on the basis thereof. 10. The possibility of the present case having been got cooked up by the husband of the complainant to ward of civil litigation filed by the respondent No. 1 Hari Ram against said husband cannot be completely ruled out and for supporting his case complainant appears to have obtained assistance of none-else but the witnesses who were admittedly hostile and inimical towards the respondents. 11. In view of the aforesaid discussion, it cannot be said that the view taken by the trial court while passing the impugned judgment is either not sustainable or that the evidence leads to one and irresistible conclusion pointing towards the guilt of the respondents. In fact, while passing the impugned judgment the trial court has taken a reasonable view of the whole evidence and on proper application of law, as such, there is no merit in this appeal. 12. As a result of the aforesaid discussion, the appeal deserves dismissal and it is ordered accordingly. Appeal dismissed.