JUDGMENT The acquittal of the six respondents accused persons, of the charges under sections 147/148, 332/149 and 307/149, of the Indian Penal Code (for short the IPC), recorded by 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Chhindwara, vide Judgment dated 25.4.88, passed in Sessions Trial No. 27/87, is sought to be challenged through this appeal filed at the behest of the State of Madhya Pradesh. As on a reappreciation of the entire evidence on record, we do not find any good ground for disagreeing with the findings, recorded by the trial Court, leading to the acquittal of the respondents/accused persons, we do not deem it necessary to reproduce the details of the prosecution case, which are contained in para 2 of the trial Court's judgment, and it would suffice to say that the 6 respondents accused persons were tried on the above charges on the accusation of their having formed an unlawful assembly, in the night of 15.4.86, with the common object of attempting at the lives of Sukhlal, Ramakant and Ramji, all Police Constables posted at Police Station Newton, District Chhindwara, and of having caused injuries to them in prosecution of their above common object. The accused persons abjured their guilt and pleaded false implication. It was further pleaded that the three police constables had come to the village in the fateful night and when they were taking liberty with the women folk of the village, they came to sustain injuries on their person, at the hands of the enraged villagers. At the trial, prosecution examined as many as 9 witnesses whereas the accused persons examined 1 witness in their defence. Out of the 9 witnesses examined at the trial, Bhagirathi PW2, Ramji PW 6, Ramakant PW7 and Sukhlal PW 8 were examined as eye-witnesses of the incident of assault. Of these, Bhagirathi PW 2 did not support the prosecution case and was declared hostile. The trial Court, on a close scrutiny of the evidence on record and for the 6 reasons, enumerated from paras 8 to 13, arrived at the conclusion that the evidence of Ramji PW 6, Ramakant PW 7 and Sukhlal PW 8 was not sufficient for establishing the above charges against the accused persons and, therefore, acquitted them of the above charges. We have heard Shri R.A. Robertson, the learned Panel Lawyer for the State, and Shri S.L. Kochar, for the respondents. We have heard Shri R.A. Robertson, the learned Panel Lawyer for the State, and Shri S.L. Kochar, for the respondents. The learned Panel Lawyer vehemently argued that the trial Court has erred in discarding the testimony of three injured eye-witnesses, namely; Ramji PW 6, Ramakant PW 7 and Sukhlal PW 8, on very flimsy and untenable grounds. Shri Kochar, the learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand submitted that even if some of the reasons, given by the trial Court, did not hold good, there are other positive circumstances on record which make the prosecution case doubtful and, therefore, the acquittal of the respondents accused persons deserves to be affirmed. On a close scrutiny of the evidence on record, we gather that though the prosecution had alleged that the three constables had gone to the village, in the fateful night, for effecting the arrest of respondent accused Nanho @ Devraj, as he was wanted in a case registered at P.S. Newton, at Crime No. 265/86, under section 324, of the IPC, but no such documentary evidence was placed on record for establishing that any such crime was registered against respondent accused Nanho @ Devraj; in sharp contrast to the above specific prosecution case, Ramji PW 6, in his deposition in the Court, has come out with an altogether different reason for visiting the village, by saying that as a report was received at Police Chowki that accused Nanho, after consuming liquor, was creating nuisance in the village, they had gone to the village for bringing him; the evidence of Sukhram PW 3 establishes that in the fateful night he had found injuries on the person of accused Nanho and the clothes of his wife (sari and blouse) were torn, which fact supports the defence version that the Police Constables, in the fateful night, had gone to the village and had tried to take liberty with the women folk of the village and had sustained injuries at the hands of the enraged villagers; for the reasons, best known to the prosecution, this witness Sukhram PW 3 was not declared hostile and as such, the prosecution now is bound by his evidence. Though we are not impressed at all with some of the reasonings, given by the trial Court in recording the impugned judgment of acquittal, but the remaining reasonings and the above mentioned broad features, taken together, render the prosecution case, against the accused persons, doubtful. The accused persons, therefore, are atleast entitled to benefit of doubt. In this view of the matter, though we do not agree with some of the reasonings of the trial Court but in view of the additional reasons, mentioned hereinabove, we do not find any good ground for interference in the impugned judgment of acquittal. For the foregoing reasons, the appeal, filed by the appellant/State, fails and is hereby dismissed. The acquittal of the respondents/accused persons of the charges under section 147/148, 332/149 and 307/149, of the IPC, is hereby affirmed. Respondents accused persons Nanho @ Devraj, Manrabai, Tilakwati, Lachhi, Santlal and Gudda are on bail. Their bail bonds are discharged.