JUDGMENT M. R. Verma, J.: This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 14.5.1996 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Bilsapur whereby the accused-respondents (here-in-after referred to as the accused) have been acquitted of the charge under Sections 353/332 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 12.9.1994 at about 9 AM the accused at Namohal stopped bus No.HP-24-4504 driven by PW-5 Karam Singh. Since the bus was over-loaded, therefore, while stopping the bus driver told the accused persons to sit on the roof of the bus or get inside the bus if there is any space. On this accused Des Raj opened the drivers window and dragged PW Karam Singh the driver out of the bus and threw him on the ground. Accused Lekh Ram gave foot blows on his waist whereby the complainant Karam Singh sustained injuries. He was saved from the accused by Rattan Chand, Chhota Ram, Daulat Ram and Gulab Ram. The matter was reported by PW Karam Singh to the police vide daily diary report Ex. PW-2/A on the basis of which formal F.I.R. Ex.PW-3/A was recorded in Police Station Barmana. During the course of investigation the police got PW-5 Karam Singh Medically examined and vide Report Ex.PW-1/A issued by PW-1 Dr. Dharmendar Dogra, Karam Singh was found to have sustained four injuries which were simple in nature and as per the opinion given by PW-1 were caused with a blunt weapon. Accused Lekh Ram was also got medically examined and was found smelling liquor. The certificate about appointment of Karam Singh as a driver Ex.PW-4/A and copy of Log Book Ex.PW-8/E were also taken in possession by the police. On the basis of the material collected during the course of the investigation the officer Incharge, Police Station Barmana submitted a charge-sheet against the accused under Sections 353, 332 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The accused were tried by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Bilaspur on a charge under Sections 353, 332 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. To prove the charge against the accused prosecution examined 8 witnesses. 4. The accused in their statements under Section 313 Cr. P.C. though admitted stopping of the bus at Namhol but denied the remaining case of the prosecution and claimed to be innocent. 3. To prove the charge against the accused prosecution examined 8 witnesses. 4. The accused in their statements under Section 313 Cr. P.C. though admitted stopping of the bus at Namhol but denied the remaining case of the prosecution and claimed to be innocent. In their defence the accused persons examined DW-1 Balak Ram and DW-2 Mangat Ram. 5. The learned Trial Magistrate finally acquitted the accused-persons of the charge against them vide the impugned judgment. Hence, the present appeal. 6. I have heard the learned Additional Advocate General for the State and the learned counsel for the accused and have also gone through the records. 7. It is a matter of common sence that no one can assault another person unless he has a cause of action for such assault. If the assault is without any rhyme or reason, then in all probability the assailant must be an insane person. In this case, no reason has been assigned for assaulting the complainant by the accused persons either in the contents of the report Ex.PW2/A nor in the statement of the complainant (PW-5). On the contrary, PW-5 Shri Karam Singh, the complainant has stated that he is not aware as to why he was assaulted by die accused. Any previous enmity between the accused and the complainant has been denied by all the material witnesses including the complainant. Thus, it is improbable that the accused persons whose sanity is not disputed would have assaulted the complainant without any rhyme or reason. . 8. It is admitted by the PW-5 Shri Karam Singh, complainant that the accused were not earlier known to him. However, he has specifically named them in the report Ex.PW2/A and has given their full address including the parentage and village and even relation between them without explaining as to how he came to know their names, parentage and relationship. It appears that the accused persons have been named as the assailants after due deliberations but without proper identification. This conclusion is fully justified on the basis of the admissions made by the complainant in his further cross-examination, wherein, he could not have identified the accused Desh Raj as the person who had dragged him out of the vehicle. It appears that the accused persons have been named as the assailants after due deliberations but without proper identification. This conclusion is fully justified on the basis of the admissions made by the complainant in his further cross-examination, wherein, he could not have identified the accused Desh Raj as the person who had dragged him out of the vehicle. He has stated that the boy who had dragged him out of the vehicle was having a beard, whereas, the accused Desh Raj present in the Court was not having such a beard. He has further stated that the boy who dragged him out, resembled Desh Raj but he does not properly recollect whether he was some other boy. He further goes on to state that when he was dragged out of the vehcile, so many persons had assembled there and he remained unaware as to who had beaten him. Thus, the complainant himself has made a self contradictory statement thereby demolishing the entire prosecution case. 9. The accused have led defence and have examined DWs Shri Balak Ram and Shri Mangat Ram. According to them, the local passengers started quarrelling with the complainant because he was not permitting loading of some baskets of the accused in the bus. Thereupon, accused started abusing the passengers and that accused did not assault the complainant who had been misbehaving with the passengers even before the alteraction with the passengers. It emerges from the statements of these two defence witnesses that some altercation took place between the passengers and the complainant, which led to a scuffle between him and the passengers. Even according to the medical opinion given by PW-1, the injuries found on the person of the complainant were possible in a scuffle or in a fall. Thus, there is a very strong possibility that the complainant sustained the injuries because of the scuffle between him and the passengers who were in good number present on the spot and that is the reason why the complainant is not in a position to identify the accused persons as the assailants and has admitted that he remained unaware as to who had beaten him. 10. 10. In view of the above discussion, the learned trial Magistrate who has discussed the material evidence at length had rightly come to the conclusion that the prosecution has not been able to prove the case against the accused persons, hence his order acquitting the accused persons does not call for any interference. 11. As a result, the appeal fails and is accordingly dismissed. The bail bonds furnished by the accused are hereby discharged.