JUDGMENT 1. - Being aggrieved with the judgment dated 17.9.1982 by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Pipar where by the respondent accused persons have been acquitted of the offences under Secs. 147, 148, 323, 427, 326 read with 1491.PC., State of Rajasthan has preferred this appeal. 2. The prosecution case is that complainant Bhika Ram S/o Ghamanda Ram, mali resident of Pipar was going to his field on 13.8.1978 at about 9.30 A.M. All the accused respondents asked the complainant not to go to that field. The complainant Bhika Ram told the respondents that the field was mortgaged to him by Shivra and Gulab in consideration of Rs. 5000/- and the document was executed in this respect by them. The respondents asked the complainant to show the document. The complainant brought the document from his house but it was torn by Achla Ram and all the respondents started beating him. Shivnath inflicted injury on the index finger of left hand by 'Chhura', which resulted in the amputation of upper most part. Shivnath also caused injuries by Chhura on the back and right thigh, all other respondents gave lathi blows to him. Babulal his brother, Deepa Ram and Jamana Ram rescued him otherwise the respondents would have killed him. A case was registered under Secs. 147, 341, 324, 327, 427 read with 149 I.PC. On completion of investigation, the police submitted the final report. Thereafter, the complainant Bhika Ram submitted complaint on 12.9.1978 in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Bilara who took cognizance against the respondents for the offences under Secs. 148, 326, 324, 323 and 427 I.PC. 3. During the trial, the complainant examined PW. 1 Bhika Ram and also produced Deepa Ram RW. 2, Jamana Ram RW. 4 and Babu Lal PW. 6 as eye witnesses to the occurrence. Dr. Kedarnath Mathur proved the injury report Ex. R6. Himmat Singh, Incharge RS. Pipar Shahar on the relevant date, RW. 5, Shankar Lal Trivedi, PW. 7 S.H.O. Pipar and Madho Ram Motbir were also examined by the complainant. The respondent accused did not examine defence witness. The learned Trial Court appreciated the above mentioned evidence and came to the conclusion that the statements of eye witnesses Deepa Ram, Jamana Ram and Babu Lal are not at all reliable. 5, Shankar Lal Trivedi, PW. 7 S.H.O. Pipar and Madho Ram Motbir were also examined by the complainant. The respondent accused did not examine defence witness. The learned Trial Court appreciated the above mentioned evidence and came to the conclusion that the statements of eye witnesses Deepa Ram, Jamana Ram and Babu Lal are not at all reliable. The testimony of Bhika Ram is also untrustworthy, in view of the contradiction and the inherent improbabilities in the manner in which the occurrence is alleged to have committed by the respondents. The learned Trial Court also took the view that the injuries could be self-inflicted in view of the opinion given by Dr. Mathur RW.3 Consequently, the learned Trial Curt acquitted all the respondents of the charges levelled against them. 4. I have heard the learned Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel for the respondents accused. I have perused the impugned judgment and the evidence on record, the learned Public Prosecutor has strenuously argued that the learned Trial Court has completely erred in disbelieving the eye witnesses who have deposed about the beating by the accused respondents and also the complainant Bhika Ram who has been duly supported by the medical evidence. It is also contended that the finding of the Trial Court about the injuries being self inflicted is totally without any basis and perverse. It is therefore, argued that the prosecution succeeded in proving the charges against the respondents beyond reasonable doubt. The learned counsel for the respondents has vehemently argued that no cogent and sufficient ground exists to interfere in the finding of the acquittal given by the learned Trial Judge. The learned Trial Judge has appreciated the testimony of the eye witnesses and injured Bhika Ram properly. Keeping in view the glaring contradictions appearing in the statements, Trial Court has rightly come to the conclusion that the prosecution witnesses are completely unreliable and conviction cannot be based on such contradictory evidence. Even if a different view is possible, the finding of acquittal by the Trial Court should not beset aside. 5. I have given my earnest consideration to the rival arguments. The learned Trial Court has drawn the following conclusions regarding the prosecution evidence:- (1) Bhika Ram PW. Even if a different view is possible, the finding of acquittal by the Trial Court should not beset aside. 5. I have given my earnest consideration to the rival arguments. The learned Trial Court has drawn the following conclusions regarding the prosecution evidence:- (1) Bhika Ram PW. 1 is not reliable because he deposed about beating by accused respondents Achla Ram, Jamnalal, Kunraj and Smt. Suva by lathis but there is no injury on his person by blunt weapon. Survati inflicted blow by handle of ' kassi', but there is no such injury also on his person, though the deposed in cross-examination that the injuries left mark on his person. (2) Shiv Nath inflicted injuries by 'Chhura' on the index finger of Bhika Ram but it is quite imporable because there is no accompanying injury on the other fingers. The complainant has tried to improve the version by saying that Achla Ram and Jamna Lal caught his hand, one Kunaram set on his nack and then the injury on the finger was inflicted. (3) According to Bhika Ram, Jamna Ram saw the whole occurrence, Babu Lal came after the injury on the index finger was inflicted and Deepa Ram saw the part of the occurrence, but it is not borne out from the statements and F.I.R. Ex. P1, complaint P5 and Ex. D.1 the statements under Section 161 Cr.RC. (4) Deepa Ram RW. 2 has given contradictory evidence because he claims to have been the occurrence but in the same breadth he stated that he did not see the accused persons causing injuries to Bhika Ram. Thus, his statements are self contradictory and no reliance can be placed on his statement. (5) Jamna Lal RW. 4 stated against accused respondents about causing injuries by lathis but such injuries were not found on his person by medical jurist, he could not depose that on which part of the body accused persons caused injuries except for respondent Shiv Nath. (6) Babu Lal, is real brother of Bhika Ram and his testimony has to be scrutinised cautiously. It is revealed in his statement that he did not see the occurrence and reached on the spot afterwards. He stated that Deep Ram and Jamna Lal saved Bhika Ram from beating but Deepa Ram stated that he did not saw the actual occurrence. It is revealed in his statement that he did not see the occurrence and reached on the spot afterwards. He stated that Deep Ram and Jamna Lal saved Bhika Ram from beating but Deepa Ram stated that he did not saw the actual occurrence. He is unable to say the injuries caused by the accused persons except by respondent Shiv Nath. His statements are also in contradiction with previous police statements Ex. D.3 regarding the manner of causing injury by respondents Shiv Nath. 6. The findings given by the learned Trial Court about the eye-witnesses in view of the above infirmities in their statements cannot be held to be perverse. The learned Trial Court has not ignored any prosecution evidence nor it has misread the same. Even if it is accepted that the injury sustained by Bhika Ram could not be self inflicted, the burden of proof still rests on the prosecution to prove that the author of the injuries on the person of Bhika Ram were the accused persons. I entirely agree with the learned Trial Court that the prosecution evidence including the statements of the injured complainant Bhika Ram are contradictory, inconsistent and therefore, cannot be made the basis of conviction. The prosecution evidence has been rightly disbelieved by the Trial Court. Therefore, there is no cogent material on the record to interfere with the impugned judgment.In the result, the instant appeal is hereby dismissed.State appeal against acquittal is dismissed. *******