JUDGMENT 1. - This is an appeal by State against acquittal of accused respondents Mahendra Singh, Moda, Heera and Prabhuda from the charges of Secs. 147, 332, 353/149 IPC. 2. Briefly stated, first information report was lodged by Lehra Ram at police station Jalore on 4.11.1984 at 6.00 PM. to the effect that at 9.00 A.M. he alongwith other labourers of the Rajasthan State Electricity Board went at the well of Choudhary Jaipa son of Meghji and Patiya son of Rajaji at Balwada to repair the LT Line where they spread out the wires. As soon as they started work, Shaitan Singh, Manohar Singh. Modiya, Prabhuram and Heera came with lathis and started abusing Lehra Ram as well as other workers. Shaitan Singh and Manohar Singh inflicted lathi blow on Lehra Ram, Modiya caught hold of him and Prabhu and Heera ran after other workers. In the meantime Bhaga Ram, Bhoma Ram and some other persons Patiya and Jaipaji came there and rescued the labourers. The police registered a case under various sections of the Indian Penal Code and after investigation submitted challan before the Magistrate having jurisdiction. During trial Shaitan Singh died and rest of the accused respondents faced, trial for offences under Section 147, 353, 332 read with 149 IPC. When charges were read over and explained to them they denied their indictment and claimed trial. Thereupon prosecution examined as many as nine witnesses to prove its case. Then the accused respondents were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. They did not produce any witness in defence. Learned Magistrate, after hearing both the parties, acquitted the accused respondents as stated above. Hence this appeal. 3. I have heard the learned Public Prosecutor as well as learned counsel for the accused respondents and have gone through the record. 4. According to the learned Public Prosecutor it was Lehra Ram PW. 1 who was the main injured witness who should be relied upon. The learned Magistrate committed error in not relying on him simply because there were some minor contradictions. He has submitted that the learned Magistrate has committed error in relying upon the story of self-defence of the accused respondents that in case the accused respondents had any grievance, they could have lodged complaint against the officials of Rajasthan State Electricity Board and should not have taken law in their own hands. He has submitted that the learned Magistrate has committed error in relying upon the story of self-defence of the accused respondents that in case the accused respondents had any grievance, they could have lodged complaint against the officials of Rajasthan State Electricity Board and should not have taken law in their own hands. He has, therefore, prayed that the acquittal may be converted into conviction. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the accused respondents has submitted that no interference is required in this case as evidence has been properly appreciated by the learned Trial Magistrate and this Court while sitting in appeal against acquittal should not interfere. He relied on State of Uttar Pradesh v. Nahar Singh (dead) & Ors , the appellate Court should take the view which supports acquittal in cases when it is hearing appeals against acquittal. 6. It is PW-1 Lehra Ram who stated that on 4.11.1984 he was deputed to complete the work of LT line by Junior Engineer who was his immediate officer. He, therefore, alongwith Maghram, Bhomaram, Kasturji, Virmaram and Rawatram, who were the members of his working gang, went to the site. He thereafter started spreading the electricity wires. Then Shaitan Singh alongwith co-accused respondents came and objected and abused. When Lehra Ram replied that he was working according to the order of his superior officers then he was given beatings. He gives the details that Mahendra Singh inflicted a blow on his left hand finger, left ear and on his shoulder. Shaitan Singh inflicted injuries on his shoulder and Modiya caught hold of his hand and then Prabhu and Heera also gave him beatings. It were other persons who rescued him. Then he reported the matter to the Assistant Engineer who forwarded the report Ex. P/1. He admitted in the cross examination that Shaitan Singh had also lodged a report against him about his incident. He admitted that Shaitan Singh and Manohar Singh had requested him and the other RSEB Officials not to install the wires over their field. Even then the witness says that the gang had spread the wires. The reason is that transmitter was nearer to the field of Shaitan Singh and the well of Shaitan Singh was having a electric connection. Therefore, the RSEB Officials wanted to give connections to other persons from that place. Even then the witness says that the gang had spread the wires. The reason is that transmitter was nearer to the field of Shaitan Singh and the well of Shaitan Singh was having a electric connection. Therefore, the RSEB Officials wanted to give connections to other persons from that place. He changes the version in the cross examination and says that it was Modiya who caught hold of his hand and rest of the respondents gave beatings. He denies giving beating to Shaitan Singh and Manohar Singh and admitted that they entered into the field of the accused respondents to enter into their field. He admitted that the labourer belonging to his gang came after he was given beatings. This means that none of the members of his gang saw the accused respondents causing injuries. PW-3 Devendra Singh has stated that on 4.11.1984 Lehra Ram submitted him a report Ex. P/1 which he forwarded to the police. He does not remember if Lehra Ram was posted under him. He admitted that he did not give any order to Ganesha Ram helper to draw the line. He stated that he was not in a position to say anything about the order to draw line unless he had seen the record. Admittedly record was not produced when he was examined. In view of the statement of PW-1 Lehra Ram when he says that the members of his gang came after he was given beatings. Magaram PW-4, Bhomaram PW-5 and Bhomaram PW-6 cannot be believed. However, Magaram states that Shaitan Singh asked as to why the wires were being drawn through his field and then Lehra Ram was told him that such was the order of the RSEB Officers. He states that Lehra Ram was beaten before him and he intervened as the Government work was being interfered. But as I have already stated, if he had not seen the occurrence as per Statement of PW-1 Lehra Ram. He cannot be relied upon about the incident. However, the RSEB Officials had no power or authority to enter into the field of Shaitan Singh unless he had permitted. Learned Public Prosecutor was not able to show any Rule or circular that RSEB Officials wore authorised to enter into the field of Shaitan Singh when he was objecting to drawing of wires through his field without his permission. However, the RSEB Officials had no power or authority to enter into the field of Shaitan Singh unless he had permitted. Learned Public Prosecutor was not able to show any Rule or circular that RSEB Officials wore authorised to enter into the field of Shaitan Singh when he was objecting to drawing of wires through his field without his permission. Learned Magistrate has rightly held that the respondents have no right or authority to enter into the field of Shaitan Singh without his consent. Nothing on record has been placed to show that any sanction was granted to draw the line over the field of Shaitan Singh. 7. In view of what has been stated above. I am of the view that the ' learned Magistrate was right in acquitting the accused respondents.Consequently, there is no force in this appeal and it is hereby dismissed.Appeal rejected. *******