JUDGMENT 1. - This appeal has been filed by the State of Rajasthan against the judgment and order dated 25.6.96 passed by the Learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) cum Judicial Magistrate, Jodhpur Dist. Jodhpur, in Criminal Case No. 154/91 by which the learned Magistrate acquitted the accused-respondents for the offence under Sections 341, 323 and 325 I.P.C. 2. This appeal arises in the following circumstances : (i) That on 23.3.91, at about 11.30 a.m., PW. 3 Anwar Khan lodged a written report Ex. P/1 before the Police Station Dangiawas, Dist. Jodhpur stating that on the date one Sohan Lal soni was constructing latrine in front of his house and he was asked not to construct the latrine, upon which Sohan Lal called Hakim Khan (accused respondent), Pema Ram and Roopa Ram (accused respondent) and these persons started beating him and his family members. It was further stated in the report that the accused respondent Roopa Ram caught hold throat of his father Hussain Khan PW. 1 and accused respondent Hakim Khan started beating and upon this, wife of his younger brother Asgar, PW. 2 intervened, then Pema Ram also beat her, as a result of which she also fell down on the earth and thereafter Sohan Lal and Hakim Khan (accused respondent) beat her and his brother PW. 2 Asgar Khan and his father P.W. 1 Hussain Khan received injuries. (ii) On this report, police registered a case and during investigation, P.W. 2 Asgar Khan was got medically examined by Dr. PW. 6 Dr. Jagdish Jugawat. The injury report of P.W. 2 Asgar Khan is Ex. P/4 which shows that he received seven simple injuries, P.W. 1 Hussain Khan was also examined by PW. 6 Dr. Jagdish Jugtawat and his injury report is Ex. P/5 which shows that on right chest, there was tenderness. In his X-ray report, Ex. P/6 fracture of 5th rib was found and for that doctor P.W. 8 Dr. C.R. Agarwal has been produced. 3. After investigation, the challan was filed against both the accused respondent for offence under Sections 341, 323 and 325 I.P.C. 4. The learned Judicial Magistrate framed charges against the accused respondents for the aforesaid offences on 22.4.93 who pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 5. During trial, eight witnesses were produced on behalf of the prosecution and statements of accused were recorded under Section 313 Cr. PC. The learned Judicial Magistrate framed charges against the accused respondents for the aforesaid offences on 22.4.93 who pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 5. During trial, eight witnesses were produced on behalf of the prosecution and statements of accused were recorded under Section 313 Cr. PC. and no witness was examined in defence. 6. The learned Magistrate vide judgment dated 25.6.96 acquitted both the accused respondents for the offences charged against them holding that: the prosecution has not been able to prove its case against both the accused respondents as there are material contradictions amongst the statements of prosecution witnesses etc. 7. Aggrieved from the said judgment, this state appeal has been filed by the State. In this appeal, it has been argued on behalf of the state that: there is consistent evidence in the statements of PW. 1 to 3 which is supported by medical evidence. Thus, the order of acquittal is perverse and it should be set aside. 8. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents submits that the judgment of the trial court is based on correct appreciation of evidence and thus, the state appeal is liable to be dismissed. 9. So far as injuries of P.W. 1 Hussain Khan and P.W. 2 Asgar Khan are concerned, injury report of P.W. 2 Asgar Khan is Ex. P/4 and the same has been proved by P.W. 6 Dr. Jagdish Jugtawat and according to that report, he received seven simple injuries by blunt object. So far as injury report of P.W. 1 Hussain Khan is concerned, the same is Ex. P/5 and same has also been proved by P.W. 6 Dr. Jagdish Jugtawat which shows that there was tenderness on right chest and as per X-ray report Ex. P/6, fractures in ribs were found and Dr. P.W. 8 Dr. C.R. Agarwal has proved the X-ray report Ex. P/6. Hence, the prosecution has been able to prove, the case so far as injuries of P.W. 1 Hussain Khan and P.W. 2 Asgar Khan are concerned. 10. Ex. P/1 is the FIR which was lodged by PW. 3 Anwar Khan who is brother of PW. 2 Asgar Khan and the son of injured PW. 1 Hussain Khan. In that report, he has clearly stated that PW. 10. Ex. P/1 is the FIR which was lodged by PW. 3 Anwar Khan who is brother of PW. 2 Asgar Khan and the son of injured PW. 1 Hussain Khan. In that report, he has clearly stated that PW. 1 Hussain Khan was beaten by Sohan Lal, Pema Ram and by both the accused respondents Roopa Ram and Hakim Khan though PW. 1 Hussain Khan has received only one injury as is evident from his injury report Ex. P/5. From FIR Ex. P/1, it further appears that when wife of PW. 2 Asgar Khan tried to intervene in the matter, she was also beaten and P.W. 2 Asgar Khan was also beaten. There is no injury report in the present case of the wife of PW. 2 Asgar Khan. PW. 1 Hussain Khan is injured who states that he was beaten by Sohan Lal and accused respondent Rupa Ram. He further states that he was also beaten by accused respondent Hakim Khan and caused injuries on his ribs. Thus, from his statement, it is clear that apart from Hakim Khan, he was beaten by Sohan Lal and Rupa Ram, but he has received only one injury. 11. Another witness is PW. 2 Asgar Khan who is also an injured and who is the son of PW. 1 Hussain Khan. He has stated that when he reached on the spot, his father was being beaten by Sohan Lal, Roopa Ram, Hakim Khan and one Pema Ram. 12. PW. 2 Asgar Khan has also stated that he also received injuries and he was beaten by Hakim Khan and Pema Ram and no body tried to save them, though in the report Ex. P/1 the story is otherwise. He has further admitted in his cross-examination that he cannot say who caused injuries to his father PW. 1 Hussain Khan and where injuries were caused. 13. It may be stated here that from the statements of PW. 1 Hussain Khan and from the statements of PW. 2 Asgar Khan, it is very much clear that PW. 1 Hussain Khan was beaten not only by accused respondent Hakim Khan, but by Sohan Lal and Rupa Ram. When PW. 2 Asgar Khan cannot say which accused caused injury to him, therefore, it is very much doubtful at whose hands, PW. 2 Asgar Khan, it is very much clear that PW. 1 Hussain Khan was beaten not only by accused respondent Hakim Khan, but by Sohan Lal and Rupa Ram. When PW. 2 Asgar Khan cannot say which accused caused injury to him, therefore, it is very much doubtful at whose hands, PW. 1 Hussain Khan received injury on his chest specially when in the present case, Sohan Lal is not the accused. 14. Another witness is PW. 3 Anwar Khan who lodged the report Ex. P/1 and who is the son of P.W. 1 Hussain Khan. He simply states that he lodged the report Ex. P/1 and he found his father unconscious, but he does not say who caused injury. Thus, the version given by him in his report Ex. P/1 is not corroborated by him in the statement recorded in the Court. 15. PW. 4 Usman and PW. 5 Bheru Lal produced by the prosecution have been declared hostile. PW. 7 Smt. Asia is another witness, who is daughter-in-law of PW. 1 Hussain Khan and she States that when his father-in-law PW. 1 Hussain Khan obstructed Sohan Lal from raising construction over Chabutari, then Sohan Lal, Hakim Khan and Ruparam caused injuries to PW. 1 Hussain Khan and her Jeth PW. 2 Asgar Khan and when she tried to save them, she was also beaten. From her statement, this fact again comes in picture that P.W. 1 Hussain Khan was beaten not only by accused respondent Hakim Khan, but by three persons Sohan Lal, Roopa Ram and Hakim Khan, though PW. 1 Hussain Khan received only one injury on his person. Similarly, PW. 2 Asgar Khan was also beaten by these three persons and Sohan Lal is not accused before this Court. PW. 7 Smt. Asia states that she was also beaten and received injuries, but no injury report of her has been produced. 16. From the evidence discussed above, finding of learned Judicial Magistrate that there is contradiction between the statement of PW. 3 and and contents of report Ex. R 1 which was lodged by PW. 3 Anwar Khan and further more, there are material contradictions amongst the statements of prosecution witnesses over the aspect of beating and it is further clear that apart from these two accused respondents, some names are also coming forward alleging that they also beat. 3 and and contents of report Ex. R 1 which was lodged by PW. 3 Anwar Khan and further more, there are material contradictions amongst the statements of prosecution witnesses over the aspect of beating and it is further clear that apart from these two accused respondents, some names are also coming forward alleging that they also beat. In these circumstances, the finding of acquittal recorded by the learned Judicial Magistrate appears to be correct one as they are based on correct appreciation of evidence and I see no reason to dissent from the findings arrived at by the learned Judicial Magistrate by which he acquitted both the accused respondents. Therefore, judgment and order dated 25.6.96 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) cum Judicial Magistrate, Jodhpur Dist., Jodhpur are liable to be confirmed and the state appeal is liable to be dismissed.Accordingly, present appeal is dismissed after confirming the judgment and order dated 25.6.96 passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) cum Judicial Magistrate, Jodhpur Dist. Jodhpur in Criminal Case No. 154/91.Appeal dismissed. *******