JUDGMENT M.R. Verma, J. :- Being aggrieved the State of Himachal Pradesh preferred the present appeal against the judgment dated 1.6.1995 passed by the learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate Sarkaghat, whereby the respondent accused (hereafter referred to as the accused) has been acquitted of a charge under Section 452,353,504 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. Prosecution case against the accused is that on 12.8.1989 at about 4.30 p.m. accused entered the Panchayat Office situate at village Dhalara while carrying a stick in his hand. After entering the Panchayat Office, he obstructed the proceedings of the Panchayat by abusing the Secretary of the Panchayat, namely, Sunder Singh (PW-7) and snatched away some papers and tore them. He further threatened the Secretary and the President of the Gram Panchayat, namely, Khazan Singh (PW-1) to kill them. The incident was reported to the police vide complaints Exts.PW-1/A and PW-l/B and formal F.I.R. Ext.PW-1/C was recorded at Police Station, Sarkaghat. During the course of investigation, the Investigating Officer took Danda Ext.P-1 in possession vide Memo Ext.PW-14/A, torn pieces of the applications Ext.PW-1/C and Ext. PW-l/E were also taken in possession vide memo Ext.PW-1/D. The papers concerning appointment etc. of PW-7 as Secretary of the Gram Panchayat were also obtained by the Investigating Officer. On being satisfied on the basis of the material collected during investigation, including the statements of the witnesses under Section 161 Cr.P.C, the Officer-in-Charge, Police Station, Sarkaghat, submitted a charge sheet against the accused under Sections 452, 353, 504 and 506 I.P.C. The accused however, was charged for the commission of offence punishable under Section 452,353,504 and 506 I.P.C. 3. To prove the charge against the accused the prosecution examined as many as 16 witnesses. The accused in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. denied the prosecution case and claimed that the case has been falsely instituted against him because the Pradhan of the Gram Panchayat concerned has inimical relations with him due to panchayat elections. The accused, however, did not lead any evidence in defence. On the basis of material brought on record the learned trial Magistrate came to the conclusion that the allegations levelled against the accused by the prosecution were doubtful and accordingly acquitted the accused. Hence, this appeal. 4. I have heard the learned Assistant Advocate General for the State and the learned counsel for the respondent and(?) have also gone through the record. 5. Hence, this appeal. 4. I have heard the learned Assistant Advocate General for the State and the learned counsel for the respondent and(?) have also gone through the record. 5. As per the initial version of the case as contained in the complaint Ex.PW-I/A, the basis for FIR Ex.PW-1/C supplemented by the alleged complaint Ex.PW-1/B the allegations against the accused are: (i) that on 12.8.1989 when gram panchayat, Dhalara was holding its meeting, at about 4.30 P.M., accused armed with a Danda entered the panchayat ghar with a view to beat up the Secretary of the Panchayat, (ii) that the accused assaulted the panches and Secretary of the Panchayat, snatched some papers from the Secretary and tore away a few papers and thus obstructed them in discharging their official/public duties, and (iii) that the accused hurled abuses and created a situation endangering human life. 6. One of the head of charge framed against the accused is under Section 506 IPC that the accused threatened to kill the complainant i.e. Khajan Singh (PW-I). A perusal of the statement of PW-1 unmistakably reveal that he has not stated that accused ever threatened to kill him. Roshan Lai (PW-2), PW-3, Daya Ram PW-4), Pratap Chand (PW-5), Prem Chand (PW-6), Sunder Singh (PW-7), Paras Ram (PW-8), Panjkoo Ram (PW-10), Bhuri Singh (PW-11) and PW-13, alleged eye witness of the occurrence, have also not stated that the accused threatened to kill PW-1 or in any other manner criminally intimidated him. Thus there is no evidence whatsoever to prove this head of charge against the accused. 7. The other head of charge against the accused is under Section 353 IPC based on the allegations that he used criminal force against Sunder Singh (PW-7), Panchayat Secretary "by snatching away some papers" "pertaining to panchayat proceedings" with intent to prevent him from discharging his official duties. There is no evidence whatsoever about any bodily assault by the accused on Sunder Singh (PW-7) to prevent him from discharging his official duties. PW-1 has stated that the accused armed with lathi Ex.P-1 entered the room and asked PW-7 to return his case otherwise he would tear off his eyes, then he picked up two applications lying on the table and after tearing them threw down and declared that he would see each one of them (Reference seems to the Secretary and Panches). PW-1 has stated that the accused armed with lathi Ex.P-1 entered the room and asked PW-7 to return his case otherwise he would tear off his eyes, then he picked up two applications lying on the table and after tearing them threw down and declared that he would see each one of them (Reference seems to the Secretary and Panches). So is stated by PW-2 and PW-4, PW-5, PW-6 and PW-8 have partially supported the version of PW-1 and PW-2, but have not stated about the snatching and tearing of the applications. PW-11 has stated that accused threatened PW-7 to knock out his teeth and tore a case file. PW-13 has stated that accused threatened to tear off the eyes of PW-7. He has not stated about the tearing of the papers or file by the accused. Contrary to the version of all those witnesses, PW-7 has stated that the accused came in the room and asked for decision of the case of his wife or return the case. He has further stated that accused gave a lathi blow on the table whereby two papers of the files kept on the table were damaged. He has not supported the version regarding threat by the accused to tear off his eyes or knock out his teeth. Thus, he belies the statements of all the aforesaid witnesses regarding the alleged threats thereby rendering the prosecution version highly suspicious and doubtful, more so in view of the variations in the statements of PWs 1,2,4,5,6 and 8 on the material particulars. PW-3, PW-8 and PW- 10, all alleged eye witnesses of the occurrence have not supported the above versions which also renders it unreliable. 8. According to the prosecution, the papers torn by the accused are Exs. PW- 1/E and PW- 1/F allegedly the complaints made to the panchayat respectively by one Nathu Ram and Savitri Devi (PW-9). The procedure for presentation of such complaints as stated by PW-1 is that the complaints are presented to him in his capacity as Pradhan and he marks such complaints to the Secretary of the Panchayat. He has further stated that he had passed orders on the complaints Exs.PW- 1/E and PW- 1/F and then given to the Secretary (PW-7). The procedure for presentation of such complaints as stated by PW-1 is that the complaints are presented to him in his capacity as Pradhan and he marks such complaints to the Secretary of the Panchayat. He has further stated that he had passed orders on the complaints Exs.PW- 1/E and PW- 1/F and then given to the Secretary (PW-7). It has, however, been admitted by him when confronted with these complaints, that those do not contain any order passed by him, rendering the very presentation of these complaints to the Panchayat by the concerned complainants doubtful. 9. According to the prosecution, complaint Ex.PW-1/F was made by PW-9. However, PW-9 has not supported the version and has denied even making of any statement of the police. She had denied Ex.PW- 1/F as a complaint made by her or as a mukhtarnama in favour of her husband. The other complainant Nathu Ram who is alleged to have made complaint Ex.PW-1/E was given up and not examined. The necessary inference which can, therefore, be drawn is that had he been examined, he would also not have supported the prosecution version. It is, thus, not proved that the complaints Exs.PW- 1/E and PW-l/F were made by the purported complainants to the panchayat. 10. The torn complaints Exs. PW- 1/E and PW-l/F were taken in possession by the police vide memo Ex.PW- 1/D on production by PW-7 in the presence of PW-1 and PW-2. These witnesses have supported the versions about taking in possession of these complaints by the police vide Ex.PW- 1/D. However, PW-7 has admitted that this document Ex.PW- 1/D was prepared after due deliberations between them. In case any deliberations preceded the preparation of Ex.PW- 1/D, in the given circumstances of the case, such deliberations could only be about fabrication of Exs.PW-1/E, PW-l/F and PW-l/D. 11. There is no cogent, consistent and reliable evidence record to arrive at a conclusion that by any act or conduct of the accused either the proceedings of the Panchayat were obstructed or PW-7 was, in any manner, obstructed by the accused in the discharge of his official duties. There is no cogent, consistent and reliable evidence record to arrive at a conclusion that by any act or conduct of the accused either the proceedings of the Panchayat were obstructed or PW-7 was, in any manner, obstructed by the accused in the discharge of his official duties. Though at the trial, an attempt has been made to show that the Panchayat was dealing with its judicial work at the time when the accused entered the Panchayat ghar but such allegations are not in the report Ex.PW-1/A, the basis for the FIR Ex.PW-1/C. On the contrary, it is admitted by PW-1, the Pradhan of the concerned Panchayat that at the time of occurrence, the hearing ir, he cases before the Panchayat had concluded. He has not stated that the Panchayat, at that time, was transacting any official business whatsoever. PW-2 Roshan Lai, contrary to what PW-1 has stated, claims that the Panchayat proceedings were going on at the relevant time and his statement in this regard, therefore, cannot be believed. PW-7 himself has not stated that the accused, in any manner, prevented him from discharging his official duties. 12. In view of the above discussion, even this head of charge is not established. On the contrary, the evidence, as discussed hereinabove, discloses that, in all probabilities, a case has been engineered against the accused to falsely implicate him in the commission of the offences when he made a request that the case of his wife should be decided or it should be returned. There was nothing offensive in making such a request by the accused but the Panchayat appear to have taken the request of the accused as an offence qua its authority which is unjustified. 13. The other head of charge against the accused is under Section 5041 IPC based on the allegations that he insulted the Secretary of the Panchayat" (PW-7) by hurling obscenities on him and thereby causing provocation to him, knowing it to be likely that such provocation would cause him to break the public peace. As per the prosecution, the accused threatened PW-7 to tear off his eyes and a few witnesses have stated so. Contrary to this, another version which emerges from the record is that the accused abused PW-7 and threatened to knock out his teeth. PW-7 himself has not supported this version in his statement. As per the prosecution, the accused threatened PW-7 to tear off his eyes and a few witnesses have stated so. Contrary to this, another version which emerges from the record is that the accused abused PW-7 and threatened to knock out his teeth. PW-7 himself has not supported this version in his statement. Therefore, this head of charge is also not proved. 14. The last head of charge against the accused is under Section 452 IPC on the allegations that at about 4.30 P.M. on 12.8.1989 he entered the Panchayat ghar at Dhalara wielding a bamboo stick after preparation for assaulting the Panchayat secretary. It is not in dispute that some case relating to the wife of the accused was pending before the Panchayat. After having entered the Panchayat room, the request of the accused was only either to decide the case or to return it. Evidently, the intention of the accused in entering the Panchayat premises was not to assault the secretary (PW-7) but to make a request for early disposal or return of the case of his wife. It cannot, therefore, be said that the entry of the accused in the Panchayat premises was after preparation for assault on the Panchayat secretary (PW-7). PW-7 himself does not claim in his statement that the accused had come prepared to assault him or assaulted him. As already stated hereinabove, on a reading of the entire material placed on record, the only conclusion which can be drawn is that the prosecution version is unreliable, inconsistent and not cogent. The varying and contradictory version of the witnesses and a few of the eye witnesses not supporting the prosecution case, clearly indicate that the case itself is based on- cooked up version. Therefore, this head of charge is also not proved. 15. In view of the above discussion and findings, the learned trial Magistrate was fully justified in acquitting the accused of the charges against him and the impugned judgment, therefore, does not call for any interference by this Court. 16. As a result, this appeal merits dismissal and is accordingly dismissed. -