JUDGMENT Being aggrieved by the judgment dated 4-9-1997, passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sirmaur, at Nahan, thereby acquitting the respondent-accused (hereinafter referred to as the accused) of a charge under S. 325, I.P.C., the State of H.P. has preferred the present appeal. 2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 26-4-1994, at about 10 a.m., when Bakhtawar Singh (P.W. 1) was passing by the side of the house of the accused, wife of the accused asked him whether that was the path? P.W. 2 replied that he was passing through a path, but next time, he would not pass through that path. In the meanwhile, accused came on the spot and gave slaps and fist blows to P.W. 2, whereby he fell down and sustained injuries to his right hand thumb and right pit. He reported the matter to the police vide Rapat Rojnamcha Ex. P.W. 5/A, on the basis of which, FIR Ex. P.W. 6/A came into being at Police Station, Sadar, Nahan. P.W. 2 was got medically examined and was found to have sustained two injuries i.e. swelling of the right hand thumb and pain in the lower chest and on X-ray, the first injury was found to be a fracture, whereas other injury was found simple having been caused within 24 hours of the medical examination on 26-4-1995 at 6 p.m. vide MLC Ex. P.W. 1/A issued by C. L. Sharma, Medical Officer (P.W. 1). During the course of investigation, police took in possession a lathi Ex. P-1 on production by the accused vide memo Ex. P.W. 2/A and recorded statements of the witnesses. On being satisfied that the accused had committed offence punishable under Ss. 325 and 323, I.P.C., the concerned officer-in-charge of the Police Station submitted a charge-sheet against the accused, who came to be tried by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate on a charge under S. 325, I.P.C. To prove the charge against the accused, the prosecution examined 6 witnesses. Statement of the accused under S. 313, Cr. P.C. was recorded, wherein he denied the prosecution case and claimed that the case against him had been falsely made out because the family members of the complainant (P.W. 2) had in fact assaulted the accused and others, regarding which a case is pending. Accused led defence and examined three witnesses to support the defence version. 3. P.C. was recorded, wherein he denied the prosecution case and claimed that the case against him had been falsely made out because the family members of the complainant (P.W. 2) had in fact assaulted the accused and others, regarding which a case is pending. Accused led defence and examined three witnesses to support the defence version. 3. On the basis of the evidence on record, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate found that the prosecution had not been able to prove that the injuries sustained by P.W. 2 were caused to him by the accused and accordingly acquitted the accused. Hence the present appeal. 4. I have heard the learned Assistant Advocate General and the learned counsel for the accused and have also gone through the records. 5. I have already set out the initial version of the occurrence as given by P.W. 2 in the report Ex. P.W. 5/A. A perusal of his statement made in the Court as P.W. 2 reveals that he has introduced an almost entirely different case than the one reported vide Ex. P.W. 5/A. Contrary to the contents of the said report, he stated that wife of the accused who met him on the way, abused him and then the accused came on the spot, he also abused him and manhandled him. In the meanwhile, all the family members of the accused came on the spot and manhandled him and in the process, he lost a sum of Rs. 663/-. One Akbar gave a lathi to the accused and the accused then gave lathi blows to him, whereby he sustained injuries on his right hand. Evidently, his having been abused by the wife of the accused and the accused, his having been manhandled by the accused and all the members of his family, his having lost a sum of Rs. 663/- during his manhandling and giving of lathi by Akbar to the accused and his having been beaten up by the accused with a lathi, are such facts stated by P.W. 2 which are non-existent in the First Information Report lodged by him. Evidently, he has made material improvements on his earlier version rendering his statement utterly unreliable. 663/- during his manhandling and giving of lathi by Akbar to the accused and his having been beaten up by the accused with a lathi, are such facts stated by P.W. 2 which are non-existent in the First Information Report lodged by him. Evidently, he has made material improvements on his earlier version rendering his statement utterly unreliable. It may also be noticed here that at the time of the lodging of the report, he had not named any person as the witness of the occurrence except that he had met one Rashid Mohammad on the way. Said Rashid Mohammad had not been examined as witness nor he is stated to be an eye-witness of the occurrence. One Taj Mohammad (P.W. 3) had been produced as eye-witness of the occurrence. He stated that the accused abused P.W. 2 and beat him up with danda, thereby causing injury to P.W. 2 in his hand and that he intervened to save P.W.2. He identified danda Ex. P-1, as the weapon of offence. He has not stated anything about P.W. 2 having been abused by the wife of the accused and about his manhandling by the accused and all members of his family. He has further not stated anything about the missing of the money of P.W. 2. There are material contradictions in the statements of the two witnesses. 6. P.W. 2 has stated that he was saved from the accused by and Mohinder. However, said Mohinder had not been examined by the prosecution to support the version of P.W. 2. On the contrary, P.W. 2 Taj Mohammad has stated that Bali Mohammad was present on the spot whereas Mohinder and Prito were not present on the spot. Said Bali Mohammad had also not been examined and the presence of Mohinder on the spot and his being saviour of P.W. 2 has been ruled out by P.W. 3. 7. It is not disputed that FIR Ex. DH under Ss. 147, 148, 149 and 323, I.P.C. had been registered at Police Station, Sadar, Nahan, at the instance of the accused against P.W. 2 and others. Exs. D-1, D-2 and D-3 are the MLCs about the medical examination of Akbar Ali, Latif Mohammad and Salma. The FIR Ex. DH had been recorded on 26-4-1995 at 9 a.m. i.e. before lodging of the FIR in the instant case. Exs. D-1, D-2 and D-3 are the MLCs about the medical examination of Akbar Ali, Latif Mohammad and Salma. The FIR Ex. DH had been recorded on 26-4-1995 at 9 a.m. i.e. before lodging of the FIR in the instant case. In the given circumstances of the case, the present case appears to have been instituted and initiated as a counter blast to the report lodged by the accused and is not based on the true facts, as is evident from the contradictory versions of P.W. 2 as contained in the FIR Ex. P.W. 6/B and his statement in the Court. 8. On perusal of the material on record, the irresistible conclusion is that the case against the accused is far from being proved and the learned trial Magistrate has rightly concluded so. The impugned judgment, therefore, does not call for any interference. 9. As a result, this appeal is dismissed. Appeal dismissed.