Judgment S.N.Pathak, J. 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 1.6.91 passed by Sri Jag Mohan Pd. Sharma, Judicial Magistrate, lst Class, Patna city in CA. No. 108/87, trial no. 281/91. 2. The complainant of the case is appellant before this court. The complainant had filed a complaint petition in the . court below alleging therein that on 17.9.87 at 11 a.m. when he was going to sell milk and when he reached near the house is one Ramsagar, he was surrounded by the accused-respondents armed with various weapons and he was subjected to assault whereby he received injuries on various parts of the body. When the complainants wife and one Tika Devi came to intervene, they were also subjected to assault. The accused-respondents, Bilas, took away Rs. 3,000/- from the pocket of the complainant. The complainant went to the police station but no action was taken and hence the complaint was filed in the court. 3. The accused-respondents took up the defence of false implication and denied the charge under sections 379, 323 and 341 IPC under which they were charged to face trial. 4. The complainant-appellant had examined 4 witnesses. However, two witnesses namely, Tileshwari Devi (PW 1) and Bishun Yadav (PW 2) were not produced for cross-examination after charge. Hence their evidence was not worthy of reliance. PW 3 was the complainant himself and PW 4 was the doctor. In the complaint petition one Dr. R. P. Verma was named, but another doctor was examined and original injury report was not produced in court and hence the trial court disbelieved the evidence of PW 4. Injury report (exhibit 1) which was brought on record has signature of PW 4 in lead pen and the injury report was in the carbon copy. So the injury report was also disbelieved by the trial court. The complainant supported his case, but since his testimony was not corroborated by any witness, specially by the medical evidence, the trial court did not rely upon his evidence. The trial court finally acquitted the respondents in view of insufficient evidence on record. 5. The fact and circumstances which l have stated above which caused the judgment of acquittal being recorded by the trial court do not indicate that the trial court was in legal error in rendering the impugned judgment. The trial court finally acquitted the respondents in view of insufficient evidence on record. 5. The fact and circumstances which l have stated above which caused the judgment of acquittal being recorded by the trial court do not indicate that the trial court was in legal error in rendering the impugned judgment. l am, therefore, of the opinion that the findings which resulted into the judgment of acquittal do not appear to be suffering from any illegality. Under section 386 Cr.P.C, in case of appeal against acquittal, when the appellants lawyer does not appear, the court is not under any obligation to hear him by way of necessity. State lawyer was heard. 6. In the result, this appeal is dismissed.