Judgment I.P.Singh, J. 1. This appeal has been filed against the judgment and order dated 18.8.1989 by which opposite party nos, 1 and 2 have been acquitted by the court below. 2. The prosecution case in brief is that on 26.3.1985 at about 8.00 A.M. the complainant was at his Dalan just before the time of alleged occurrence. It has been alleged that accused came from his house having Lathi and Kudal and began to cut the soil with the help of Kudal in front of the Dalan of the complainant. When the complainant objected not to do so both the accused assaulted the complainant with Lathi. The complainant received injuries and thereafter he fell down. In the meantime accused Pramod Kumar snatched away HMT watch from his wrist. When P.W. 1 Ajay Kr. Mishra tried to save the complainant he was forcibly taken at the Dalan and he was also assaulted with kicks and fists by the accused persons. He complainant went to Athmalgola P.S. and narrated about the alleged occurrence but the police refused to institute the case and thereafter the complainant came to Barh for medical treatment. He was treated by P.W.5 in the Govt. Hospital. Thereafter he filed the complaint case in the court of A.C.J.M., Barh on 27.3.85. Learned A.C.J.M. took cognizance against the accused persons under sections 452, 323 and 379 of the Indian Penal Code and transferred the case to the court of Judicial Magistrate for trial. Ultimately the trial concluded with the result as indicated above. Both the accused persons denied the charges levelled against them and contended that they had been falsely implicated in this case due to enmity. 3. The prosecution in support of its case examined altogether five witnesses. P.W.1 is Ajay Kumar, Mishra, P.W.2 is Uma Kant Mishra, full brother of the complainant, P.W. 3 is Hardeo Rai, P.W.4, is Mahakant Mishra, complainant (injured) and P.W. 5 is Dr. Panchanand Das who had examined and treated the injured complainant and submitted injury report Ext. 1. 4. P.W. 4 the complainant has supported the case and stated that on the date of occurrence at 8.00 A.M. he was at his Dalan when the accused persons came having Kudal and Lathi in their hands, they began to cut the soil in front of his Dalan. When he objected he was assaulted by accused persons. 1. 4. P.W. 4 the complainant has supported the case and stated that on the date of occurrence at 8.00 A.M. he was at his Dalan when the accused persons came having Kudal and Lathi in their hands, they began to cut the soil in front of his Dalan. When he objected he was assaulted by accused persons. He has also stated that accused Pramod snatched his HMT wrist watch. He fell down after sustaining injury. He has also stated that P.W. 1 had come to save him but he was also forcibly taken by the accused in the Dalan and he was also assaulted by kicks and fists. According to him he was treated by the doctor (P.W. 5) in the Govt. hospital at Barh. When he went to lodge the case in the police station it was refused and thereafter he filed complaint petition in the court of A.C.J.M., Barh. The other witnesses have also supported the version of the complainant. P.W. 5, the doctor found scratch injury on the person of the complainant. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that all the witnesses have fully supported the prosecution case beyond all reasonable doubts. The doctor has also corroborated the prosecution by granting injury report even then the court below has completely failed to appreciate the evidence of P.Ws., especially P.Ws. 3 and 5. P.W. 3 is an independent witness and his evidence has also not been considered by the court below. 6. The genesis of the occurrence is that the accused persons were cutting soil in front of the Dalan of the complainant and when he objected both the accused persons assaulted him with Lathi. The prosecution witnesses failed to prove the factum of occurrence. The complainant had not specifically stated that who assaulted him with Lathi. It appears that the accused Pramod Kr. Mishra snatched the watch of the complainant whereas the other witnesses who came on Hulla have stated that both the accused persons were assaulting him with Lathi. The doctor who examined the injury of the complainant found scratch injury on the person of the complainant. It is obvious that the injuries are scratch injuries and such injuries unlikely could be caused by Lathi as has been alleged. Apart from that eye witnesses are interested witnesses related to each other and there is admitted enmity between the parties. The doctor who examined the injury of the complainant found scratch injury on the person of the complainant. It is obvious that the injuries are scratch injuries and such injuries unlikely could be caused by Lathi as has been alleged. Apart from that eye witnesses are interested witnesses related to each other and there is admitted enmity between the parties. The court below has rightly disbelieved the version of the witnesses. The injury report issued by the doctor also goes against the case of the prosecution and instead of supporting the assault by Lathi it negates the manner of assault. As such, the court below rightly came to the conclusion and acquitted the accused persons.As such, judgment passed by the court below is upheld and this appeal is dismissed.