JUDGMENT 1. - This criminal appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 26.8.1987 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Anupgarh (for short 'the trial court' hereinafter) in criminal case No. 149/84 whereby the trial court acquitted the accused respondents of the offences under Sections 504 and 506 IPC. 2. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the respondents. 3. Learned counsel for the parties submit that respondent No. 1 Vikram Singh has expired 8 to 10 years before and therefore the appeal against him stands abated. 4. It is contended by learned counsel for the appellant that respondents insulted the complainant by the use of filthy abuses as also threatened to kill him and therefore, the trial court erred in acquitting the accused respondents. 5. Learned counsel for the respondents supported the judgment and order of the trial court and contended that there are material variance in the case as set up by the complainant and the statements of witnesses made before the court. and therefore, the trial court was justified in acquitting the respondents. It was further contended that the case of complainant does not find any support from any independent evidence. 6. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the rival contention' raised by learned counsel for the parties and perused the judgment and order impugned. I have carefully gone through the record. 7. The appellant filed a criminal complaint (Ex.P/1) before the trial court alleging therein that the respondents used mother-sister fifthly abuses and Threatened to kill him. At that time, there were 2 to 3 patients who came for purchase of medicines and check up. It was further alleged that Badri Prasad, Uttam Giri etc. rescued him, otherwise, the respondents would have killed him. Before the Court, PW-1 Gyan Prasad came with different case that respondents, came and abused "Madarchod Bahinchod'. The same words were used by PW-2 Badri Prasad in his statement. When these two witnesses were confronted with their previous statement, then they could not furnish any explanation for such omission. However, they admitted that respondents were not armed with any weapon. PW-3 Uttam Giri also made a similar statement. While he was confronted with his previous statement, he failed to furnish a plausible explanation for such omission. There are serious contradictions in the statement of appellant-complainant and other witnesses produced by him. However, they admitted that respondents were not armed with any weapon. PW-3 Uttam Giri also made a similar statement. While he was confronted with his previous statement, he failed to furnish a plausible explanation for such omission. There are serious contradictions in the statement of appellant-complainant and other witnesses produced by him. Similar statement has been made by PW-5 Anamma. She stated that respondents came and abused the complainant the names of mother and sister. The witnesses are said to be members of nursing staff of the same hospital to which the complainant alleged to have been posted. 8. In the statements under Section 313 Cr.PC., the respondents denied the allegations and produced DW-1 Dr. Satya Prakash Sharma, DW-2 Dr. Prem Ratan, DW-3 Prabhu Singh, DW-4 Surender Kumar, DW-5 Prabhu Dayal, DW-6 Om Prakash, DW-7 NT Sharamma Nurse and DW-8 Kushal Singh. From the statements of defence witnesses and more particularly. DW-1 Dr. Satya Prakash, Incharge, Government Hospital, Sukchainpura, it has been established that respondent Vikram Singh was at Government Hospital, chainpura and working with DW-1 Dr. Satya Prakash Sharma at the relevant time of occurrence. Similar is the statement of DW-2 Dr. Prem Ratan. The presence of respondents at Government Hospital, Sukhchanipura at the relevant time of occurrence does not stand established. There are a number of eye-witnesses produced in defence and almost every witness established presence of respondents at a different place than the place of occurrence. The statements of DW-1 Dr. Satya Prakash Sharma, DW-2 Dr. Prem Ratan and female nurse, DW-7 NT Sharamma established that at the relevant time of occurrence as alleged by the complainant, respondent Vikram Singh was not at the place of occurrence. From these evidences, the complainant's case becomes more doubtful. 9. On close scrutiny of the entire evidence on record, I am of the considered opinion that the conclusion arrived at by the learned trial court cannot be said to be erroneous. On the contrary, the finding of the trial court is based on sound and proper appreciation of evidence which calls for no interference. In this view of the matter, I do not find any merit in the appeal, Accordingly, the appeal fails and the same is hereby dismissed.Appeal dismissed. *******