P. S. NARAYANA, J. ( 1 ) THE matter is coming up for admission today. This is an appeal filed by the State against an order of acquittal recorded in c. C. No. 340 of 1997 on the file of the additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Gudivada. ( 2 ) THE learned Additional Public prosecutor Sri Mohd. Osman Shaheed would submit in the light of the evidence of P. Ws. 1 to 11 and also Exs. P-1 to P-10, it is clear that the prosecution was able to establish the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonale doubt and hence the acquittal recorded on the strength of evidence of D. Ws. 1 and 2 and also Exs. D-1 to D-6 cannot be sustained. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor also had taken this Court through the findings recorded in this regard. ( 3 ) THE Sub-Inspector of Police, Pamarru p. S. filed charge sheet against the respondents-accused under Sections 324 and 506 read with 34 of the Indian Penal code in Crime No. 108 of 1997 of Pamarru p. S. The case of the prosecution in brief is that A-1 is the husband of the defacto- complainant-P. W. 1 and A-2 to A-6 are the family members of A-1. It is also the case of the prosecution that there are bitter matrimonial disputes between the family members of the accused and P. W. 1. On 31-8-1997 the mother of defacto-complainant by name Ravuri Mangamma came to the house of the accused, situated at Raparla village, to see her daughter and at that time, all the accused abused her and pounced on her for her ingress into the house and the mother of P. W. 1 left the place. When the accused were quarreling with defacto- complainant-P. W. 1 and in the meantime her father, mother and brothers came to the house of the accused and all the accused with a common intention of causing injuries, beat the father and brothers of defacto- complainant-P. W. 1 and they also beat P. W. 1 and her mother with stout sticks and they sustained injuries and basing on the report of p. W. 1, Head Constable of Pamarru P. S. registered a case and subsequently the Sub- inspector of Police verified the investigation and after receipt of wound certificates he filed charge-sheet. As against respondents-A-1 to A-6, cognizance was taken under sections 324, 506 I. P. C. read with 34 I. P. C. The prosecution examined P. Ws. 1 to 11 and exs. P-1 to P-10 and M. O. 1 were marked. P. W. 1 is the defacto-complainant, P. Ws. 2 and 3 are parents of P. W. 1, P. Ws. 4 and 5 are brothers of P. W. 1, P. Ws. 6 to 8 are relatives of P. W. 1, P. W. 9 is the Head Constable, who registered the case, P. W. 10 is the doctor, who examined the injured P. Ws. 1 to 6 and issued Exs. P-5 to P-10 wound certificates. P. W. 11 is the Sub-Inspector of Police, who filed charge sheet. On behalf of defence d. Ws. 1 and 2 were examined and Exs. D-1 to d-6 were marked. ( 4 ) THE learned Magistrate appreciated the evidence available on record in detail. The inconsistent version and the infirmities in the version of the prosecution had been narrated in detail in paras 17, 18 and 19 of the judgment. Apart from this aspect of the matter the learned Magistrate also taken into consideration the evidence of D. Ws. 1 and 2, discussed the same in detail. It was also recorded by the learned Magistrate that in the light of Ex. D-6, certified copy of charge- sheet in C. C. No. 341 of 1997, it is clear that the present C. C. No. 340 of 1997 and c. C. No. 341 of 1997 arise out of the same transaction between the same parties and both these cases are case and counter case. A further finding had been recorded that in the facts and circumstances of the case non- explanation of injuries on the person of A-2 would show that the prosecution is not coming up with the true version and there is suppression of real facts and on that ground also respondents are entitled to an acquittal. Reliance was placed on Subramani and others v. State of Tamil Nadu in this regard. Reliance was placed on Subramani and others v. State of Tamil Nadu in this regard. In the facts and circumstances of the case, taking into consideration several omissions in the evidence available on record and also the infirmities and also the omissions on the part of prosecution to explain the injuries on the person of A-2, the learned Magistrate viewed the version of the prosecution with suspicion and arrived at a conclusion that the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt and accordingly recorded an acquittal in relation to the charges under Sections 324 and 506 of the Indian Penal code. It is also brought to the notice of this Court that acquittal had been recorded in other case C. C. No. 341 of 1997 too. ( 5 ) IT is no doubt true that mere non- explanation of injuries on the person of the accused always need not result in acquittal, since it would depend upon several facts and circumstances. No hard and fast rule can be laid down in this regard. Apart from this aspect of the matter the learned Magistrate also had pointed out several other omissions and infirmities in the evidence of P. Ws. 1 to 6. ( 6 ) IN view of the detailed reasons recorded by the learned Magistrate, this Court is of the opinion that the acquittal recorded by the learned Magistrate does not suffer from any legal infirmities whatsoever and the same is hereby confirmed. ( 7 ) ACCORDINGLY, the Criminal Appeal is dismissed at the stage of admission.