Judgment CHANDRA MOHAN PRASAD, J. 1. Heard Mr. Dilip Kumar Sinha, A.P.P. for the State and Mr. Amitesh Kumar for the respondents. This appeal is being disposed of at the admission stage itself. 2. This Government appeal is directed against the judgment dated 17.2.2006 of Shri P.C. Verma, J.M. 1st Class, Darbhanga, passed in G.R. Case No. 1464/2000/T.R. 205/2006 whereby the opposite parties no. 1 and 2 were acquitted of the charges under Sections 323, 341 and 504 of the Indian Penal Code. The O.P. No. 1 Smt. Parwati Roy is said to be the Headmistress of Upgraded Middle School, Dhanauli and O.R No. 2 Suresh Mandal is a villager. The prosecution case was that complainant Dilip Kumar who was a teacher in that school came to the school on 24.8.2000 and wanted to put his signature on the attendance register but he was prohibited by the O.R No. 1 Smt. Parwati Roy whereupon a dispute followed. The complainant alleged that the family members of Smt. Parwati Roy came there and they all alongwith Suresh Mandal O.R no. 2 assaulted him (complainant) with fists and slaps. Further allegation was that Smt. Parwati Roy tore the shirt of the complainant and used abusive language. 3. The O.P. Nos. 1 and 2 were put on trial. The learned trial court in his judgment dated 17.2.2006 has discussed with reference to Ext. 2 that the complainant was deputed to other school namely Middle School, Ujaina on the order of the Area Education Officer dated 9.8.2000. Referring annexure-2 para 4, it is pointed out by the learned counsel for the O.Ps. that the complainant had been relieved from the school on 22.8.2000 i.e. two days prior to the occurrence. The learned trial court has taken into consideration all these facts and has mentioned in his judgment that Dilip Kumar was actually the aggressor because he without any reason illegally went to the school to sign the attendance register when he had already been deputed to the other school. In the Judgment the learned trial court has discussed the evidence of the witnesses and has found that the evidence did not inspire confidence. In the Judgment the learned trial court has discussed the evidence of the witnesses and has found that the evidence did not inspire confidence. During the hearing the learned counsel also pointed out that from the evidence of P.W.6 at para 4 it appears that prior to the occurrence the complainant had committed misconduct in the school for which he had been warned under a departmental proceeding. Considering these matters and the facts and circumstances of the case the learned trial court did not find the charges proved and acquitted the O.Ps. I find nothing wrong in the judgment of the trial court. Therefore, I see no reason to interfere with the judgment of the trial court. 4. In the result this Government appeal fails and is dismissed.