JUDGMENT 1. - The State of Rajasthan has preferred this appeal against the order and judgment dated 03.08.1998 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate No. 1, Bharatpur in Criminal Case No. 352/92, by which he has convicted the accused respondents for the offences under Sections 323, 323/149, 147, 341 and 325/149 IPC. 2. The brief facts of the case are that on 24.10.1992 at about 7.30 p.m., the accused respondents armed with lathis, Farsas and Kattas beaten the complainant Narpat Gurjar. 3. Upon the said report the police registered a case No. 355/92 under Sections 147,149, 323, 341 and 307 IPC. Thereafter challan was submitted for the offences indicated hereinabove. The learned trial court framed charges against the accused respondents under Sections 147, 323, 341, 325/149 IPC. The charges were read over and explained to the accused respondents, who denied the same and demanded for trial. 4. Thereafter the prosecution in its support produced as many as 11 witnesses and got exhibited some documents. Thereafter the statements under Section 313 Cr.RC. were recorded. On the other hand, 3 defence witnesses were also produced. 5. After hearing both the sides, the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate No. 1, Bharatpur by his order dated 03.08.1998 acquitted the accused respondents from the charges against them. 6. Against the aforesaid order and judgment, the State of Rajasthan has preferred this appeal. 7. In this appeal the learned Public Prosecutor Mr. B.N. Sandhu has urged to this court that the learned trial court has not believed the statements of the prosecution properly. He has further contended that the statement of P.W. 1 Padam and RW. 2 Shibbo, by which the offence of the accused respondents is well-proved, were not considered by the learned trial court. 8. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents Mr. Ramratan has contended that the trial court has rightly appreciated the evidence of the prosecution witnesses and the statements of the prosecution witnesses are contradictory from each other. He has further contended that the accused respondents are facing trial from last 20 years, which tantamounts to a punishment. He has drawn the attention of the court to the statement of the RW. 1, who is an eye-witness and star witness of the prosecution, who has been declared hostile. He has also relied upon the case of Umrao v. State of Haryana & Ors., reported in SCC 2006 Vol. He has drawn the attention of the court to the statement of the RW. 1, who is an eye-witness and star witness of the prosecution, who has been declared hostile. He has also relied upon the case of Umrao v. State of Haryana & Ors., reported in SCC 2006 Vol. 10 Page 136 in which the Lordships of the Supreme Court have observed in para 26 that: "It is now well settled that if two views are possible, the appellate court should not interfere with the judgment of acquittal passed by the court below." 9. Learned counsel for the accused respondents has lastly contended that the offences are bailable. 10. Considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and considering the judgment cited above, I do not want to interfere with the order and judgment passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate No. 1, Bharatpur. 11. Accordingly, this appeal filed by the State of Rajasthan is dismissed and the order and judgment passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate No. 1, Bharatpur dated 03.08.1998 is confirmed. If the accused respondents are on bail, they need not surrender before the court and their bail bonds shall stand discharged.Appeal dismissed. *******