Judgment ( 1. ) STATE of Madhya Pradesh has preferred this appeal challenging the order of acquittal of respondents under Section 325 of IPC passed by Judicial Magistrate First Class, Banda, District sagar in Criminal Case No. 527/94. ( 2. ) RESPONDENTS were tried for the offence under Section 325/34 of IPC before Judicial Magistrate First Class, Banda District sagar. As per prosecution allegations, respondents and complainant Jagrani had adjacent houses in the village Chhapri. There was a dispute of wall between them. On 12. 10. 94 about 9 oclock in the morning, Respondent Jhalkhan was trying to build a wall over the land of complainant Jagrani despite her objections. When complainant Jagrani tried to prevent the building of wall, the three respondents emerged there with axe and lathi and began assaulting Jagrani. Respondent Nandkishore gave an axe blow on the scalp of Jagrani, while Jhalkhan gave a lathi blow on her right hand and the third respondent Prahlad gave repeated blows on her back, as a result of which, complainant Jagrani sustained several injuries including fracture in her right radius ulna bones. When her husband Kanchedi and son Pooranlal came to her rescue, respondents began assaulting them and caused hurt to them as well. The FIR of the incident was lodged by Jagrani at Police station Banda, on the basis of which an offence was registered against the respondents and was investigated. Complainant jagrani, her son Pooranlal and husband Kanchedi were sent for medical examination. After due investigation, respondents were prosecuted under Section 324, 325, 323/34 of IPC and put to trial. ( 3. ) RESPONDENTS denied the charges framed against them under Section 325/34 of IPC and pleaded false implication. ( 4. ) AFTER trial and upon appreciation of the evidence adduced in the case, learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Banda came to hold that causing grievous hurt to Jagrani, by the respondents was not proved by the evidence on record beyond doubt and therefore, acquitted them of the charge under Section 325/34 of IPC; however, finding them guilty for causing simple hurt to Jagrani, Pooranlal and Kanchedi, convicted the respondents under Section 323/34 of IPC, sentenced them to fine of Rs. 400/-each under Section 323 of IPC, and Rs. 100/- each under Section 323/34 of IPC by the impugned judgment. ( 5. 400/-each under Section 323 of IPC, and Rs. 100/- each under Section 323/34 of IPC by the impugned judgment. ( 5. ) LEARNED counsel for the appellant/state submitted that trial court erroneously acquitted the respondents under section 325/34 of IPC when there was bulk of evidence in this behalf coupled with the medical evidence of Dr. B. S. Tomar (P. W-7) that Jagrani had sustained fracture in her right radius ulna bones vide X-ray report (Ex. P-9 ). ( 6. ) RECORD of the lower court is perused. Respondents were already convicted under Section 323/34 of IPC for causing simple hurt to Jagrani, Pooranlal and Kanchedi; there was no charge under Section 324 of IPC against the respondents; as such challenge to their acquittal under Section 324, 323 of IPC as mentioned in the memo of appeal was uncalled for. ( 7. ) AS regards the question of causing grievous hurt to jagrani by way of fracture in her right hand by the respondents, no doubt there was evidence of Dr. B. S. Tomar (P. W-7) on record that upon X-ray examination of the right forearm of injured Jagrani fracture in her radius and ulna bones was detected; but the trial court has assigned reasons of acquittal of the respondents under section 325/34 of IPC in para 25 of the impugned judgment. As mentioned in the impugned judgment, complainant Jagrani (P. W-1)admitted in her cross-examination that she fell down as a result of blows. She also admitted that stones were lying there and she had fallen with all force on her hand. Her husband Kanchedi (P. W-2)also admitted that his wife Jagrani had fallen down in the incident where stones etc. were lying. Dr B. S. Tomar (P. W-7) also stated in his cross-examination that the fracture of Jagrani could have been caused by fall on the stones. In view of these facts, as appearing in the evidence on record, the possibility of Jagrani sustaining a fracture in her hand by falling on the stone could not have been ruled out. ( 8. ) BE that as it may, the view taken by the trial court in this behalf is reasonably possible view and is not perverse. It is well settled, as reiterated by the Apex court in the case of shingara Singh Vs. ( 8. ) BE that as it may, the view taken by the trial court in this behalf is reasonably possible view and is not perverse. It is well settled, as reiterated by the Apex court in the case of shingara Singh Vs. State of Haryana and another reported in AIR 2004 Supreme Court page 124 that where two views are possible on the basis of the evidence on record, the view which favours the accused must be adopted, and in appeal against acquittal if the view of the trial court is a possible reasonable view based on the evidence on record, interference in the order of acquittal is not justified. ( 9. ) IN view of the forgoing discussion, no interference in the order of acquittal of respondents under Section 325/34 of IPC is warranted in the instant appeal against acquittal preferred by the state. The appeal being devoid of merit is hereby dismissed.