JUDGMENT : The prosecution story in brief is that the animals of the accused persons used to enter into the field of complainant and destroy the crops on 23.8.1991 at about 3-4 PM. The animals of accused persons were destroying the crops of complainant Munna. PW4. by entering into his field. When the father of complainant, Battu and brother Rajju complained to the accused Sitaram and Vishnu about this incident, the acused persons abused and assaulted them with lathi. Accused Vishnu inflicted lathi blow on right arm of Munna. Then accused Kuddu inflicted another lathi blow on the head due to which swelling came on the head and hand of Munna. Accused Sitram assaulted Battu. PW9. and Rajju, father and brother of the complainant on the next day complainant Munna lodged report. ExP/8. against the accused persons. Complainant Munna and Rajju were sent for medical examination. The doctor had advised them for x-ray. On the basis of the medical and the X-ray report a case was registered for the offence punishable under Section 323 and 325/ 34 of IPC against the respondents and other accused persons at Police Station. The police took cognizance of the matter, prepared the map of the spot. Recorded the statements of witnesses and arrested the accused persons after completing the investigation. Charge -sheet was filed in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Damoh. The accused persons abjured the guilt and pleaded innocence. The prosecution examined ten witnesses and the respondents examined one witness in their defence. After appreciating the evidence the Judicial Magistrate Class I convicted accused Sitaram under section 325 I.P.C. and sentenced to suffer S.I. for six months and fine of Rs. 200/ on two counts and under section 323 1.P.C. and sentenced to suffer S.I, for 3 months and fine of Rs. 100. The trial court further convicted accused Vishnu under section 325 I.P.C. and sentenced to suffers. S.I. for six months and fine of Rs. 200/- on two counts under section 323 I.P.C. and sentenced to suffer S.I. for 1 months and fine of Rs. 100. Being aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and sentence the respondents accused preferred appeal before the Court of Session. Damoh. S.I. for six months and fine of Rs. 200/- on two counts under section 323 I.P.C. and sentenced to suffer S.I. for 1 months and fine of Rs. 100. Being aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and sentence the respondents accused preferred appeal before the Court of Session. Damoh. The learned Sessions Judge after appreciating the evidence on record did not find the respondents and other accused persons guilty under Sections 323 and 325/34 of IPC and acquitted them from the charges levelled against them. Being aggrieved by the impugned judgment of acquittal the instant appeal has been preferred by the States of Madhya Pradesh after taking leave from this Court on the grounds mentioned in the memo of appeal. Shri Puneet Shroti learned Panel Lawyer appearing on behalf of the State submitted that the Sessions Court did not appreciates the evidence in proper perspective. The prosecution proved that respondents and other accused persons had caused injuries to complainant Munna. Therefore, the finding of acquittal is erroneous and deserves to be set aside. He prayed that the respondents should be punished. On the contrary, Shri Mukesh Pandey, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the prosecution failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt against the respondents. The Sessions Court righty acquitted them from the aforesaid charges. Hence no interference is called for. The main point for consideration by this Court is that whether the trial Court committd any error in acquitting the respondents from the charges under Sections 323 and 325 of the IPC ? PW5 Dr. J.P. Khare examined complainant Munna. PW4. and found following injuries :- (i) bruse 2” x 1 ½ on upon outer part of right arm transversely by blunt object simple in a nature. (ii) Bruse with swelling 4x 1 ½ on posterior middle part of right forearm by blunt object advised x -ray to exclude any bony region. He further examined Battu PW9. and found following injuries – (i) Bruise 2 ½ x 1 ½ on upper posterior part of right forearm obliquely by blunt object, simple in nature, (ii) Bruise 3 ½ x 1 ½ on left hip obliquely by blunt object simple. He also examined Rajju PW1, and found following injuries - (i) abrasion 1” x 1” on right shoulder by rough object, simple. He also examined Rajju PW1, and found following injuries - (i) abrasion 1” x 1” on right shoulder by rough object, simple. (ii) abrasion 1” x 1” on left shoulder by rough object simple, (iii) Swelling 2 ½ x 2” on dorsum of right palm by blunt object. Advised x-ray right palm to exclude any bony region. Complainant Munna PW4 Stated that when he was going to his field he saw that the cattle on Sitram were grazing in his field. He was going to Kanji House with cattle. Reapondents Vishnu and Sitram armed with lathi met him. Vishnu inflicted injury on his left hand and Sitaram inflicted injury on his head. He became unconscious. He also stated that respondents also beat Battu and Rajju Makkhu and Hari saw the incident. Next day he lodged the report Police sent him for medical examination. He proved the spot map. Ex P/2. Rajju Kumhar PW1 supported the statement of complainant Munna, PW4. and stated that Sitaram's cattle entered the field of Munna. There after, Munna was going to Kanji House with catle near Kanji House accused persons had stopped Munna and beat him by lathi. At that time he was in his home. Villagers narrated that accused persons were beating Munna therefore, he went there with his father to protect Munna but accused persons beat him on the way. Accused Vishnu inflicted injury on his right hand which got fractured. Three other accused persons also beat him by lathi on his back and shoulders. They also beat his father by lathi. Battulal PW9. supported the statements of complainant Munna PW4 and Rajju PW1 and stated that he was going with cattle on the way accused persons quarreled with him. Sitaram beat him by lathi. He inflicted injury on his both hands Accused Vishnu also beat him. He further stated that no other person beat him. Munna PW4, stated that after injury he became unconscious but in his police statement, Ex D/3, such fact was not mentioned in his cross examination he admitted that he did not state that @ Hindi @ in his police statement, Ex D/3. Therefore there are contradictions and omissions in the said statements made to police and the Court. Rajju Kumar PW1 clearly stated that he did not see the incident. Therefore there are contradictions and omissions in the said statements made to police and the Court. Rajju Kumar PW1 clearly stated that he did not see the incident. On perusal of entire statements of Battu and Rajju, it appears that they did not see the incident. FIR was lodged after the delay of one day which was not explained satisfactorily. Complainant Munna, Rajju and Battu were medically examined after two days of the incident. Such delay was also not explained in a satisfactory manner. Considering the said infirmities in the prosecution case, it is found that the prosecution has failed to establish the guilt beyond reasonable doubt against the respondents. The trail Court has appreciated the evidence properly and rightly acquitted the respondents / accused. The view taken by the trial Court is reasonable. It is established principle of law that when two views are possible then the view taken by the trial Court should be accepted in the case of M.S. Narayan Menon vs. State of Kerala. (2006) 6 SCC 39 , the Apex Court has held thus:- 54 in any event the High Court entertained an appeal treating to be an appeal against acquittal. It was in fact exercising the revisional jurisdiction. Even while exercising an appellate power against a judgment of acquittal, the High Court should have borne in mind the well-settled principles of law that where two views are possible the appellate Court should not interfere in the finding of acquittal recorded by the Court below. Since no infirmity is found in the impugned judgment of acquittal passed by the Court, therefore, it is maintained. This appeal has no merits, therefore it is dismissed.