JUDGMENT SURINDER SINGH, J. Heard and gone through the record. 2. In short, the prosecution story can be stated thus. Respondent-accused Sachin Kumar is the son of co-accused Kishori Lal, a real brother of complainant Manohar Lal. Both the parties were residing in the same house, in the separated portions, but were having landed dispute inter se them, which was existing for the last couple of years. 3. Manohar Lal had already moved an application to the police regarding breach of peace being caused by the respondents. There had been sporadic incidents of quarrel inter se them, which were compromised before the local Panchayat. 4. It is alleged that on 29.10.2004, respondent Sachin Kumar came armed with ‘Drat’ and ‘Danda’ in his hands, hurled abuses to PW1 complainant Manohar Lal in the presence of ward-member Kuldip Kumar, who happened to be there. He also pelted stone, however, it missed the target. This necessitated the complainant to make a complaint to the Panchayat. Further on 2.11.2004 in the morning again Sachin Kumar is alleged to have come with a ‘Danda’ and ‘Drat’ in his hands. He started abusing the complainant. On this, the complainant made a complaint to police in writing. When police reached there, he fled-away from the spot. When the police had gone back, again on the same day Sachin Kumar is alleged to have come armed with ‘Danda’ and ‘Drat’, entered the house of the complainant, broke the household articles including television, plastic chairs, mirror of Godrej Almirah and threatened Manohar Lal. On account of fear that the accused may not do away his life, the complainant fled-away. Thereafter respondentaccused Sachin Kumar went to the backside of his house, started beating his three goats (bucks) with a ‘Danda’, out of which two succumbed to the injuries on the spot and one got bodily injured. The said incident is alleged to have witnessed by Kuldip Kumar Ward-Member, Surinder Singh, BDC Member, Arjun Singh, Jharu Ram, Pawan Kumar and Vijay. 5. The matter regarding the incident was telephonically informed to police. On the statement of the complainant Ext.PW1/A, formal FIR Ext.PW9/A was registered against Sachin Kumar and his father Kishori Lal. The said incident is alleged to have witnessed by Kuldip Kumar Ward-Member, Surinder Singh, BDC Member, Arjun Singh, Jharu Ram, Pawan Kumar and Vijay. 5. The matter regarding the incident was telephonically informed to police. On the statement of the complainant Ext.PW1/A, formal FIR Ext.PW9/A was registered against Sachin Kumar and his father Kishori Lal. The Investigating Officer prepared the site plan Ext.PW9/C. Sachin Kumar accused also produced ‘Drat’ Ext.P1 and ‘Danda’ Ext.P2, which were taken into possession vide memo Ext.PW1/B. Police also took into possession the broken television, broken mirror and pieces of plastic chair in the presence of witnesses vide memo Ext.PW7/A. The photographs of the place of incident were also taken. These are Exts.PW10/1 to PW10/8. The injured goat as well as two dead goats were got medically examined and the autopsy of dead goats was performed by the Veterinary Doctor. In his opinion, two goats had died because of damage caused to their vital organs and another was injured because of beating. The reports are Exts.PW2/A to PW2/C. 6. After recording the statements of the witnesses and getting the report of medical examinations from the Veterinary doctor, Challan was presented in the Court for the trial of the accused persons. Accused Kishori Lal was granted bail during the trial, whereas accused Sachin Kumar remained in custody till its termination. 7. The accused persons were charged-sheeted for the offences punishable under Sections 451, 427, 429 and 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The charges were denied by the respondents. They pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 8. To prove its case, prosecution examined its witnesses and the accused were also examined under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Code. Their case was denial simplictor. At the end of trial, the accused persons were acquitted on the grounds that there is delay in lodging the FIR and on material contradictions appearing in the prosecution witnesses. 9. On the reappraisal of evidence on record, I do find some glaring contradictions in the statements of the prosecution witnesses coupled with the vital fact that the complainant as well as the accused persons were in litigation with each other for couple of years, which ultimately led the parties to lodge complaints and also to the Panchayat for the redressal of their respective grievances. It appears that accused Sachin Kumar was of a tender age in early twenties, who appears to have become adamant because of frequent complaints against him and his family members and he might be causing some trouble to the complainant which necessitated the complainant to file the complaint against him before the Panchayat as well as to the police regarding the apprehension of breach of peace. 10. On the re-examination of the evidence on the record, I do not find even an iota of evidence against accused Kishori Lal, the father of Sachin Kumar. There is only a fleeting reference in the statement of one of the witnesses that he happened to be present when the police already arrived at the spot, but no overact has been attributed to him. The complainant only alleged against Sachin Kumar that on both the occasions, i.e., on 29.10.2004 and 2.11.2004, he had come to his residence arrived with Danda and Drat, hurled abuses and ultimately on 2.11.2004 caused damage to the property inside the room of his house. 11. In his statement, the complainant PW1 Manohar Lal alleged the presence of Kuldip Kumar, Ward-Member, Surinder Singh BDC Member, Arjun Singh, Parshotam, Desj Raj, Pawan Kumar and Vijay etc. and having witnessed the incident, but during trial, they only stated that before their arrival though accused Sachin Kumar had broken the household articles of the complainant, but did not say it was done in their presence even later they did no say that he was having a ‘Drat’ with him. Further, there is nothing on record to show that on 29.10.2004 complainant had also made a complaint to the police with respect to the hurling of abuses by accused Sachin Kumar as alleged by the complainant. 12. Further, the FIR Ext.PW9/A in the instant case, was lodged on 2.11.2004 that with respect to the alleged offence alleged to have been committed by him on 29.10.2004 without explaining any delay. On the same day i.e. 2.11.2004, accused Sachin Kumar was arrested. Kishori Lal, as stated above, was granted bail, but Sachin Kumar remained in custody till termination of trial. The complainant’s version of alleged incident also gets stranded by suspicion as he stated in the cross-examination that when the police had arrived the spot Sachin Kumar had even man-handled the police personnel, whereas none of the police personnel had substantiated this fact. The complainant’s version of alleged incident also gets stranded by suspicion as he stated in the cross-examination that when the police had arrived the spot Sachin Kumar had even man-handled the police personnel, whereas none of the police personnel had substantiated this fact. Also in his statement before the Court, complainant PW1 Manohar Lal stated that the goats were tethered in the cowshed where they were beaten to death, whereas the witnesses stated that the goats were in the open and not in the cowshed. PW5 Satya Devi is the wife of complainant Manohar Lal. She stated in cross-examination that the goats were tied outside the cowshed. Therefore, there are material contradictions in her statement and in the statement of the complainant which necessitated this Court to closely examine the other evidence on record. Even PW3 Kuldip Kumar in cross-examination stated that the dead goats were lying in the field and this fact also finds mentioned in the site plan Ext.PW9/C prepared by the police. This statement of the witness that the goats were beaten to death in the cowshed is in variation to the depositions of other witnesses and there is nothing on record to show as to how they reached the field. The recovery of the ‘Danda’ and ‘Drat’ is of formal nature which does not improve prosecution case in any manner. Keeping in view, no previous litigation which caused bad-blood might have necessitated the complainant to lodge FIR on 2.11.2004 wherein accused Sachin Kumar and his father were roped in the incident. The incident which is alleged to have taken place on 29.10.2004 is also doubtful, thus embellishment, contradiction and improvement shatters the prosecution case. 13. In nutshell, on the scrutiny of the evidence aforesaid, in my opinion, the prosecution case is not proved beyond doubt. As such, the findings of acquittal recorded by the learned trial Court are borne out from the record, which cannot be said to be perverse. Therefore, it cannot be faulted with. The appeal filed by the State deserves to be dismissed, as such it is dismissed. 14. The respondents are discharged of their bail bonds entered upon by them at any stage during the proceedings of this case.