JUDGMENT Rajiv Sharma, Judge. The State has filed this appeal against the judgment, dated 7th November, 2005, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, H.P., in Criminal Case No. 205/2 of 1996, whereby the respondents, who were charged with and tried for the offences punishable under Sections 148, 149, 323 and 324 of the Indian Penal Code, have been acquitted. 2. Case of the prosecution, in a nut shell, is that in the morning of 6th May, 1996, at about 7.00 a.m., when the complainant (PW­1), Prem Lal alongwith his brother, Hari Ram (PW­2), was ploughing their fields, accused persons, namely Dev Raj, Hakim Chand, Chinti Devi, Jaggi, Nikki Devi and Tulsi Ram, came on the spot. They asked them why they have picked up logs of Tuhni from the fields. When the complainant­Prem Lal was discussing the matter, all of a sudden, the accused persons started pelting stones upon them. Accused­Tulsi Ram gave beating by danda on his forehead and blood started oozing out. He fell down and sustained injuries on his leg and feet. PW­2, Hari Ram, received injuries on his right hand, knee and right arm. Thereafter, at about 9.30 a.m., when Kanshi Ram, the cousin of the complainant, reached at Rani Kotla School, accused­Dev Raj caught hold of him and started beating him with danda. Accused­Sada Ram, Jaggi and Hakim Chand gave beatings to him by kicks and fist blows and snatched his wrist watch and ‘ 2540 / ­ from his pocket. He was rescued by Lekh Ram, Nikku Ram, Thakur, Mast Ram, Paras Ram and Raju. He sustained injuries on his left shoulder, left arm, right hand little finger, thumb and elbow. 3. On the basis of the complaint lodged by PW­1, Prem Lal, FIR, Ex. PW­ 1/A, was registered. The matter was investigated by the police. The police took into possession the stones, danda and bha rota. The complainant party was got medically examined and their MLCs and x­ray reports were obtained. During the course of the investigation, it was found that the wrist watch was returned to Kanshi Ram. The challan was put up after completing the codal formalities. 4.The prosecution has examined ten witnesses. The accused persons were also examined under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. They denied the incident. The learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class acquitted the accused­ respondents on 7th November, 2005. The challan was put up after completing the codal formalities. 4.The prosecution has examined ten witnesses. The accused persons were also examined under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. They denied the incident. The learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class acquitted the accused­ respondents on 7th November, 2005. Hence, this appeal. 5.Mr. Neeraj K. Sharma, learned Deputy Advocate General, has vehemently argued that the prosecution has proved its case against the accused. 6. Mr. Dinesh Kumar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents­accused, has supported the judgment of acquittal, dated 7th November, 2005. 7.I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record carefully. 8. PW­1, Shri Prem Lal, is the complainant. He has deposed that at 7.30 a.m., he alongwith his brother, Hari Ram, was ploughing their fields. In the meantime, Dev Raj, Tulsi Ram, Chinta Devi, Nikki Devi, Jaggi and Hakim reached there armed with sticks and they attacked them. Tulsi Ram hurled a stone on him. It struck him on his head. Hari Ram also received injuries. He received injuries on left leg, head and various parts of the body. Hari Ram (PW­2) received injuries on his hand. According to him, at about 9.30 a.m., his cousin, Kanshi Ram, was standing on the road. He was caught hold by the accused and he was beaten up with sticks and a sum of ‘ 2540/­ was also stolen alongwith the watch. PW­1 has admitted, in his cross examination, that about the same incident, a cross case was also under consideration of the Court. According to him, the fight took place for about 10­15 minutes. He has also admitted that regarding the tuhni tree, there was earlier also a dispute. 9. PW­2, Hari Ram, has deposed that they were ploughing their fields. The accused persons reached on the spot with sticks and they attacked them with sticks and stones. According to him, he was hit on head by Tulsi Ram. In his examination­in­chief, he has also deposed that Kanshi Ram was also beaten up and a sum of ‘ 2540/­ was stolen from his pocket. In his cross­examination, he has also admitted that the area in the vicinity of tuhni tree in the demarcation came in the share of accused persons. 10. PW­3, Roda Ram, has deposed that bamboo stick and stone were taken into possession vide seizure memo, Ex. In his cross­examination, he has also admitted that the area in the vicinity of tuhni tree in the demarcation came in the share of accused persons. 10. PW­3, Roda Ram, has deposed that bamboo stick and stone were taken into possession vide seizure memo, Ex. PW­2/A. According to him, Ex. P­1 is bamboo stick, stone is Ex. P­2 and bharota is Ex. P­3. According to him, he alongwith Govindu has signed the seizure memo. 11. PW­4, Budhi Ram, has deposed that on 06.05.1996, he was going with his wife to meet his daughter. A fight was taking place near the house of the accused persons. The accused persons have attacked Prem Lal (PW­1) and Hari Ram (PW­2) with sticks and stones. PW­ 1, Prem Lal, was hit by Tulsi Ram with a stone on his head. PW­2, Hari Ram, has also sustained injuries on his hand. PW­4 has admitted, in his cross­examination, that in another case, titled State versus Prem Lal, he was also accused and the same was under consideration of the Court. 12. PW­5, Thakur Dass, has deposed that Kansi Ram was manhandled by the accused persons and watch and money were not snatched in his presence. 13. PW­6, Raj Kumar, has deposed that he knew Kanshi Ram, Prem Lal and Chinta Devi. They belong to the same village. According to him, no beatings were given by the accused persons. He was declared hostile. 14. PW­8, Dr. S.P. Dhiman, has issued MLCs, Ex. PW­8/A qua Hari Ram, Ex. PW­8/B qua Prem Lal and Ex. PW­8/C qua Kanshi Ram. In his cross­examination, he has testified that the sharp injury could not be caused with Ex. P­1 and P­2. He has given his final opinion after receiving the x­ray report from District Hospital, Bilaspur. 15. PW­9, Lekh Ram, deposed that he was going to the shop. He saw the accused persons beating Kanshi Ram. He has admitted that he is also one of the accused in a case registered by one of the accused­Chinta Devi, titled State versus Prem Lal. 16.PW­10, HC Mahinder Singh, has investigated the matter. He has taken into possession the stick, stone and bha rota vide Ex. P­1 to P­3, vide seizure memo Ex. PW­2/A. 17.This is the entire evidence led by the prosecution. According to FIR, Ex. PW­1/A, Prem Lal was hit by bamboo stick by one of the accused, Tulsi Ram. 16.PW­10, HC Mahinder Singh, has investigated the matter. He has taken into possession the stick, stone and bha rota vide Ex. P­1 to P­3, vide seizure memo Ex. PW­2/A. 17.This is the entire evidence led by the prosecution. According to FIR, Ex. PW­1/A, Prem Lal was hit by bamboo stick by one of the accused, Tulsi Ram. However, while Prem Lal has appeared in the Court as PW­1, he has stated that he was hit by a stone hurled by accused, Tulsi Ram. According to the statements of the prosecution witnesses, Kanshi Ram was also administered beatings by the accused persons. However, Kanshi Ram has not been cited as a witness. 18. PW­1 and PW­2 have categorically admitted that a cross case was also filed by the accused persons against them, titled State versus Prem Lal. It has also come on the record that according to the demarcation report, the disputed land fall in the share of the accused persons. According to PW­4 also, Prem Lal and Hari Ram were hit by the accused persons with sticks and stones. However, it is at variance with the contents of the FIR, Ex. PW­ 1/A. PW­4, Budhi Ram, was one of the accused in case, titled State versus Prem Lal. PW­9, Lekh Ram, was also one of the accused in case titled State versus Prem Lal. 19.It is not clear whether the accused were the aggressor or the complainant party were the aggressor. The incident has happened over a tuhni tree. According to the accused persons, the tuhni tree was removed by the complainant party. It is re­iterated that according to the demarcation report, the tuhni tree fell in the possession of accused persons. There is litigation going on between the parties. It has come in the statement of PW­8, Dr. S.P. Dhiman, that the sharp injuries could not be caused with Ex. P­1 and P­2. 20. It has also come in the statement of PW­10, HC Mahinder Singh, that a cross case has been registered by the accused persons against the complainant party. He has also admitted that he has not got the land demarcated from the Patwari or Kanoongo. PW­10 has also admitted that Ex. P­1 to P­3 were handed over to the police by one of the brother of the complainant. As per Ex. He has also admitted that he has not got the land demarcated from the Patwari or Kanoongo. PW­10 has also admitted that Ex. P­1 to P­3 were handed over to the police by one of the brother of the complainant. As per Ex. PW­2/A, bharota, bamboo stick and stones were kept by Hari Ram and were handed over to the police. It has not come in the evidence of any of the witnesses produced by the prosecution that the accused have left behind the bharota and bamboo stick. 21.Accordingly, the prosecution has failed to prove the case against the accused persons beyond reasonable doubt. Therefore, this Court will not interfere with the judgment of the learned trial Court. 22. Accordingly, there is no merit in this appeal and the same is dismissed. Bail bonds are ordered to be discharged.