JUDGMENT : Rajiv Sharma, J. The State has come in appeal against the judgment, dated 30th January, 2006, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Court No. 2, Paonta Sahib, District Sirmaur, H.P., in Criminal Case No. 16/2 of 2002, whereby the respondent, who was charged with and tried for the offences punishable under Sections 354, 323 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, has been acquitted. 2. Case of the prosecution, in a nut shell, is that the complainant-prosecutrix is resident of Village Nawna Bhatwar. She is married to one Shri Deep Chand. On 26th March, 2002, at about 12.00 noon, after completion of household work, the prosecutrix went with her sister-in-law, Santosh (PW2) in Baas Manari for grazing animals and cutting grass from the ghasni. Her sister-in-law went for grazing animals and she went to ghasni to cut grass. At about 3.30/4.00 p.m., the accused, who was also cutting grass, came near to her and started obscene acts. When she objected to the same, the accused threw her in the bushes and scuffle took place. Her golden ear ring, nose pin and sliver ring went missing. Her clothes were also torn. She suffered injuries on her back. The complainant-prosecutrix cried for help. On hearing her cries, her sister-in-law reached on the spot. Thereafter, the accused ran away from the spot. 3. On the basis of the complaint, FIR, Ex. PW1/A, was registered. The complainant was got medically examined vide MLC, Ex. PW5/A. Spot map, Ex. PW4/A, was prepared. Torn clothes of the complainant were taken into possession. Thereafter, the matter was investigated by the police. The challan was put up after completing the codal formalities. 4. The prosecution has examined five witnesses. The accused was also examined under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. He pleaded innocence. The accused has examined two witnesses in his defence. The learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class acquitted the accused-respondent on 30th January, 2006. Hence, this appeal. 5. Mr. Pramod Thakur, learned Additional Advocate General, has vehemently argued that the prosecution has proved its case against the accused. 6. Ms. Jyotsna Rewal Dua, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent-accused, has supported the judgment of acquittal, dated 30th January, 2006. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record carefully. 8. 5. Mr. Pramod Thakur, learned Additional Advocate General, has vehemently argued that the prosecution has proved its case against the accused. 6. Ms. Jyotsna Rewal Dua, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent-accused, has supported the judgment of acquittal, dated 30th January, 2006. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record carefully. 8. PW1, complainant-prosecutrix, has deposed that on 26th March, 2002, she went to cut grass from her baas situate near Tonsh River. According to her, she was all alone when she was cutting grass. At about 3.00/4.00 p.m., accused came and attacked her. He tore her clothes. He also caught her from her waist. Thereafter, scuffle took place in which her ear rings and nose pin went missing. She felt ashamed. She raised hue and cry. On hearing her cries, her sister-in-law, Santosh (PW2), reached the spot. She has suffered injuries on her back. Thereafter, the accused ran away from the spot. She lodged FIR, Ex. PW1/A. 9. PW2, Santosh, is the sister-in-law of the prosecutrix (PW1). She deposed that on 26th March, 2002, she has gone to Manari for grazing the cattle. Her sister-in-law (PW1) also went to Manari to cut grass. According to her, at about 3.30 p.m., she heard the cries of the prosecutrix. She reached the spot where a scuffle was taking place between the accused and her sister-in-law. The accused has torn the clothes of her sister-in-law and has thrown her down. She has suffered injuries. Thereafter, they came back. In her cross-examination, PW2 has testified that she alongwith her sister-in-law left for baas. 10. PW3, Dongu Ram, is the father-in-law of the prosecutrix. According to him, husband of the prosecutrix is working as labourer in Shimla. His daughter-in-law has gone to Manari to cut grass and his daughter has gone to Manari to graze the cattle. Both of them came at 6.30 p.m. and narrated the incident to him. 11. PW4, ASI Jagpal Singh, was the investigating officer. In his cross-examination, he has deposed that Santosh (PW2) has told that she and her sister-in-law together have gone to fetch grass. 12. PW5, Dr. Paramjit Lal, has issued MLC, Ex. PW5/A. In his cross-examination, he has admitted that if a lady falls while cutting grass in a hilly terrain, she may suffer the injuries received by the complainant-prosecutrix. In his cross-examination, he has deposed that Santosh (PW2) has told that she and her sister-in-law together have gone to fetch grass. 12. PW5, Dr. Paramjit Lal, has issued MLC, Ex. PW5/A. In his cross-examination, he has admitted that if a lady falls while cutting grass in a hilly terrain, she may suffer the injuries received by the complainant-prosecutrix. According to him, there were thin hair line abrasions on the back of her person and there was no mark of bleeding. The injury was simple in nature caused with blunt weapon. The probable duration of injuries was six to ten hours. 13. There are material contradictions in the statements of PW1, PW2 and PW3 regarding the manner in which the incident took place. As per FIR, Ex. PW1/A, the complainant (PW1) has gone with her sister-in-law (PW2) to cut grass at Baas Manari. However, while appearing in the Court, she has deposed that she has gone to Baas Manari all alone. PW2 has deposed that she and her sister-in-law have gone together to Baas Manari. PW3 has also deposed that PW1 and PW2 have gone together to cut the grass. 14. The complainant has not deposed that the accused has tried to outrage her modesty. She has only deposed that she was attacked and accused has torn her clothes and, thereafter, scuffle took place. The torn clothes were recovered but the witnesses who have signed on the recovery memo are closely related to the complainant party. 15. DW1, Dongu Ram, has deposed that there is a litigation going on between the complainant's family and accused. 16. DW2, Mali Ram, has deposed that his land is also situate near the place where the incident has taken place. During the day time, he remains on his baas. He has not heard any cries. 17. PW4, Jaspal Singh, has also deposed that PW2 has told him that the prosecutrix has gone with her to cut the grass. 18. It is in view of the major contradictions in the statements of PW1, PW2 and PW3, the version of prosecution cannot be believed. Further, there is a litigation going on between the families of the complainant and the accused. 19. The doctor, who has examined the complainant, was examined as PW5. According to him, the injuries sustained by the complainant were simple in nature. Further, there is a litigation going on between the families of the complainant and the accused. 19. The doctor, who has examined the complainant, was examined as PW5. According to him, the injuries sustained by the complainant were simple in nature. There was no bleeding and the injuries received by her could be sustained if she had fallen while cutting grass in a hilly terrain. 20. Therefore, the prosecution has failed to prove the case against the accused person beyond reasonable doubt. Hence, this Court will not interfere with the judgment of the learned trial Court. 21. Accordingly, there is no merit in this appeal and the same is dismissed. Bail bonds are ordered to be discharged.