JUDGMENT 1. Heard on admission. 2. The State has preferred the present appeal against the judgment dated 12.10.2011 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chhatarpur in criminal case No.1529/2010, whereby the respondent was acquitted from the charges of offence punishable under sections 354, 506B, 323 of IPC. 3. The facts of the case, in short, are that, on 17.9.2010, at about 11.30 a.m., the prosecutrix (PW 1) was coming back from her field, situated at village Pur, Police Station Maharajpur, District Chhatarpur. The respondent came from back and held her hand with bad intention. On her shouting, her brother-in-law Hargovind came to the spot and therefore, the respondent ran away. The prosecutrix had lodged an FIR on the same day within 3 hours. She was sent for her medico legal examination and thereafter, the charge-sheet was filed. 4. The respondent abjured his guilt. No specific plea has been taken by him and therefore, no defence evidence was adduced. 5. After considering the prosecution’s evidence, the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chhatarpur acquitted the respondent. 6. After considering the submissions made by the learned Panel Lawyer and evidence adduced before the trial Court, it appears that Hargovind (PW 4) brother-in-law of the prosecutrix has turned hostile. He has stated that a quarrel took place between the prosecutrix and the respondent because the prosecutrix removed some grass from the field of the respondent. Though it was mentioned in the FIR, Ex.P/1 that Hargovind came to the spot, therefore, the respondent ran away but, the prosecutrix has stated that on her shouting, no one came to the spot. If she was all alone then, she could not be prevented from the respondent. It was not possible for the prosecutrix to rescue herself from the respondent and the respondent would have committed rape upon the prosecutrix, if he had any bad intention. It is alleged by the prosecutrix that the respondent held her hand. Nothing more has been done by the respondent, whereas the prosecutrix complaint about pain in her back before Dr. Jagdish Prajapati (PW 6). She did not make any allegation in the FIR that by holding the hands, some of her bangles were broken or she sustained injury due to broken of such bangles. Doctor found a superficial abrasion on her left wrist. Jagdish Prajapati (PW 6). She did not make any allegation in the FIR that by holding the hands, some of her bangles were broken or she sustained injury due to broken of such bangles. Doctor found a superficial abrasion on her left wrist. The size of the abrasion was not mentioned by the doctor and therefore, it cannot be said that it was caused due to breaking of bangles. Under such circumstances, the medical report is not according to the facts alleged by the prosecutrix and therefore, looking to the medical report, it appears that a quarrel took place between the respondent and the prosecutrix and therefore, the version as mentioned by the witness Hargovind appears to be correct. Lalli (PW 2) and Baladeen (PW 3) were the witnesses to whom the prosecutrix informed about the incident. Baladeen has accepted in his cross-examination that there was a dispute of Mend between the respondent and Baladeen and the prosecutrix was sister-in-law of the prosecutrix. Under such circumstances, prima facie it appears that the respondent was falsely implicated in the matter of offence under section 354 of IPC. The trial Court has rightly acquitted the respondent from the charges of offence punishable under section 354 of IPC. 7. The prosecutrix did not mention about any threat given by the respondent and therefore, the trial Court has rightly acquitted the respondent from the charges of offence punishable under section 506B of IPC. It is no where alleged by the prosecutrix that the respondent assaulted her in any manner, except her allegation that he held her hand and therefore, if some injuries were found to the prosecutrix then, it cannot be said that such injuries were caused by the respondent. The trial Court has rightly acquitted the respondent from the charges of offence punishable under section 323 of IPC. 8. On the basis of the aforesaid discussion, the appeal filed by the State cannot be accepted. Consequently, it is hereby dismissed at motion stage. 9. The respondent is on bail. His presence is no more required before this Court and therefore, it is directed that his bail bonds shall stand discharged. He is not required to attend this Court any more in this appeal. 10. A copy of the order be sent to the trial Court along with its record for information.