JUDGMENT Rajiv Sharma, J. 1. This appeal is instituted against the judgment dated 27.2.2006 rendered by the Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Court No. II, Palampur, whereby the respondents-accused (hereinafter referred to as the accused for convenience sake), who were charged with and tried for offences punishable under section 354, 323, 506 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, have been acquitted. 2. Case of the prosecution, in a nutshell, is that on 9.10.2004, Geeta Devi came to the Police Station, Lambagaon. She stated that at about 8.00 A.M., her husband and sons had gone for fishing and she was alone at home. Accused Sita Ram, who is her brother-in- law, started uprooting flowers and used filthy language. She came in the courtyard and accosted him. Accused Sita Ram, Sakina Devi and their son Niku Ram and Pawna Devi also came on the spot. They started abusing her. They were threatening her. Sita Ram held her shirt from the breast. He behaved indecently with her. She sustained nail marks on her breast and also sustained injuries on her entire body. Her husband accosted Sita Ram as to why he has uprooted the flowers. Sita Ram responded that the courtyard was given to him by the Patwari and Kanungo. Sita Ram had knife in his hand. He tried to give blow to Geeta Devi. However, her husband prevented him and sustained injuries on his hand. Nikku Ram was holding a stick in his hand and started giving beatings to Geeta Devi and her husband. However, the stick hit Sita Ram on his head. On the basis of her statement, FIR Ex.PW-7/A was lodged. Site plan was prepared. Knife Ex.P-2 was recovered vide memo Ex.PW-3/A. Shirt Ex.P-1 was also seized by the police vide memo Ex.PW-1/C. Medical examination of Sukh Chain and Geeta Devi was sought vide rukka Ex.PW-5/C and MLCs Ex.PW-5/A qua Geeta Devi and Ex.PW-5/B qua Sukh Chain alongwith final opinion Ex.PW-6/A were obtained. Police investigated the case and the challan was put up in the court after completing all the codal formalities. 3. Prosecution examined as many as eight witnesses in all to prove its case against the accused. Statements of accused under Section 313 Cr. P.C. were recorded. They have denied the case of the prosecution in entirety. Learned trial Court acquitted the accused, as noticed hereinabove. 4. Mr. 3. Prosecution examined as many as eight witnesses in all to prove its case against the accused. Statements of accused under Section 313 Cr. P.C. were recorded. They have denied the case of the prosecution in entirety. Learned trial Court acquitted the accused, as noticed hereinabove. 4. Mr. Parmod Thakur, learned Additional Advocate General has vehemently argued that the prosecution has proved its case against the accused. 5. Mr. Sanjay Dutt Vasudeva, learned counsel for the accused has supported the judgment passed by the trial Court. 6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record meticulously. 7. According to FIR, PW-1 Geeta Devi was all alone when the incident happened on 9.10.2004. According to the contents of the FIR, her husband was not at home and her brother-in-law started plucking flowers and also abused her. Her shirt was torn and accused Sita Ram misbehaved with her. She also sustained injuries on her breast. Sita Ram was carrying knife in his hand. He tried to hit her but her husband intervened and received injuries on his hand. Accused Niku Ram was carrying stick in his hand. 8. Complainant Gita Devi has appeared as PW-1. She has stated that accused Sita Ram plucked flowers. Her husband was not in the house. She was all alone. Sita Ram was accompanied by his son Niku, Pawna and wife Sakina. Sita Ram misbehaved with her. He tore her shirt. Sita Ram tried to hit her with knife but she was saved by her husband and in the process her husband received injuries on his hand. In her cross-examination, she has deposed that the incident was seen by Up-Pradhan Vinod Kumar, Bipan Kumari, Ward Panch and Shambhu Devi. 9. PW-2 Sukh Ram has proved Ext. PW1/C. PW-3 Sukh Chain is the husband of PW-2 Geeta Devi. According to him, he had gone for fishing. His wife and daughter were at home. He came at 8:30 a.m. Accused Sita Ram was fighting with his wife. Accused also tried to inflict injuries on his wife with the help of knife. He prevented him. He received injuries. The shirt of his wife was also torn. Accused Sita Ram was accompanied by his son Niku, Pawna and wife. His wife and daughter were at home. He came at 8:30 a.m. Accused Sita Ram was fighting with his wife. Accused also tried to inflict injuries on his wife with the help of knife. He prevented him. He received injuries. The shirt of his wife was also torn. Accused Sita Ram was accompanied by his son Niku, Pawna and wife. PW-4 Kumari Babita has also testified that she alongwith her mother Geeta Devi was at home at 8.00 a.m. when accused entered their compound and started uprooting the flowers. The shirt of her mother was torn. Sita Ram attacked her mother with knife. Her father snatched knife from accused Sita Ram. 10. PW-5 Dr. Deepak Sharma has proved MLCs Ext. PW5/A and PW5/C. 11. PW-6 Dr. Sushma Sood issued MLC Ext. PW6/A. 12. PW-7 Jagdish Chand has investigated the matter. He has taken into possession shirt Ext. P1 and knife Ex.P-2 along with MLCs of Gita Devi and Sukh Chain. 13. According to PW-1 Geeta Devi, she was all alone at the time when the alleged incident had taken place. However, according to PW-3 Sukh Chain, his daughters were also at home when the incident had taken place. PW-4 Kumari Babita, as noticed hereinabove, has categorically stated that she was at home with her mother Geeta Devi at the time of incident. In FIR also, PW-1 Gita Devi has stated that she was all alone. There are material contradictions in the statements of PW-1 Geeta Devi, PW-3 Sukh Chain and PW-4 Kumari Babita Devi. It renders the entire case of the prosecution untrustworthy. PW-1 Geeta Devi has also deposed that the incident was witnessed by Up-Pradhan Vinod Kumar, Vipan Kumari Ward Panch and Shambhoo Devi. These were material witnesses, but have not been produced by the prosecution. 14. According to the prosecution case, accused Sita Ram has tried to hit PW-1 Geeta Devi with knife. However, PW-3 Sukh Chain snatched the knife from accused Sita Ram and received injuries on his hand. PW-5 Dr. Deepak Sharma has testified that the injuries received by Sukh Chain were simple in nature and the weapon used was blunt. In case PW-3 Sukh Chain had snatched the knife from the hands of the accused, in that case Doctor would have stated so in his statement. However, as noticed above, as per statement of PW-5 Dr. PW-5 Dr. Deepak Sharma has testified that the injuries received by Sukh Chain were simple in nature and the weapon used was blunt. In case PW-3 Sukh Chain had snatched the knife from the hands of the accused, in that case Doctor would have stated so in his statement. However, as noticed above, as per statement of PW-5 Dr. Deepak Sharma, injuries received by PW-3 Sukh Chain were caused with blunt weapon. 15. The matter is required to be considered from another angle. According to prosecution, PW-3 Sukh Chain came to his house all of a sudden. He instead of inquiring from accused Sita Ram why he has misbehaved with his wife, asked him only about uprooting of flowers. In case the incident had happened, as per the case of the prosecution, he would have taken serious view of the alleged incident of misbehaviour by accused Sita Ram with his wife. 16. Learned trial court has correctly appreciated the evidence while acquitting the accused. This Court need not interfere with the well reasoned judgment rendered by the trial court. 17. Accordingly, in view of analysis and discussion made hereinabove, there is no merit in the present appeal and the same is dismissed.