JUDGMENT : Rajiv Sharma, J. 1. This appeal is instituted at the instance of the State against the judgment dated 29.5.2014, rendered by the learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate (I), Palampur, Distt. Kangra, H.P. in Criminal Case No. 60-II/10/2011, whereby the respondents-accused (hereinafter referred to as accused), who were charged with and tried for offences punishable under Sections 323 and 325, read with Section 34 IPC have been acquitted. 2. The case of the prosecution, in a nut shell, is that on 26.10.2010, complainant Renu Devi lodged report with the Police Post Panchrukhi stating therein that on 26.10.2010 at about 7:00 AM while she was cleaning utensils, she noticed that Shesh Ram had put fence on the backside of their house. When she removed the fence, Shesh Ram picked up one danda from the fence and started giving beatings. When she raised an alarm, her mother Laxmi Devi, brother Sanjeev and her father Saligram also came to the spot. In the meanwhile, wife of accused, namely, Veena Devi and his son Rahul also came on the spot. Shesh Ram started giving beatings to her and her mother with danda. Her brother Sanjeev Kumar and father rescued them from the clutches of the accused. Due to the beatings given to her and her mother, they sustained injuries on legs and head. Rapat Ext. PW-6/A was lodged, on the basis of which FIR Ext. PW-8/A was registered against the accused. The police visited the spot and prepared site plan Ext. PW-8/C. The injured were got medically examined and MLCs Ext. PW-5/A and PW-5/B were procured. The police also took into possession danda Ext. P-1 vide memo Ext. PW-2/A and recorded the statements of the witnesses. The investigation was completed and challan was put up before the Court, after completing all the codal formalities. 3. The prosecution, in order to prove its case, has examined as many as eight witnesses. The accused were also examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. They denied the case of the prosecution. The learned trial Court acquitted the accused, as noticed hereinabove. Hence, this appeal. 4. Mr. Parmod Thakur, Addl. Advocate General, appearing on behalf of the State, has vehemently argued that the prosecution has proved the case against the accused persons. 5. I have heard learned Addl. Advocate General appearing for the State and have also gone through the judgment and records of the case carefully. 6. Hence, this appeal. 4. Mr. Parmod Thakur, Addl. Advocate General, appearing on behalf of the State, has vehemently argued that the prosecution has proved the case against the accused persons. 5. I have heard learned Addl. Advocate General appearing for the State and have also gone through the judgment and records of the case carefully. 6. PW-1 Sanjeev Kumar testified that when his sister was cleaning utensils on 26.10.2010 at about 7:00 AM, she noticed that fence was installed behind their house. His sister removed the same. In the meanwhile, accused picked up one danda from the fence and started beating his sister. When she raised alarm, her mother visited the spot and thereafter, he along with his father also reached the spot. Wife of accused and his son also came to the spot. Accused Shesh Ram gave beatings to his sister and mother with danda and other accused gave beatings by kick and fist blows. He and his father rescued his mother and sister from the clutches of the accused. The police got medically examined his sister and mother. He identified danda Ext. P-1. He admitted that revenue officials had visited the spot. 7. PW-2 Laxmi Devi testified that on 26.10.2010 at about 7:00/7:15 AM, her daughter Renu Devi was cleaning utensils. She noticed that fence had been installed at the backside of their house and she removed the same. Accused Shesh Ram came there and gave beatings to her daughter with danda. Her daughter raised an alarm. She visited the spot. She was also beaten up by the accused. Her son and her husband also came on the spot. Accused managed to run away. In her cross-examination, she admitted that they had boundary dispute with the accused. Litigation was also going on between the parties. The matter was compromised between the parties on 25.10.2010. 8. PW-3 Ramesh Kumar testified that the police took into possession danda Ext. P-1 on 3.11.2010. He did not know as to who produced the same. According to him, the quarrel had taken place on 3.11.2010. He was declared hostile and cross-examined by the learned Asstt. Public Prosecutor. In his cross-examination by the learned defence counsel, he admitted that there were many houses near the spot. He also deposed that Ext. P-1 danda was lying in the field and many other dandas like Ext. P-1 were also lying there. He was declared hostile and cross-examined by the learned Asstt. Public Prosecutor. In his cross-examination by the learned defence counsel, he admitted that there were many houses near the spot. He also deposed that Ext. P-1 danda was lying in the field and many other dandas like Ext. P-1 were also lying there. He also admitted categorically that danda Ext. P-1 was shown to him by the police at the Police Station. 9. PW-4 Dr. Kalpana Mahajan has proved x-ray report Ext. PW- 4/A. 10. PW-5 Dr. Arvind Sharma has medically examined the injured Renu Devi and Laxmi Devi. He issued MLCs Ext. PW-5/A and PW-5/B, respectively. 11. PW-7 Renu Kumari testified that on 26.10.2010 at about 7:00 AM, she was cleaning the utensils. She noticed that accused had put fence behind their house and when she removed the same, accused came there and gave beatings to her with danda. When she raised alarm, Laxmi Devi came on the spot. In the meantime, Rahul son of accused and Veena Devi also came to the spot. Accused gave beatings to his mother with danda. Her father and her brother rescued them from the clutches of the accused. Thereafter, report was lodged. In her cross-examination, she admitted that the boundary of the land of accused starts from back side of their house. She has uprooted 20 feet long fence. She also admitted that her parents were having dispute with the accused. 12. PW-8 HC Ashok Kumar was the I.O. He has admitted in his cross-examination that he has not taken into consideration rapat Ext.P-1 during his investigation. 13. PW-1 Sanjeev Kumar has denied that there was any litigation between the parties. However, PW-2 Laxmi Devi, mother of the complainant and PW-7 Renu Kumari, complainant have admitted that they had boundary dispute with the accused. The compromise was also entered into between the parties on 25.10.2010 i.e. one day prior to the incident. According to the agreement, none of the parties was supposed to interfere or cultivate the land. PW-7 Renu Kumari has started up-rooting the fence. It was the genesis of occurrence. 14. It has come on record that the accused have also lodged report with the police, however, the I.O. has not taken action on the report lodged by the accused party against the complainant party. PW-7 Renu Kumari has started up-rooting the fence. It was the genesis of occurrence. 14. It has come on record that the accused have also lodged report with the police, however, the I.O. has not taken action on the report lodged by the accused party against the complainant party. The report filed by the accused was prior to the report lodged by the complainant party. Both the complaints ought to have been investigated by the I.O. The houses of many persons were situated near the spot as per the statement of PW-3 Ramesh Kumar, however, none of the persons from these houses has been examined as independent witnesses by the police. PW-5 Dr. Arvind Sharma has issued MLCs Ext. PW-5/A and PW-5/B. According to him, the injuries mentioned by him were possible by fall from the stairs. 15. Once the parties had agreed not to disturb the status quo on the basis of the agreement dated 25.10.2010, PW-7 Renu Kumari should not have removed the fence. The prosecution has failed to prove the case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. There is no occasion for us to interfere with the well reasoned judgment of the learned trial Court dated 29.5.2014. 16. Accordingly, there is no merit in this appeal and the same is dismissed.