JUDGMENT : The case of the prosecution is that one month prior to the incident, the complainant had given Rs.5,000/- to accused No.1 through CW-4. Accused No.1 did not return the amount. Thereafter, when accused No.1 came to the shop of PW-1, the complainant demanded accused No.1 to return the amount. At that time, accused No.1 abused the complainant stating that there is no money to be repaid. Subsequently, accused Nos.1 to 4 formed an unlawful assembly and assaulted the complainant, based on which, a case was registered against four accused for the offence punishable under Sections 324 and 504 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code. 2. In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined 8 witnesses and marked 5 exhibits along with one material object. By the order dated 19.03.2016, the Trial Court acquitted the accused. Hence, the State has preferred this appeal. 3. The learned Additional State Public Prosecutor contends that the Trial Court has misdirected itself in acquitting the accused. That the prosecution has established its case beyond all reasonable doubt. 4. On hearing the learned Additional State Public Prosecutor, I do not find any perversity in the order passed by the Trial Court that calls for interference. Firstly, so far as the injuries is concerned, the complainant has stated that he has sustained injuries on the hands, legs and also on his back. However, the wound certificate in terms of Exhibit-P3 does not indicate any wound so far as the injuries sustained on the back is concerned. Therefore, the plea of the complainant is doubtful and cannot be accepted. 5. The wound certificate would indicate that there was an abrasion over the left fore arm extending from left side to right side measuring 7 cm x 0.5 cm and a small wound below the left eye. Therefore, even based on this contention, the Trial Court was of the view that the prosecution has failed to establish its case. 6. There is a disparity between the statement made by the injured-complainant and the wound certificate in terms of Exhibit-P3. Therefore, in view of the above discrepancy, it cannot be said that the prosecution has established its case. 7. This is an appeal against an order of acquittal. The principles governing such an appeal are different. 6. There is a disparity between the statement made by the injured-complainant and the wound certificate in terms of Exhibit-P3. Therefore, in view of the above discrepancy, it cannot be said that the prosecution has established its case. 7. This is an appeal against an order of acquittal. The principles governing such an appeal are different. Only because a second view is possible does not entail this Court to take that view until and unless gross perversity is shown. I do not find any perversity committed by the Trial Court that calls for interference. Therefore, the appeal being devoid of merit requires to be rejected. In view of the same, it is unnecessary to issue notice on delay. Hence, IA.1 of 2016 filed for condonation of delay is dismissed. Consequently, the appeal is dismissed.