JUDGMENT : Mohammad Nawaz, J. 1. The present appeal is filed by the de-facto complainant, challenging the Judgment and Order of acquittal passed by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Chitradurga in Crl. Appeal No. 62/2007 dated 09.09.2009, whereby the learned Sessions Judge allowed the said appeal filed by the accused persons and set aside the Judgment and Order of conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court in C.C. No. 978/1999 dated 16.10.2007 on the file of the Court of Principal Civil Judge [Jr. Dn.] and JMFC Chitradurga, for the offence punishable under Sections 323, 325 r/w. Section 34 of IPC. 2. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant, the learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos. 1 to 4 and the learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No. 6. 3. It is submitted that respondent No. 5 died on 11.12.2009 and therefore, the appeal as against respondent No. 5 has been dismissed as abated vide Order dated 06.04.2011. 4. The brief facts of the prosecution case are that: On 25.06.1997 at about 2.45 p.m. the complainant viz, Ramesh [PW-1] his mother Rathnamma [PW-2] and brother Murudeshwar had secured coolies in connection with construction of drainage in front of their house and after the said coolies had left the work place, accused Nos.1 to 7 with a common intention came near the house of the complainant, abused him, his mother and brother in filthy language and accused No. 1 slapped the complainant's mother [PW-2] on her left cheek and accused No. 2 caught hold her tuft and pushed her. Accused Nos. 3 and 4 caught hold the complainant's mother and assaulted her with hands and kicked with legs. When the complainant went to rescue his mother, accused No. 5 slapped on his right cheek with right hand and lifted him and threw him into a "gutter" which was about 6 ft. in depth. Again accused Nos. 5 to 7 pressed the complainant with their legs, as a result of which the complainant suffered fracture on his right wrist and right arm. The accused also assaulted the complainant's brother viz. Murudeshwar, who was a T.B. patient and caused bodily pain to him. When the complainant made hue and cry, one Narasimhappa came and rescued the complaint and his mother and brother. The accused also gave life threat to the complainant, his mother and brother. The accused also assaulted the complainant's brother viz. Murudeshwar, who was a T.B. patient and caused bodily pain to him. When the complainant made hue and cry, one Narasimhappa came and rescued the complaint and his mother and brother. The accused also gave life threat to the complainant, his mother and brother. On the same day, the complainant and his mother took treatment in the District Hospital, Chitradurga. A private complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C. came to be filed, since as per the complainant, the jurisdictional police failed to act on the information given to them regarding the incident in question. The said complaint was referred to the Police for investigation and after investigation "B" Report came to be filed. However, the same was not accepted by the trial Court and subsequently, sworn statement of the complainant was recorded and a case was registered against accused Nos. 1 to 7 for the offences punishable under Sections 324, 323, 506 r/w. 34 of IPC. Before the trial Court PWs. 1 to 4 were examined and Exs.P1 to P4 were marked in their evidence. The trial Court considering the oral and documentary evidence on record found accused Nos. 1, 2 and 4 guilty of the offence punishable under Section 323 r/w. Section 34 of IPC and found accused Nos.5 and 6 guilty of the offence punishable under Sections 325 r/w. Section 34 of IPC. Accused Nos. 3 and 7 were acquitted of the offences charged against them. The trial Court sentenced accused Nos. 1, 2 and 4 to pay fine of Rs. 300/- each and in default of payment of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for one month for the offence punishable under Section 323 r/w. 34 of IPC. The trial Court sentenced accused Nos. 5 and 6 to undergo simple imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/- each in default of payment of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month for the offence punishable under Section 325 r/w. Section 34 of IPC. Aggrieved by the aforesaid Judgment and Order of conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court, the aforementioned accused preferred Crl. Appeal No. 62/2007 before the Sessions Court. 2,000/- each in default of payment of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month for the offence punishable under Section 325 r/w. Section 34 of IPC. Aggrieved by the aforesaid Judgment and Order of conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court, the aforementioned accused preferred Crl. Appeal No. 62/2007 before the Sessions Court. The learned Sessions Judge by Judgment and Order dated 09.09.2009 allowed the said appeal and thereby set aside the Judgment and Order of conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court and acquitted the accused. Aggrieved by the Judgment and Order of acquittal passed by the Sessions Court, the complainant has preferred this appeal under Section 372 of Cr.P.C. 5. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that the trial Court having appreciated the oral and documentary evidence adduced in this case, rightly convicted the accused and the Sessions Court without properly appreciating the evidence on record and without considering the reasons assigned by the trial Court has erroneously reversed the said findings, which is not sustainable in law. He submits that PWs. 1 and 2 are the injured and PW-3 is the doctor. Their evidence is suffice to establish the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. He submits that PWs. 1 and 2 being the injured witnesses, their evidence could not have been brushed aside and the reasons assigned by the learned Sessions Judge to discard their evidence is not in accordance with law. Therefore, he submits that the Judgment and Order passed by the trial Court is liable to be set aside and seeks to confirm the Judgment and Order of conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos. 1 to 4 contended that, initially after conducting investigation "B" Report was filed. It shows that the entire allegations made by the complainant are false. He submits that though the statement of one Narasimhappa, who is an independent witness, was recorded during the course of investigation, he has not been examined, which is fatal to the case of the prosecution. He further submits that the present complaint was lodged on account of previous enmity and even the accused also lodged a complaint against respondent Nos. 1 to 5, which culminated in charge-sheet. However, the trial Court acquitted them. He further submits that the present complaint was lodged on account of previous enmity and even the accused also lodged a complaint against respondent Nos. 1 to 5, which culminated in charge-sheet. However, the trial Court acquitted them. He therefore submits that the reasons assigned by the learned Sessions Judge are in accordance with law and the same does not call for any interference by this Court. 6. It is the case of the prosecution that on 25.06.1997 at 2.45 p.m. when the complainant- PW-1, his mother-PW-2 and brother one Murudeshwar [now deceased] were in front of their house, at that time, accused Nos. 1 to 7 with a common intention, came and abused them in filthy language and accused No. 1 slapped the complainant's mother on her left cheek with her right hand, accused No. 2 caught hold of her tuft and pushed her, accused Nos.3 and 4 assaulted her with hands and also kicked her. When the complainant went to rescue his mother, at that time, accused No. 5 slapped on his right cheek with right hand, lifted him and threw him into the gutter. Subsequently, accused Nos. 5 to 7 pressed the complainant with their legs, as a result of which, he sustained fracture to his right wrist and right arm. 7. PW-1 is the complainant and injured in this case. He has stated in his evidence that on 25.06.1997 at 2.45 p.m. when he was in the front yard of his house, all the accused persons came there and abused him and shouted as to how they will do the construction and then accused No. 1 slapped his mother [PW-2] accused No. 2 held her tuft and dragged her. Accused Nos. 3 and 4 held his mother and also kicked her. When he went to her rescue, accused No. 5 slapped him and then he lifted him and threw him in to a gutter. Accused Nos. 6 and 7 also assaulted him and kicked him. In the cross-examination, it is elicited that the distance between the house of the accused and the complainant is about 10 ft. and there were about 15-20 persons gathered at the spot. However, none of them came to the rescue of complainant. It is elicited that on the same day, accused No. 4 had also lodged a complaint against the complainant and a criminal case was registered. and there were about 15-20 persons gathered at the spot. However, none of them came to the rescue of complainant. It is elicited that on the same day, accused No. 4 had also lodged a complaint against the complainant and a criminal case was registered. Thereafter, the present complaint was lodged. The suggestion put to the said witness that when he tried to outrage the modesty of accused No. 4 and hearing her cry, these persons tried to catch hold of the complainant and at that time, he fell down and sustained injuries, was denied. 8. The evidence of PW-2, who is another injured goes to show that at about 2.45 p.m. all the accused came near the spot and abused her and accused No. 1 slapped her and accused No. 2 held her tuft and accused No. 4 also came there and all the accused persons assaulted her. When her son [PW-1] came to her rescue, accused No. 5 slapped her son [PW-1] and then lifted him and threw him in to the gutter. Accused Nos. 6 and 7 kicked her son on account of which he suffered fracture of his right hand. The accused also assaulted her another son by name Murudeshwar. In the cross-examination, she has stated that the distance between the house of the complainant and the accused is about 15 ft. Though she denied about the incident and the case registered against her son [PW-1] however, she admitted that in this regard C.C. No. 290/1998 was registered under Sections 323 and 504 of IPC. 9. The evidence of the doctor/PW-3 goes to show that on 25.06.1997 at about 4.10 p.m. she examined PW-2 and referred her to the Orthopaedic surgeon. She has issued wound certificate as per Ex.P3 with regard to PW-2. She has further deposed that on the same day she examined PW-1 and noticed that there was a dislocation of right hand and referred him to the Orthopaedic surgeon. She has issued wound certificate as per Ex.P2 with regard to PW-1. 10. PW-4 is the Investigating Officer, who initially conducted investigation and filed a "B" Report. He has admitted in the cross-examination that a case was also registered against the complainant [PW-1] his mother [PW-2] and brother Murudeshwar in Crime No. 161/1997 under Sections 354, 323 and 504 of IPC. 10. PW-4 is the Investigating Officer, who initially conducted investigation and filed a "B" Report. He has admitted in the cross-examination that a case was also registered against the complainant [PW-1] his mother [PW-2] and brother Murudeshwar in Crime No. 161/1997 under Sections 354, 323 and 504 of IPC. He has stated that, as against the accused herein, sine there was no sufficient material "B" Report was filed. 11. It is borne out from the record that a case was also registered against the complainant, his mother and brother, which was registered in Crime No. 161/1997 on the same day. According to the complainant in the present case, since the jurisdictional police did not entertain his complaint, he filed a private complaint which was referred to the Police and the Police subsequently filed a "B" Report. In so far as the complaint lodged by accused No. 4 against the complainant and the others, a separate criminal proceedings were initiated and ultimately, the complainant and others came to be acquitted. 12. The contention of the learned counsel for respondent Nos. 1 to 4 is that as a counter-blast, the present complaint was filed by the complainant. It is seen that according to the complainant, one Narasimhappa was present at the time of the incident, who is an independent witness. However, his version is not forthcoming and he has not been examined before the trial Court. PW-1 has admitted in his evidence that about 15-20 persons had gathered at the time of the incident and watching the quarrel. However, none of the said persons are examined to substantiate the version of PWs. 1 and 2. 13. Though PW-3, the Medical Officer has stated that she examined both PWs. 1 and 2, however, with regard to the injuries sustained by PW-2 is concerned, she has stated that PW-2 had suffered some pain in her right thigh. In so far as PW-1 is concerned, she has stated that there was dislocation of right shoulder. PW-3 has stated that both PWs. 1 and 2 were referred to the orthopaedic surgeon. However, there is no evidence with regard to the subsequent treatment given to the said witnesses. It is not forthcoming as to on what basis PW-3 has stated that PW-1 had suffered dislocation of right shoulder. PW-3 has clearly stated that there was no fracture sustained by PW-1. 1 and 2 were referred to the orthopaedic surgeon. However, there is no evidence with regard to the subsequent treatment given to the said witnesses. It is not forthcoming as to on what basis PW-3 has stated that PW-1 had suffered dislocation of right shoulder. PW-3 has clearly stated that there was no fracture sustained by PW-1. The trial Court has failed to appreciate these aspects. The lower appellate Court having re-appreciated the evidence on record has come to the conclusion that the possibility of falsely implicating the accused by the complainant to save himself and others from the counter case filed against them cannot be ruled out. The findings and conclusion arrived at by the learned Sessions Judge is based on the evidence and material on record. 14. In view of the foregoing reasons, I do not find any illegality or perversity in the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge acquitting the accused. Accordingly, I pass the following: ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.