The State-Appellant has challenged the Judgment and Order of acquittal dated 11th December, 1996 passed by Ld. JMFC, Sawantwadi in Summary Case no. 400 of 1995 acquitting the original accused-respondents from the accusation of commission of offence under Sections 353, 506 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code.

2. Such of the facts necessary for disposal of the present appeal are as under:

2.1 PW.4 Vilas Chandrakant Tembulkar working as a police constable at Sawantwadi Police Station on 16th October, 1995 has lodged the report (Exhibit-31) that as per order dated 9th October, 1995 received from Civil Court, Junior Division, Sawantwadi, on 16th October, 1995 himself and lady police constable PW-3, Jayashree Dattatraya Sasane were posted for bandobast duty for cropping of the crops in the fields of PW5, Anant Mahadeo Ghadi at Village Kolgaon, Dongarwadi. Accordingly they have reported ASI Shri Kasal at about 8.45 a.m. on 16th October, 1995 and reached Kolgaon, Dongarwadi by 10.00 hours and reported PW5. PW5 appraised them that rice paddy from the field in Survey no. 111, Hissa no. 3 in Kolgaon was to be cropped and for the said work the police bandobast was ordered by the court. Accordingly alongwith PW5, one Subhash Babaji Ghadi, Babaji Mahadev Ghadi, Madhukar Mahadev Ghadi, Bhagwan Madhukar Ghadi, Gurunath Madhukar Ghadi, Snehlata Anant Ghadi, Seema Anant Ghadi, Anandi Anant Ghadi, had commenced the work of cropping the rice paddy in said field at about 10.30 hrs. At that time three women came at the said place and told PW5 that they would not permit cropping the rice paddy. PW.4 and PW.3 present at the said place in the police uniform appraised the order received from CJJD, Sawantwadi to the said women. However, the said women stated that they were not in agreement with said order and in any event they will not allow cropping of the rice paddy and after quarreling with them rushed towards PW.4 and PW3. Similarly, after threatening PW.5 and the other persons cropping the rice paddy as to how they would carry out said work scuffled with PW.5. PW.4 and PW3 tried to pacify them, however, without paying any heed to them, all the said three women rushed at them. Upon PW.4 asking the said women, they gave their names as Vaijayanti Vasant Ghadi, Varsha Anand Ghadi, and Dhanashri Ankush Ghadi all resident of Kolgaon, Dongarwadi, Tal. Sawantwadi. By narrating the aforesaid matters, PW.4 had lodged the said complaint against the said persons named in the complaint i.e. respectively against respondent nos. 1, 2 and 3, in the present appeal for themselves in furtherance of their common intention of having obstructed them while discharging the duty by preventing the persons from cropping the rice paddy.

2.2 According to the prosecution upon the said complaint, C.R no. 85 of 1995 for the offences under sections 353, 506 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code was registered. After due investigation of the same, the respondents were charge-sheeted by Sawantwadi Police Station for commission of such offences.

2.3 At the trial, the prosecution examined the above referred three witnesses and additionally panch PW.1 Ganpat Sitaram Rane, regarding the spot panchnama (Exhibit-18) drawn on 17.10.1995 and panch PW.2 Pandurang Krishna Naik regarding the arrest of the respondents effected on 16.10.1995. Learned JMFC trying the said case as a summary case after appreciation of the prosecution evidence came to the conclusion that no incident as deposed by PW3 and PW.4 had taken place. The trial court also took into consideration delay of one month in lodging the FIR (Exhibit- 31) by PW5. The trial court also duly took into consideration that no injury was caused to PW.3 and PW.4. The trial court thus came to the conclusion that the prosecution has failed to establish the respondents having committed any of the offences accused of.

3. Smt. V.R. Bhosale, learned APP urged that the trial court did not properly appreciate the evidence of PW.3 and PW.4 and the same in turn