The court found that the complainant party being the aggressor and convicted, there was no need for the prosecution to explain the injuries sustained by the accused persons.

1. - This is a State appeal filed against the order of acquittal passed by the Munsif Magistrate, Sanchore, acquitting Kachhba, Javta and Bhala of the charges Under Sections 452, 324 and 326/31 Indian Penal Code.

2. The incident had taken place of 27th July, 1967, when according to the complainant all the three accused persons went armed with weapons to the Dhani of the complainant patty with a complaint that the cow belonging to the complainant party had caused damage to the crop of the accused persons. Verbal altercation took place between the parties which resulted in the scuffle and it is said that the accused persons gave blows with 'Dharia' and 'Tabbal' and caused injuries to the members of the complainant party. It is said that during this scuffle the accused persons also sustained injuries but those injuries have not been explained by the prosecution. A cross case was also launched against the complainant party which resulted ultimately in the order of conviction of the members of the complainant party learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent Kachhba states that the conviction of the complainant party was upheld in appeal by the learned Sessions Judge. The learned trial Magistrate discovered various infirmities in the prosecution case and the main infirmity was that the prosecution has failed to explain the injuries on the members of the accused party and, therefore, acquitted all the three accused persons of the said charges.

3. Javta respondent could not be served and, therefore, appeal against him was consigned to record vide order of this Court dated 29th of August, 1972.

4. learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the State urged that the judgment of the trial court suffers from various infirmities which warrant interference by this Court, but I need not go in to the merits of the arguments advanced by learned Counsel for the State as I find that the incident had take in place as back as in the year 1967 and that as a result of that incident compladnant party was found aggressor and was convicted by the Magistrate ane, therefore, there was nothing left for the prosecution to explain the injuries sustained by the accused persons as they were the victims of the wrath of tea complainant party. In these circumstances, I do not feel that it is a fit casy for any interference in appeal by this Court, The infirmities pointed out be learned Counsel for the appellants are also not of vital nature and, therefore, I do not find any life in this appeal. It is, therefore, dismissed.

*******