1. - The State of Rajasthan has preferred this appeal under section 378(i)(iii) Cr.P.C. against the judgment of acquittal dated 21.02.2002 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bundi (Raj.) (Hereinafter to be referred as 'the learned trial Court') in criminal case No. 39/1996 by which he acquitted the accused-respondent Satyanarain for the offence under sections 341, 323, 324, 325 and 326 IPC and the accused respondent Shrawan for the offence under sections 341, 323, 324, 325/34 and 326/34 IPC.

2. Brief facts of the case according to the prosecution are that on 27.10.1995 complainant Gajjan Singh was going to his own field to take food-grain by ox-cart and in the way, he found accused Shrawan and Satyanarain and they after stopping the complainant started to quarrel regarding water. Immediately thereafter, the accused respondents started to give beating. Accused Satya Narain caused injury by gandasi on the right hand and accused Shrawan inflicted injury by iron rod and because of which injury blood started to ooze out from the person of injured and he fell-down. Thereafter, both the accused persons started to give beating to him. He further stated that this incident has been seen by witness Shakier and Gurcharan Singh. The accused persons gave beating to him with intention to kill him.

3. On the basis of this oral information, the Police registered an FIR against the accused respondents for the offence under sections 307/34 IPC. The Police after usual investigation submitted challan against the accused-respondents for the offence under sections 307/34 IPC.

4. The learned trial Court discharged the accused respondents for the offence under section 307 IPC and read over the charges against the accused Satyanarain for the offence under sections 341, 323, 324, 325, 326 IPC and against accused Shrawan for the offence under sections 341, 323, 324, 325/34 and 326/34 IPC.

5. During trial the prosecution in support of its case examined as many as 8 witnesses and certain documents were got exhibited.

6. Thereafter the statements of the accused-respondents under Section 313 Cr.P.C. were recorded.

7. After conclusion of the trial, the learned trial Court vide its judgment dated 21.02.2002 acquitted the accused-respondents from the charge framed against him.

8. Aggrieved with the judgment dated 21.02.2002 of acquittal passed by learned trial Court, the State of Rajasthan has preferred the instant appeal.

9. In this appeal it has been submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor that the learned trial Court has not considered the statements of the prosecution witnesses properly. He has further contended that the learned trial Court has wrongly observed that prosecution has failed to prove the offence against the accused respondents. Thus, the impugned judgment of acquittal dated 21.02.2002 is erroneous one and is liable to be quashed and set aside.

10. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the accused-respondents has submitted that the impugned judgment passed by the learned trial Court is based on the correct appreciation of evidence and after giving cogent reasons, the learned trial Court has acquitted the accused respondents for the aforesaid offences. He submits that PW 2 Gurucharan, PW 3 Sattar Singh have not supported the case of the prosecution and thus have been declared hostile. He submits that PW 4 Lekhvendra Singh and PW 7 Gajjan Singh have also not supported the case of the prosecution. Lastly, he submits that most of the prosecution witnesses have made improvements, omissions and contradictions in their testimonies. Thus, the impugned Judgment of acquittal dated 21.02.2002 passed by learned trial Court is just and proper and no interference is required to be made.

11. I have heard learned Public Prosecutor as well as the learned counsel for the accused-respondent and also gone through the record of the case.

12. Having gone through the impugned judgment 21.02.2002 passed by the learned trial Court, I find that the learn