JUDGMENT :

Pankaj Purohit, J.

In this appeal preferred under Section 378(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as "Cr.P.C."), the State has challenged the acquittal of respondents-accused under Section 452 , 308/34 of IPC, which was passed by learned Sessions Judge/1st FTC, Haridwar in Sessions Trial No 131 of 1997 on 24.06.2008.

2. Facts of the prosecution story, as narrated in the noncognizable report (NCR) are that the informant Chote Lal lodged the NCR at Police Station Ranipur against the respondents-accused persons with the averments that on 10.03.1986, his sister Kela had gone in the jungle to cut the grass. The respondents-accused persons abused the sister of informant on the issue of cutting grass and when his sister informed about this fact to the informant, he (informant) also went on the spot, where, respondents-accused persons assaulted him with batons and sticks due to which he sustained injuries. During investigation, the Investigation Officer began to investigate the NCR and after inquiry, he converted the NCR into the Crime Number, added Section 452 IPC, and on the basis of inquiry report of injured persons, also added Section 308 IPC. Investigation of this matter was entrusted to PW12 SHO J.P.Juyal, who during the course of investigation, recorded statement of the witness, prepared the site map and on culmination of investigation, submitted a charge-sheet Ex.Ka-11 against the respondents-accused persons under Section 452 , 308/34 of IPC in the Court. The injured persons were also medically examined by PW4 Dr.Pradeep Kumar in Government Hospital, Haridwar.

3. The charge was framed against the respondents-accused persons under Sections 452 , 308/34 of IPC by the Court of learned Sessions Judge/1st FTC, Haridwar, which the respondents-accused persons denied and they claimed trial.

4. The prosecution produced certain documents in documentary evidence and also produced as many as 12 witnesses in support of its case. Thereafter, the statements of respondents-accused persons were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. The respondents-accused persons in their statements stated the case to be false, but, did not adduce any defence evidence. The trial Court on the basis of evidence led during the course of the trial, reached to the conclusion that the prosecution miserably failed to prove its case against the respondents-accused persons beyond all reasonable doubt, and accordingly, it proceeded to acquit the respondents-accused as mentioned in paragraph No.1 of this judgment. Challenging the judgment of acquittal, the present appeal has been preferred by the State.

5. In this matter, PW1 Kirpa stated that on the date of incident, his daughter had gone in the field to cut the grass, where one Ruhde caught the hands of his daughter. However, his daughter came back home. He has stated that thereafter all the four respondents respondents-accused came to his house armed with batons and sticks and assaulted his wife Rampyari, sons Malkhan and Chote Lal as well as wife of Chote Lal named Sumitra. He got injuries in the incident. He cannot say about the weapon used by respective respondents-accused persons.

6. PW2 Malkhan also narrated the same facts as stated by PW1 Kirpa. He has stated that his sister was indecently behaved by one Ruhde in the field. Atar Singh and Chote Lal as well as Samay Singh went to the house of the respondents-accused to inquire as to why such act was done. There, the respondents-accused persons met, who threatened that the same would continue in future also. Subsequent to his arrival at the house, all the four respondents-accused armed with batons and sticks, came at