Rakesh Kainthla, Judge

The present appeal is directed against the judgment dated 27.06.2012 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Palampur, District Kangra (learned Trial Court) vide which the respondents (accused before the learned Trial Court) were acquitted of the commission of offences punishable under Sections 325 and 504 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as IPC). (Parties shall hereinafter be referred to in the same manner as they were arrayed befo.re the learned Trial Court for convenience.)

2. Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to the present appeal are that the police presented a chal lan before the learned Trial Court against the accused foor the commission of offences punishable under Sections 325 a nd 504 read with Section 34 of the IPC. It was asserted thrat informant Satish Kumar (PW1) and his father Jagjivan Ram (PW6) were creating a passage on 02.12.2008 at about 9 am for taking the tractor to their land. Nitya Sharma (accused) had a field on the way. She had put the bamboo fencing in her field. One bamboo was erected on the corner of the informant’s field. Jagjivan Ram uprooted the bamboo. The accused became infuri