JUDGMENT : Rajesh Kumar, J. 1. Heard learned counsel the appellant; learned A.P.P. representing the State and the learned counsel for the respondent no.2 to 7. 2. The present appeal has been preferred against the judgment of acquittal dated 06.04.2022 passed in SC/ST Case No. 12 of 2018 arising out of Complaint Case No. 773 of 2017 by the learned District & Additional Sessions Judge-1 st cum Spl. Judge, Godda, whereby the respondent nos. 2 to 7 have been acquitted of the charges under Sections 323, 504 and 506 of the I.P.C. 3 . The criminal law has been put into motion on lodging a complaint dated 30.10.2017 by the complainant- Renu Devi being Complaint Case No. 773 of 2017 before the Court of Judicial Magistrate 1 st Class, Godda. The brief story as per the complainant is that on the day of occurrence in the evening about 4 p.m. she was cutting grass half kilometer away from her village near government ‘pokhar’, where accused Most. Manorama Devi came and hurled abuses by saying “Sali Dusadhir” and asked her as to why she is cutting the grass inside her field and snatched her katchiya and started to throw her cutting grass in the ‘pokhar’. On which complainant stated that she is cutting the grass in govt. land, then accused started to rustling and jostling. When complainant went towards her house, then the accused threatened her to see on her house. At about 6 p.m. all the accused persons came lashed with lathi, danda and abused the complainant by saying ‘Bhosdi Dushadhi’ and asked her to come out of her house otherwise they would beat her by entering into the house. Thereafter, the accused dragged out her by holding her hair and threw her on the ground. They also tried to press her throat. Accused persons badly assaulted her by legs, fists and lathi-danda. When witnesses came to save her, then accused persons also assaulted them. Accused persons also assault her by saying ‘daain’. They also torn the clothes of the complainant and her mother-in-law. All the accused persons spit on the face of complainant and her mother-in-law. By intervention of people, matter pacified and accused persons also threatened her of dire consequence if she file any complaint. During the quarrel complainant and her mother-in-law sustained injury. They also torn the clothes of the complainant and her mother-in-law. All the accused persons spit on the face of complainant and her mother-in-law. By intervention of people, matter pacified and accused persons also threatened her of dire consequence if she file any complaint. During the quarrel complainant and her mother-in-law sustained injury. When the complainant went to file case in the police station, then officer in- charge sent her to Godda Sadar hospital for treatment. Thereafter, she has filed the case. 4 . On the basis of complaint petition the inquiry done by the court and after inquiry the cognizance was taken on 07.03.2018 under Section 323,504,506 IPC and Under Section 3(1)(r)(s) of SC/ST Act against accused Baski Tanti, Upendra Tanti, Mira Devi, Vikram Tanti, Manorama Devi and Amar Tanti. 5. The charges were framed against the accused persons on 20.01.2020 under Section 323, 504 and 506 of the I.P.C. The charges were read over and explained in Hindi to the accused persons, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 6. To substantiate the charge altogether two prosecution witnesses examined / cross examined in the court i.e., P.W.1 Raja Devi and P.W.3 Renu Devi, complainant herself. I. P.W.1 - Raja Devi is the mother-in-law of the complainant. She has deposed in her examination -in-chief that the complainant has lodged complaint against six accused persons. She has stated that incident occurred 9 months age. She has supported the testimony of the complainant. In her cross examination she has stated that dispute is related to cutting of grass and she learnt about 6.00 p.m. that complainant was cutting grass in other’s field. II. P.W.3 - Renu Devi – She is the complainant herself. She has deposed in her chief-examination in para 1 that the occurrence happened about 4 p.m. near the Sindra Pokhar, where she was cutting the grass. The accused Manorama Devi came there and snatched the Katchiya and threw grass in the pokhar and thereafter pushed and abused her. Further, she has deposed that at about 6.00 p.m. when she reached her home, all the six accused persons came there and abused her and compelled her to came out of her house. Upendra Tanti pushed the door and pressed her throat others beat her by lathi. Further, she has deposed that at about 6.00 p.m. when she reached her home, all the six accused persons came there and abused her and compelled her to came out of her house. Upendra Tanti pushed the door and pressed her throat others beat her by lathi. Later on, her mother-in-law came out of the house and Amar Tanti pushed her on the earth and abused her calling ‘daain’. Thereafter the complainant went to the police station but the case was not lodged and thereafter she filed the complaint in the Court. In her cross examination she has accepted that there are many houses adjacent to her house but nobody came there at the time of occurrence. In para-3 of her cross examination she has also stated that she did not see the paper of the case and she never heard about the case. Further, in para 6 of the cross examination she has stated that without permission she does not cut grass from anybody’s field. She further stated that had Baski Tanti objected her to go to his field, she would not have gone to his field. She met Manorama Devi in the field who objected her from cutting the grass. Further in para 12 of her cross examination, she has stated that she did not tell anybody about the incidence of quarrel with Manorama Devi at 6.00 p.m. 7. During the trial P.W.2 Karnvir Paswan, did not turn up for cross examination and as such his evidence has rightly been not considered by the learned Trial Court. 8. So far as evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.3 is concerned, there is a contradiction in their testimonies and that contradiction has been rightly considered by the learned Trial Court and came to the conclusion that their testimonies are not reliable. 9. It has further observed by the learned Trial Court that injury has been alleged and there is allegation of treatment in hospital also but no injury report has been produced. There has been a scuffle due to cutting of grass, which is nothing but neighbourhood dispute and false allegation cannot be ruled out. 10. In an acquittal appeal the Court has to consider as to whether the evidence has been considered in right perspective or not. There has been a scuffle due to cutting of grass, which is nothing but neighbourhood dispute and false allegation cannot be ruled out. 10. In an acquittal appeal the Court has to consider as to whether the evidence has been considered in right perspective or not. In the present appeal altogether three witnesses have been examined before charge and after charge only two witnesses were examined and after evaluation of their testimonies the learned Trail Court has rightly arrived at a finding that their testimonies are not reliable rather there are areas of doubt and as such, benefit of doubt must be extended to the accused persons. 11. In view of above discussion, this Court finds no reason to interfere with the judgment of acquittal. 12. Accordingly, the present acquittal appeal is dismissed.