SHARMA, J. - (1.) THE State of Rajasthan has preferred this appeal against the judgment dated 21. 7. 1999 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Bansur Distt. Alwar (hereinafter to be referred as `the learned trial court') in Criminal Case No. 109/93 by which he acquitted the accused-respondent for the offence under Section 354 I. P. C.
(2.) IN brief, the facts of the case are as under:- Complainant Tija Devi widow of Puranchand (PW. 1) submitted a written report before the Police Station Bansur Distt. Alwar (Ex. P. 2) on 29. 9. 1993, in which she has stated that accused- respondent was the Patwari in Teshildar Office after drinking liquor had going to her house and inside her house using unparliamentary language. She had further stated in his report that previously also the accused-responding repeated the same offence and she also previously complained to Teshildar. Upon the said information the police registered an F. I. R. No. 74/83 under Section 354 IPC and started investigation. After investigation the police filed a challan against the accused- respondent before the learned trial Court. The learned trial Court framed the charge mentioned hereinabove against the accused-respondent. The charges were read over and explained to the accused- respondent who pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. During trial the prosecution in support of its case examined as many as 8 witnesses and got exhibited some documents. Thereafter the statements of the accused-respondent under Section 313 Cr. P. C. were recorded.
(3.) AFTER conclusion of the trial the learned trial Court vide its judgment dated 21. 7. 1999 acquitted the accused-respondent from the offence charged against him holding interalia that the prosecution has not been able to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubts against the accused-respondent. Aggrieved against the judgment and order of the learned trial Court dated 21. 7. 1999, the State of Rajasthan has preferred the instant appeal. 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- respondent and thus, the impugned judgment and order dated 21. 7. 1999 is erroneous one and should be set aside. ;