money from the appellant, he abused the complainant in filthy language as also by his caste. It is also mentioned that at the time of incident, Ajay Sahu along with others were present at about 4:05 pm. In the written report, there is no mention of outstanding dues towards the plants purchased by the appellant from brother of complainant, which came in the evidence of complainant Mitthan Singh Dohre (PW1). Complainant Mitthan Singh Dohre (PW1) in his crossexamination before the Court, admitted that, the dispute of money with regard to supply of plants by his brother to appellant was not mentioned in the complaint. Ajay Kumar was examined before the trial Court as PW2. In his evidence, he only stated that in front of him, there was only exchange of words between the complainant and the appellant and, thereafter, appellant went away from the place. This witness was declared hostile by the prosecution and with the permission of Court, he was again examined. Question were put him, in which also, no adverse statement has come. In para-4 of his crossexamination, this witness admitted that except the usual abuse during exchange of words, no other abuse was hurled by the appellant. He also specified that as per his understanding, there was some talk between the two staff members. He denied the suggestion given to him by counsel of defence. Lakhan was examined as PW3. He also not supported the case of prosecution and has denied the suggestion that in front of him, appellant abused the complainant by his caste. J.R. Chourasiya (PW4), the Tahsildar posted at Jagdalpur, in his evidence has stated that on 23.04.1999, after inquiry, he issued
