JUDGMENT
S.C. Datta, J.
1. This is an appeal against the order of acquittal.
2. The case was instituted on the complaint of the present appellant. He has lodged the complaint in the Court of the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Kodala, on the allegation that the respondents committed theft of paddy crop raised by him on his land on 2-12-1984 at about 9 A.M. in prosecution of their common object. The learned Magistrate framed charges against respondents for commissipn of offence under Sections 379/323/149, IPC.
3. In support of his case, the complainant has examined himself and two other witnesses, whereas the defence has examined none. However, on appreciation of evidence, learned Magistrate held that the complainant has failed to prove the charges brought against the accused persons beyond all reasonable doubts. Therefore, the trial Court acquitted all the accused persons.
4. Being aggrieved thereby the complainant has come before this Court with special leave. It is contended on behalf of the appellant that the finding of the Court below is misconceived and there has been no proper appreciation of evidence by the learned Magistrate. It is contended that the learned Magistrate was wholly wrong in disbelieving the prosecution witnesses with regard to the raising of crops in the case land by the complainant and the cutting of paddy therefrom forcibly by the accused persons.
5. The respondents have, however, supported the finding of the learned Magistrate.
6. Heardlearned Counsel appearing for the parties.
7. It is to be borne in mind that it is an appeal against the order of acquittal. The Supreme Court has laid down the following cardinal rules in respect of appeals against acquittals, namely :-
(1) the presumption of the innocence of the accused should be kept in mind;
(2) if two views of the matter are possible, the view favourable to the accused should be taken;
(3) the appellate Court should take into account the fact that the trial Judge had the advantage of looking at the demeanour of witnesses; and
(4) the accused is entitled to the benefit of doubt.
But the doubt should be reasonable, that is, the doubt which rational thinking man will reasonably, honestly and conscientiously entertain but not the doubt of a timid mind which fights shy. To put it differently, it is not the doubt of a vacillating mind that has not the moral courage to decide but shelters itself in a vain and ideal scepticism.
8. It is well settled that when the finding of the acquittal is perverse and unreasonable, the finding can be reversed in an appeal against acquittal but the finding of acquittal when based on proper appreciation of evidence cannot be reversed. It is also to be remembered that if the evaluation of evidence by the trial Judge does not suffer from illegality, manifest error or perversity and the main ground on which the trial Court has based its order is reasonable and plausible the High Court will not interfere in the appeal against acquittal. Keeping these principles in mind, we are to scrutinies the judgment which has been challenged in appeal.
9. It is undisputed that the parties are related with each other. In fact, the complainant and accused Nos. 1,3,4,5 and 6 are brothers whereas accused No. 2 is the wife of accused No. 1. The present dispute is essentially a boundary dispute. The complainant claims title to and possession over a piece of land measuring Ac. 0.40 cents. According to the complainant in the year of occurrence, he had raised ‘1009’ variety of paddy crop over the paddy land. He alleges that on 2-12-1984 at about 9 A.M., the accused persons having no manner of right, title and interest over the case land came upon it and removed paddy crop therefrom. His further allegation is that when he protested the accused Prahallad dealt a blow on the left side chest for which he sustained pain. He claims that he had sustained a loss of Rs. 1000/- due to the theft of paddy crop. In order to prove title to and possession over the case land he has filed rent receipt (Ext. 1) which refers to patta No. 46 measuring about Ac. 5.80 of land which stands recorded in the name of Daya Ghosh and others. So this rent receipt does not show exclusive possession of the complainant over the disputed land. Similarly, the R.O.R. (Ext. 2) does not help the complainant inasmuch as it does not clearly indicate that the complainant is in possession of the case land exclusively. The complainant (P.W. 1) has taken oath to support his case in the complaint petition. He has brought two witnesses viz., P.Ws. 2 and 3 to corroborate him with regard to the forcible removal of paddy crop from the disputed plot of land.learned Counsel appearing for the respondents submits that in order to succeed the complainant has to prove that he has raised paddy over the case land but that evidence is lacking in this case and as such, the learned Magistrate was perfectly justified in acquitting the accused persons. The witnesses brought by the complainant as P.Ws. 2 and 3 have get no land near the disputed land. P.W. 2 has failed to say the boundary of the disputed land. P.W. 3 has of course stated the boundary of the case land. The boundary men has not been brought by the complainant to prove his exclusive possession over the disputed property. The complainant has failed to give a reasonable explanation as to why he has failed to produce these boundary men to prove exclusive possession and the raising of paddy crop there by him. It appears that learned Magistrate did not find the prosecution witnesses trustworthy and as such, he was not inclined to place reliance upon their testimony to return a verdict of guilty. He noticed that the evidence of P.Ws. 2 and 3 is at variance with that of complainant (P.W. 1). He noticed that the parties are at litigating terms for several years. He found it unsafe to rely upon the sole testimony without any independent corroboration. The judgment of the trial Court has been thoroughly scrutinised and it does not appear that the appreciation of evidence by the trial Court is perverse or illegal or suffers from any infirmity. In that view of the matter, it is felt that no interference with the order of acquittal is called for. In that view of the matter, the appeal fails and is dismissed.