JUDGMENT
S.C. Datta, J.
1. This is an appeal from an order of acquittal. Appellant and the respondents are complainant and accused persons respectively in I.C.C. No. 17 of 1985 in the Court of the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Ranpur. The respondents here in after referred to as the ‘accused persons’ stood their trial for the offence committed under Section 427, Indian Penal Code (in short the ‘I.P.C.). Accused Nos. 1 and 2 further stood their trial for the offence under Section 323, I.P.C. on the allegations that they committed mischief and voluntarily caused hurt to the appellant (here in after referred to as the ‘complainant’).
2. The prosecution case, in short, is that the parties are neighbours. A stone boundary wall stands on the northern side of the house of the complainant and this is the demarcation of land between the house of the complainant and that of the accused persons. In the morning of 4-5-1985 on hearing the sound of digging, the complainant came near the wall and found that the accused persons were digging drain along with the wall whose length was about 70 feet. Finding the same, the complainant along with some neighbours arrived at the spot and protested the work being undertaken by the accused persons. According to the complainant by the action of the accused persons, his wall was damaged. The protest of the complainant went in vain. On the other hand, at the instance of the accused No. 3 the other accused persons dragged him forcibly by catching his hand towards the Bari of the accused persons. At that moment some of the neighbours assembled there. On their intervention the complainant was saved from further assault and humiliation. According to the complainant by digging of the drain there was damage to the plaster of the wall for which the complainant sustained a loss of Rs. 100/-.
3. To bring home the charge, the complainant examined as many as four witnesses including himself as P.W. 1, while the defence examined none. But upon analysis of the materials on record, the learned trial Court vide judgment dated 7-5-1986 acquitted all the accused persons with a finding that the complainant has failed to establish the case against the accused persons beyond reasonable doubt.
4. Being aggrieved thereby, the complainant has preferred this appeal before this Court with leave: It has been contended that the learned Court below has signally failed to appreciate the evidence on record and came to an erroneous conclusion resulting in the acquittal of the accused persons. It has been further contended that the learned Court below was wholly wrong in discarding the evidence of the prosecution witnesses on the ground that they were chance witnesses.
5. Heard learned counsel for the parlies.
It may be noted that this is an appeal against the order of acquittal passed by the trial Court. The incident allegedly happened on 4-5-1985 and the judgment of acquittal was recorded by the trial Court on 7-5-1986. The complainant has however approached this Court by filing appeal with leave of this Court. Any way, allegedly the dispute between the parties arose over the digging of a drain alongside of the boundary wall of the complainant.
6. On behalf of the prosecution four witnesses have been examined. P.W. 1 was the complainant himself. P.W. 1, the complainant, has categorically stated that there was no plaster on his wall at the time of occurrence. Then there was no occasion for damage to the plaster of the wall by the act of alleged digging of drain. He has also stated that the other witnesses arrived at the spot after digging of the drain was over. The complainant did not allege during the trial that he has sustained injury in his left arm but P.W. 3 has gone to the extent of saying that he has seen such injury on the left arm of the complainant. The learned Magistrate could not believe the evidence of prosecution witnesses, namely, P.Ws. 2, 3 and 4 on the ground that they happened to be the chance witnesses. He noticed several discrepancies in their testimony regarding their presence at the spot. Accordingly, the learned Magistrate was of the view that their versions of the case should not be believed.
7. Regarding the allegations of causing mischief to the boundary wall, the learned Magistrate noticed categorical statement of the complainant himself to show that there was no plaster on the wail at the time of occurrence. So there was no question of causing damage to the plaster of the wall by the alleged digging of the drain. In that view of the matter, the learned Magistrate return a verdict of not guilty and acquitted all the accused persons.
8. It may be remembered that this is an appeal against an order of acquittal. A judgment of acquittal should not be interfered with unless the appreciation of the evidence and the conclusion drawn there upon by the trial Court are unreasonable, erroneous or perverse. Reversion of a judgment of acquittal will not be justified merely on the ground that the appellate Court’s view on the evidence on record is different to that of trial Court. On the same set of evidence, two views are reasonably possible. The judgment of the trial Court has been thoroughly scrutinised and it does not appear to be unreasonable, unjustified or perverse in the context of the evidence of the complainant. So it would be impermissible and improper, according to law, to interfere with such an order of acquittal.
9. As noticed earlier, the incident took place in the year 1985. Long 13 years have passed since then. It is believed that the parties are maintaining good neighbourly relations.
In view of the circumstances discussed above, this Court does not feel inclined to interfere with the order of acquittal passed by the learned Magistrate. The appeal is accordingly dismissed.