IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA G. APP. (SJ) No.5 of 2010 THE STATE OF BIHAR Versus BALESHWAR TANTI & ORS ----------- 06. 04.04.2011. After having heard Sri Uday Chand Prasad, learned counsel for the appellant and also heard Sri Prakash Mahto, learned respondent nos.2 to 9, the limitation in filing the present appeal is hereby condoned by allowing I.A.No.2350 of 2010 and after having gone through the judgment impugned herein what this court finds is that there was a dispute for a particular land for which the parties had litigated in the lower courts and the second appeal was pending before this Court. It is admitted that no court had passed any order injuncting either of the sides from going over the piece of land. The prosecution case was that the accused persons went over the disputed land and uprooted the few paddy plants from the field and when that was objected to, they abused and assaulted the informant. The court below has, after considering the evidence on record both 2 documentary and oral including those which indicated the story of litigation between the parties in respect of plot nos.355, 368, 370 under Khata no.59 and plot no.77 under khata no.355, has gone on to hold that it was not possible to hold that the accused persons were the aggressors rather they were acting under bona fide belief that they went over the land to exercise their right of possession. This appears the view which could also be taken on the basis of the evidence adduced by the prosecution. If two views are possible and if the view which has been taken by the trial court was also one of the possible views, then in that view the judgment of acquittal has never to be interfered with. In the result, this appeal appears meritless and the same is dismissed. B.Kr. ( Dharnidhar Jha,J.)