Crl.A. 280/2003 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE CR SARMA JUDGMENT & ORDER (ORAL) None appears for the appellant. Heard Mr. PK Deka, learned counsel appearing for the respondents and Mr. BB Gogoi, learned Addl. PP, Assam. 1. The judgment and order, dated 17/07/2003, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Hailakandi in CR Case No. 505/99 under Sections 4 47/427, IPC is in challenge in this appeal. 2. The appellant/complainant filed a complaint case before the lear ned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hailakandi, alleging illegal trespass and mischie f against the respondents. In the complaint aforesaid, it was stated that the re spondents, on 04/06/99, committed criminal trespass into the land of the appella nt and forcefully occupied the same by raising a house thereon. 3. It was also alleged in the complaint aforesaid, that the respond ents had caused mischief by causing damage to the property of the complainant. A ccordingly the said complaint was registered as the aforesaid and the learned Ma gistrate, after making an enquiry under sections 200 and 202 Cr.PC., followed by local inspection, took cognizance under sections 447/427, IPC, against the accu sed persons. 4. Summons being issued by the learned trial Court the respondents appeared before the Magistrate and the learned Mrgistrate explained the particul ars offence under sections 447/427, IPC, to which the accused/persons pleaded no t guilty. The prosecution side examined as many as five witnesses in support of this case. At the close of the evidence of the prosecution, the accused persons were examined under Section 313 Cr.PC. though the plea was denial one. The accus ed persons also examined one witness in support of their claim with regard to th e title of the disputed land. 5. The learned trial Judge considered the matter and came to the fi ndings that the complainant failed to prove the allegation of criminal trespass causing mischief in respect of the property of the complainant and accordingly r ecorded acquittal of the accused persons. 6. Being aggrieved by the said acquittal, the complainant as appell ant has come up with this appeal under Section 378(4) Cr.PC. 7. In the memo appeal it has been contended by the appellant that t he learned Trial Judge, failed to properly appreciate the evidence on record in holding that the accused persons were not guilty of the offence under sections 4 47/427, IPC. 8. Mr. PK Deka, learned counsel appearing for the respondents takin g this court through the impugned judgment and order as well as the evidence on record, submitted that the complainant failed to establish the allegation, broug ht against the respondents beyond all reasonable doubt and that the accused pers ons are possessing the disputed land since long. In order to appreciate the cont ention aforesaid and to examine the correctness of the findings of the learned t rial Judge, I have carefully gone though the evidence on record and as well as t he impugned judgment and order. 9. The complainant, who deposed as PW 1, in his cross-examination, stated that earlier he had filed a case in respect of the disputed land against the respondents and the said case was settled on compromise in a Lok Adalat, hel d on 09/11/99. He further stated that after the settlement of the said in disput e, in the Lok Adalat, he did not obtain possession in respect of the disputed la nd through the Court. The complainant in his evidence further stated that the ac cused Habibur Rahman constructed a shop house about 20 years ago. 10. In view of the above, it appears that the accused Habibur Rahman (Since deceased) occupied the suit land 20 years ago and that the complainant f ailed to get the possession of the suit land after settlement of the earlier cas e in the Lok Adalat held on 09/11/99. The occurrence of this case as alleged by the complainant took place on 04/06/99. 11. In view of the above, as the complainant, even after settlement of the disputed land in the Lok Adalat held on 09/11/99, could not get the posse ssion of the suit land, his evidence that he was dispossessed from the suit land on 04/06/99 is doubtful. This suspicion is fortified by the complainant himself by saying that the accused Habibur Rahman, possessed the suit land 20 years ag o by raising a shop house. 12. Mr. Abdul Rahman, who deposed as PW 2 failed to disclose the bou ndary of the suit land properly. According to the complainant at the time of occ urrence he had visited the suit land and he saw the accused persons raising the construction on the suit land. According to the PW 2 the accused persons did not response to the objection raised by the complainant. In his cross-examination, PW 2 stated that in the place of occurrence he did not talk with the complainant . 13. Considering the facts and circumstance of this case, the evidenc e of PW 2, that the complainant did not have any talk with the PW 2, who was fou nd in the place of occurrence at the time of the incident also raises doubt abou t the varsity of the evidence of the PW 2. It is also doubtful as to whether PW 2 saw the raising of the construction on the disputed land. 14. PW 3 was a rickshaw puller by profession. He stated that the acc used persons had their land on the eastern side of the disputed land. The reside nce of this witness was situated at a 1 ‰ Km away from the suit land. He also st ated that earlier Habibur (since deceased) used to run a shop in the disputed l and. 15. PW 4 was a formal witness, he deposed regarding local Inspector done by the learned Magistrate. 16. PW 5 stated that his father was the scribe of the sale deed i.e. Ext. No.2. From the evidence of PW 1 i.e. the complainant it is found that he c laimed that he had purchased the suit land from Halima Bibi, vide Ext. No. 2. Th e learned Magistrate has observed that there is no recital regarding delivery of possession of the land, sold by the said sale deed and that no boundary, in res pect of the said land was also mentioned. In his cross examination the complaina nt (PW1) admitted that the disputed land originally belonged to Masad Ali and th at no partition had taken placed between the daughters of said Masad Ali. 17. In view of the above, the learned Magistrate rightly disbelieved the story of possession of the land by way of purchase. 18. Considering the entire evidence on record, I find that the learn ed Trial Judge, while rendering the impugned judgment and order properly applied his mind and the evidence on record and came to the findings that the complaina nt failed to establish the charge under Sections 427/477 against the accused per sons, after due consideration of the evidence on record. 19. I am of the considered opinion that the learned Trial Judge comm itted no material irregularity in arriving at the said findings. It is settled l aw that the prosecution, in order to establish its case, is required to prove th e charge, brought against an accused person beyond all reasonable doubt and the benefit of doubt should go in favour of the accused person. 20. In the light of the above discussion, I find no merits in this a ppeal requiring interference in the impugned judgment and order in this appeal a gainst the acquittal. Consequently, the appeal is dismissed. 21. Return the Trial Court record.