Crl.A. 49/2004 BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.GOSWAMI This is an appeal u/s 378 CrPC preferred against the order dated 18.9.0 3 passed by the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Udalguri in C.R. No. 188/01, acquitting the accused persons of the charge u/s 143/149/447/506 IPC. During the pendency of this appeal, Respondent Nos. 4,5 and 6 had expire d and, accordingly, by an order dated 21.2.11, this Court recorded that the appe al shall stand abated against the Respondent Nos. 4,5 and 6. I have heard Mr. J.Ahmed, learned counsel for the appellant. None appea rs for the respondents though the name of Mr. S. Chauhan is reflected in the Cau se-list as the learned counsel appearing for the Respondent Nos.1,3,4,5 and 7. The appellant had filed a complaint petition stating that on 12.6.01, th e accused persons, namely, Bhimsen Munda, Patar Munda, Budhuwa Munda, Suni Majhi , Mangra Munda, Haren Sarma and Labdu Lahar, entered into the land of the appell ant and started to plough the same in violation of the injunction order, passed by the Civil Court in Misc.(J) Case No.18/98 arising out of Title Suit No.16/98. it was also alleged that when the appellant had tried to resist the accused pe rsons, they had threatened him with dire consequences. On the basis of the aforesaid complaint, a complaint case being C.R. No. 188/01 was registered and the complainant was examined u/s 200 CrPC 2 more witn esses were examined u/s 202 CrPC and, thereafter, the learned Magistrate, being satisfied took cognizance of the offence u/s 143/147/447/506 IPC by an order dat ed 26.6.01 and, accordingly, issued process. After appearance of the accused persons, the offence u/s 143/149/447/506 IPC was explained to them to which the accused persons pleaded not guilty and c laimed to be tried. During trial, the prosecution examined 2 witnesses in support of the pro secution case. Defence chose not to adduce any evidence and their case was that of denial. 2 witnesses examined on behalf of the complainant were the complain ant himself and his son, who was examined as PW.2. The learned trial court, on completion of the trial, after hearing the p arties, by his judgment and order dated 18.9.03, took a view that on the scrutin y of the evidence on record, in the absence of independent corroboration, it wou ld not be proper to act upon the evidence of PW1 and PW2 and thereby held that t he evidence adduced by the prosecution is not sufficient to prove the charges ag ainst the accused beyond all reasonable doubt and, accordingly, had acquitted th e accused persons of the charges. Mr. J.Ahmed, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the learned trial court was not justified in the facts and circumstances of the case in acqu itting the accused persons on the ground that the evidence of the prosecution wa s not sufficient to convict the accused persons. He has contended that the alle gations as found in the complaint petition was established through the evidence of PW1 & PW2 and when allegations have been proved, there could not have been an y occasion for the learned trial court to take the view, as had been taken. In the aforesaid premises, the learned counsel submits that the appeal deserves to be allowed. The materials on record would disclose that a civil suit was pending, ap parently with regard to the land involved in the present case. Materials on rec ord do not, however, indicate as to who are the parties thereto. As has been he ld by the learned trial court, no documents were exhibited by the complainant. It would also appear that no application alleging violation of the injunction or der had been filed before the appropriate Court. Be that as it may, from the evidence of PW2, it would appear that one Lakhi Sarm a had come to the place of occurrence. It is also in his evidence that his uncle ’s son, Suromoni, had also arrived at the place of occurrence. The evidence of P W1, would also disclose that 2 persons, namely, Hari Prasad Sarma and Joy Prasad Sarma had also witnessed the incident. PW1 was also categorical in his cross-e xamination that no assault etc. had taken place. The complainant had failed to e xplain as to why the aforesaid persons had not been examined. The learned trial court, on the basis of the materials on record, had taken a view that it may not be safe to convict the accused persons on the basis of the testimony of the fat her and son duo. In view of the pendency of the civil case on which the complainant had placed reliance, it was incumbent on the complainant to have examined material a nd independent witnesses, which he failed to do. On the basis of the materials on record, it cannot be said that the view taken by the learned trial court is perverse and/or that it is wholly unwarrant ed. In view of the aforesaid discussions and observations, I do not find any merit in this appeal and, accordingly, the same stands dismissed. LCRs be transmitted forthwith.