THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 440 OF 2003 JUDGMENT: 1. This Criminal Appeal, under Section 378(3) & (1) Cr.P.C., is preferred by the State against the judgment dated 04.09.2001 in C.C. No. 888 of 1999 on the file of the VI Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, whereunder and whereby the respondents/A.1 to A.6 were acquitted of the offences under Sections 447, 342, 506 read with 34 I.P.C. 2. For non-prosecution, the appeal against the respondents 2 to 6/A.2 to A.6 was dismissed vide order dated 23.9.2008. Now, the appeal is confined only against A.1 i.e. whether he committed the offences punishable under Sections 447, 342, 506 read with 34 I.P.C. 3. While dealing with the order of acquittal, though the appellate Court has got full power to re-appreciate the evidence, but it will be slow in interfering with the same in view of the fact that there is a presumption under law that the accused is presumed to be innocent unless contrary is proved and that presumption of innocence is further strengthened by an order of acquittal. Unless there are compelling or substantial reasons, normally this court would not interfere with the order of acquittal. 4. Admittedly, there were civil disputes between the prosecution witnesses and the accused. The case of the accused is that when A.1 asked P.W.1 to vacate the premises, he alleged to have foisted the false case. It is also not in dispute that P.W.1 occupied 1000 square yards of open space belonging to A.1 and fenced the same with bamboos. P.Ws. 1 and 2 are father and son, and P.W.3 is their own servant. No other independent witness was examined to show that A.1 committed the offence punishable under Sections 447, 342, 506 read with 34 I.P.C. According to P.W.1, the incident was videographed. Even P.W.1 admitted that M.O.1 is not original cassette. It is only a copy. The same has not been produced before the investigating officer. The trial Court, upon appreciation of the evidence on record in right perspective, rightly acquitted the respondents. There are no compelling or substantial reasons to interfere with the impugned judgment. Further, in view of the fact that the appeal is already dismissed against A.2 to A.6, nothing survives in this appeal. 5. The Criminal Appeal is devoid of merit and is, accordingly, dismissed. ------------------- (K.C.Bhanu, J.) 23.12.2009 Drk THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 440 OF 2003 Date: 23.12.2009 Between: State, rep. by the Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad. …Appellant And P.Balraj & others …Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 440 OF 2003 23.12.2009