Judgment

HEGDE, J.:- This appeal by special leave is directed against the decision of single Judge of the High Court of Judicature at Patna setting aside the acquittal of the appellants and convicting them under Ss. 379/149, I. P. C. as well as under Section 143, I. P. C.

2. The appellants were prosecuted before the Munsiff Magistrate, 1st Class, Arrah, for dishonestly cutting and removing the paddy crop in plots Nos. 340 and 346 pertaining to khata No. 82 in village Ibrahim Nagar District Shahbad. The complainant s case is that those lands belonged to him and the appellants unlawfully trespassed into that property on November 19, 1961 and harvested the rice crop. The appellants pleaded not guilty to the charge. The learned trial Magistrate held the appellants guilty and convicted them as mentioned earlier. In appeal the learned District Judge, Shahbad acquitted the appellants. He felt unable to rely on the prosecution case for three different reasons. Firstly he came to the conclusion that the witnesses who spoke about the occurrence are all interested witnesses and it is unsafe to place reliance on their testimony. He secondly came to the conclusion that there was considerable delay in filing the complaint and the delay in question has not been explained by the prosecution and that circumstance throws doubt on the prosecution case. Lastly he held that the non - examination of the police inspector who is said to have come to the place of occurrence at the time of the occurrence and seen some of the appellants harvesting the crop casts further doubt on the prosecution case. The High Court differing from the 1st appellate Court held that there was no delay in filing the complaint nor was the non-examination of the police inspector a circumstance, that went against the prosecution. It did not deal with the finding of the 1st appellate Court that it is unsafe to place reliance on the evidence of P. Ws. 1 to 4 as they were interested witnesses.

3. It is true that the powers of the High Court in considering the evidence on record in appeals under Section 417, Criminal P. C. are as extensive as its powers in appeals against convictions but that Court at the same time should bear in mind the presumption of innocence of accused persons which presumption is not weakened by their acquittal. It must also bear in mind the fact that the appellate Judge has found them not guilty. Unless the conclusions reached by him are palpably wrong or based on erroneous view of the law or that his decision is likely to result in grave injustice, the High Court should be reluctant to interfere with his conclusion. If two reasonable conclusions can be reached on the basis of the evidence on record then the view in support of the acquittal of the accused should be preferred. The fact that the High Court is inclined to take a different view of the evidence on record is not sufficient to interfere with the order of acquittal.

4. The learned appellate Judge has come to the conclusion that P. Ws. 1 to 4 are interested witnesses and it is unsafe to place reliance on their testimony. It is established in evidence that P. Ws. 1 to 3 are interested witnesses. They are the enemies of the appellants. This aspect of the case was not considered by the High Court at all.

5. The occurrence is said to have taken place on November 19, 1961 but the complaint in respect of the same was filed on November 27, 1961. The explanation given by the complainant for this inordinate delay was that he laid information about the occurrence before the police on the date of the occurrence itself; he was expecting the police to take up the investigation; as the police did not take up the investigation, he filed the complaint on 27-11-1961. This explanation has been rejected by the 1st appellate Court. The complaint said to have been filed by the complainant has not been summoned nor proved. No satisfactory proof of any such complaint has been adduced before the Court. If a complaint under Sect