V. M. KANADE, J.

( 1 ) THE Appellant is the original Complainant. He is challenging the judgment and Order passed by the Judicial Magistrate, First class, Pernem, in Private Criminal Case No. 30/p/2001 whereby the trial Court was pleased to acquit the accused of the offences under Sections 427, 447, 379 r/w Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

( 2 ) THE brief facts which are relevant for deciding this Criminal Appeal are as under: - the Appellant is the owner of property bearing Survey No. 224/0 of Village mandrem in which there are various trees such as banyan tree, bhendi, cashew trees etc. There is a Chapel of Santa Cruz which is next to the property owned by the Appellant. Some of the villagers felt that the branches of some of the trees from the said property owned by the appellant were likely to endanger the Chapel of Santa Cruz which was next to the property owned by the Ap- pellant. They had, therefore, filed a complaint before the executive Magistrate under section 133 of the Code of criminal Procedure against the appellant. It was alleged in the complaint that one banyan tree, one moye tree and one bhendi tree was likely to fall on the Chapel. The Executive Magistrate, therefore, initiated proceedings against the Appellant bearing No. MAG/133 cr. P. C. 3/2000. According to the Appellant, the Accused entered his property on 28-6- 2000 at about 9. 30 a. m. in the morning and cut the trees and took away the wood and, therefore, committed an offence punishable under Sections 427, 447, 379 r/w Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

( 3 ) ACCORDING to the complainant, he immediately filed a complaint against the Accused in the Pernem Police Station. He also wrote a letter to the Range Forest Officer and made a complaint against the Accused. According to him, the Police did not take any action on his complaint. He thereafter wrote a letter to the Forest Department asking them whether they had cut the trees. The Officers of the Forest Department thereafter came and drew a panchanama and thereafter a private complaint was filed in the Court of the Judicial Magistrate, First class at Pernem. Thereafter, charge was framed against the Accused who pleaded not guilty to the said charge. The Complainant examined himself and his brother Salvador Britto as P. W. 2. He also examined deepak Pednekar who was the Range Forest Officer at the relevant time as P. W. 3 and lastly, he examined the Assistant Sub inspector Marcel Pinto as P. W. 4. The trial court, however, did not accept the evidence adduced by the Complainant and acquitted the Accused. The Complainant being aggrieved by the said Order of acquittal has preferred this Appeal against acquittal against the Respondents.

( 4 ) IT is submitted by the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant that the trial Court had not apprehended the evidence which was adduced by him in its proper perspective and had ignored the evidence of P. W. 2, Salvador Britto, who had witnessed the said incident merely by making an observation that. P. W. 2, Salvador britto was the cousin brother of P. W. 1, edultacao Britto and, therefore, was an interested witness. The learned Counsel submitted that the trial Court had committed a manifest error in ignoring the testimony of the eye witness. In support of the said submission, the learned Counsel relied on a Judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of (State of Punjab v. Karnail Singh), reported in 2003 (11) S. C. C. 271. He also relied on a Judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of (Gajanan Amrut Gaykwad and others v. State of Maharashtra), reported in 1995 Supp. (3) S. C. C. 607. He also relied on a Judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of (Narendra Nath Khaware v. Parasnath Khaware and others), reported in 2003 (5) S. C. C. 488. He also relied on a judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of (State of U. P. v. Button and others), reported in 2001 (10) S. C. C. 607. He further relied on the Judgment of the Supreme court in the case