The need for substantial and compelling reasons to reverse judgments of acquittal, and the lack of credible grounds for accepting the defense's case.

ORDER

Moushumi Bhattacharya, J. - The appeal arises out of a judgment passed by the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Suri, Birbhum under Sections 147/380/427 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860 in C. Case No. 318 of 1980. By the said judgment, the accused persons were acquitted under Section 248(1) of The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, and discharged from their bail bonds.

2. The appellant before this Court was the de facto complainant and deposed as the PW/1 before the learned Trial Court. The incident occurred on 20th May, 1980 and the complaint was filed by the appellant under Sections 147/379/323/504 of the IPC. The charges were framed under Sections 147/380/427 of the IPC (punishment for rioting, theft in dwelling house, mischief causing damage).

3. The case made out by the prosecution was that the grandfather of the complainant/appellant had executed a deed of gift in favour of the appellant before his death in respect of a tin-shed house together with some landed property. On 20th May, 1980, the respondents, armed with deadly weapons attacked the appellant, trespassed inside the tin shed house and tried to steal articles. The appellant was assaulted when she raised an alarm after which the respondents dislocated the tin-shed from the roof of the house. The appellant suffered a consequential loss of Rs. 3000/-. C. Case No. 318/1980 on 24.05.1980 was registered against the respondents on the basis of the complaint made by the appellant. Upon trial, the respondents were acquitted of all the charges.

4. During the trial, the prosecution examined a total of 8 witnesses while no witnesses were examined by the defence. The witnesses of the prosecution were as follows.

5. After going through the materials on record including the depositions of the witnesses, this Court is of the view that there are several reasons for believing the case made out by the prosecution. First, the incident took place on 20.05.1980 and the appellant lodged a General Diary on the very next day in the local police station. The complaint case was filed before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Suri, Birbhum. Hence, there was no delay in lodging of the complaint. Second, PW/2, Sukumar Mishra, who was examined by the prosecution, corroborated the version of the complainant. Sukumar Mishra was one of the eye-witnesses to the incident and a cousin brother of the appellant. The deposition of Sukumar Mishra (PW/2) shows that the PW/2 witnessed the part of the incident and also identified all the accused persons. PW/3, Radhu Soren was also an eye-witness to the incident and deposed that PW/3 was aware of the deed of the gift of the house to the appellant by her grandfather. The deposition of PW/3 shows that PW/3 came to the place of occurrence upon hearing the cry of the complainant and witnessed the part of the incident. At the time of incident, PW/3 did not protest out of fear but identified all the accused. Third, the deposition of PW/5 Ananda Gopal Roy clearly states that there was a civil dispute between the appellant and the respondents regarding the property in question. PW/5 is a co-villager of the complainant and the accused persons and deposed that PW/5 was a witness to the deed of gift of the tin shed house to the appellant by the grandfather of the appellant. The deposition of PW/8, Baidyanath Chattopadhyay, further corroborated the account of PW/5 as it was depose