IMPORTANT POINT
The presumption of innocence is reinforced by an acquittal, and the burden of proof lies with the prosecution to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

JUDGMENT :

(Tirthankar Ghosh, J.) :

1. The present appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order of acquittal dated 19.05.2022 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 2nd Court, Tamluk in C.R. Case No. 331 of 2006 corresponding to T.R. Case No. 573/2006 wherein the learned Trial Court was pleased to acquit the accused persons from the charges under Section 447/379/427/34 of the Indian Penal Code.

2. The genesis of the case relates to a complaint case being CR Case No. 331 of 2006 which was initiated at the instance of the appellant/complainant namely, Minurani Maity against Nibedita Das, Anupam Kumar Bose, Manas Paul, Pranab Kumar Paul and other unknown four/five masons and labourers and 10/12 localites. The allegations made in the petition of complaint were to the effect that the accused persons are neighbours who are mischievous and are engaged in hooliganism. The property of the complainant is situated within the jurisdiction of Tamluk Police Station at Daharpur Mouja and D.S. & R.S. Khatiyan No. 65, L.R. No. 245/5, Dag No. 397. It has been contended that she purchased 6 decimals of land out of the 14 decimals of land in the aforesaid Dag number and within the said land there was a single storied building, trees etc. barbed wire fence and boundary wall with concrete pillars since the time of her predecessor. The accused no.1 and his men created hindrance for establishing right in the said property as such the complainant was forced to initiate a Civil case against the accused before the Civil Judge’s Court, Tamluk being case No. 59/2006 and by an order dated 29.04.2006 the Civil Court passed temporary injunction restraining the accused no.1 from changing the nature and character of the property and for maintaining status quo in respect of the aforestated land. Being apprehensive the accused persons might damage the house and the boundary wall along with the barbed wire fences the complainant submitted written diary on 27.04.2006 which was registered as G.D.E. No. 1218 with Tamluk Police Station. The accused no.1 with the aid and advice of accused no.4 on 28.04.2006 with the assistance of 20/25 persons gathered illegally, tried to break and destroy the boundary wall and fence of the land of the complainant forcefully and on being resisted by the complainant and her men, they scaled the wall and entered the land and illegally trespassed in the premises of the complainant. Between 29.04.2005 to 09.05.2006 the accused persons along with four to five masons and labourers along with assistance of some localites unearthed the barbed wire fence on the southern side and encroached about 8 to 9 feet inside the southern boundary on the northern side illegally and by digging the base, created a new pucca wall installing iron plats on it. In the temple which is under the possession of the complainant there were four betel nut trees and three mango bearing trees along with flower plants which was encircled by the newly constructed wall and the accused persons forcefully took away 500 old bricks of the complainant, used the same for destroying the flower plants. In the afternoon on 19.05.2006, 50 kg of mangoes were taken away and from the jack fruit tree two jack fruit had also been stolen away. All the four accused persons are associated with the B.L. & L.R.O. Office, as such when he was on leave the incident occurred at the spot on their directions. The accused persons refused to hear the complainant and rather threatened her. It is alleged that the value of the brick which was taken away was Rs.500/-, the fence which has been destroyed resulted in loss of the complainant to the tune of Rs.5,000/-, the temple being surrounded by new wall prevented the complainant from performing her regular worship. The incidents were informed at Tamluk Police Station, however, the accused persons influenced the police authorities who did not take any steps. As the police did not properly respond the complainant was frustrated and mentall