The judgment in a criminal prosecution is irrelevant in determining civil liability, and the civil court must independently investigate facts and come to its own finding.

1. Respondent instituted a suit against the appellants (defendants 3 and 4) and two others for damages and injunction. The suit property which belongs to the plaintiff and is in his possession was bounded on the south by a village pathway. At the request of the defendants and other local people the plaintiff surrendered necessary land to expand the pathway into a 12 feet wide road. The road was constructed The plaintiff thereupon erected a fence on the north side of the new road for the protection of his property. The plaintiff states that with the idea of widening the road still further the defendants with certain others demolished the fence and cut down 4 coconut trees, 3 arecanut palms and 1 plantain from his property causing him a loss of Rs. 1500/-. This was on December 3,1972. The plaintiff thereupon brought the suit for a decree for damages in Rs. 1500/- and for a permanent injunction to restrain the defendants from trespassing or cutting any road or committing any waste upon the property or altering its boundaries.

2. The defendants disclaimed ail responsibility for the acts alleged in the plaint but stated that it was some other local people who widened the pathway into a 14 feet road and that too with the consent of the plaintiff and that in this process some trees that stood on the road margin had to be cut. The plaintiff constructed a fence but later on attempted to move its position with the idea of narrowing the road, an attempt which was resisted by the local people. He has followed it up, it was stated, by the suit claiming untenable reliefs and swollen damages against the defendants

3. The trial court accepted the plaintiff's case and evidence, rejecting the defence and the evidence which was called in its support. It however found that the damages would not exceed Rs. 750/-. The plaintiff was accordingly given a decree for injunction as claimed by him and for Rs. 750/-found by the court.

4. On appeal the Subordinate Judge found that the evidence was not clear enough to prove the complicity of defendants 1 and 2. He also took into account the circumstance that defendants 1 and 2 who were prosecuted along with certain others for the same incident had been acquitted. In the result he reversed the judgment and decree as against defendants 1 and 2 and confirmed the rest

5. Although counsel for the appellants sought to dislodge the concurrent findings of fact by attempting a re-appraisal of the evidence I find no good ground to upset those findings. The incident is largely admitted, the only defence being a disclaimer of liability on the part of the defendants who attribute it to certain other local people. The courts below have fully discussed the evidence and reached their findings. Parts of the relevant evidence which were read out fully support the appreciation of the evidence and findings of the courts below.

6. Counsel however contended that even so the decision against defendant 4 must be reversed as he has been acquitted in Cr. R.P. No. 286 of 1974 which arose from the Criminal prosecution. The Order in the Criminal Revision Petition which was placed before me shows that 12 persons including the appellants were prosecuted by the local Sub-Inspector for the offences under S.143,147,149,447 and 427, Indian Penal Code, in respect of this incident pursuant to the first information statement given by the plaintiff. The Sub-Magistrate, Thiruvalla who tried the case acquitted accused 1 and 4 (defendants 1 and 2 as the Subordinate Judge says) and convicted and sentenced the other ten accused under S.447 and 427, Indian Penal Code. This conviction and sentence having been confirmed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate the Criminal Revision Petition was brought in this Court. The learned judge who decided the Criminal Revision Petition considered that the evidence was not strong enough to sustain the conviction and sentence of four of the petitioners. The four accused including one of the appellants was therefore