Interference with orders of acquittal is not justified unless there is a manifest illegality or a grave miscarriage of justice.

JUDGMENT

1. The present Criminal Revision Petition has been filed against judgment and order dated 12.11.2018 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Aishmuqam (for short, the 'trial court') whereby the respondents/accused, facing trial for offences punishable under Sections 447, 427, 336, 354, 436A, 323 RPC were acquitted. The acquittal of the accused/respondents has been challenged on the grounds that the prosecution in the case was not conducted fairly and the judgment has been passed in a haste manner without asking the prosecution to produce the rest of the prosecution witnesses. The impugned judgment also suffers from perversity as the accused has caused damage to the property of the petitioner about which the witnesses have clearly stated that the occurrence had taken place and the accused persons have committed the offences alleged against them and the trial Court has taken a wrong view, as such, the judgment passed by the trial Court deserves to be set aside.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record on the file. 03. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that on 13.08.2012, a written complaint was received by the Police of Police Station, Aishmuqam which was made by the complainant through post. In the complaint, it was alleged that on 12.08.2012 in the evening hours, accused/respondents, while forming an unlawful assembly, forcibly trespassed upon the proprietary land of the complainant without any reason and justification and after entering upon his land, they cut down fruit bearing trees, walnut trees and changed the said strip of land of the complainant into a place meant for offering funeral prayers (Jinazgah).

3. It was further alleged that thereafter, accused entered inside the compound of the complainant and pelted stones on his residential house, broke down the window-panes and also assaulted his family members, outraged the modesty of ladies of his family. His mother was beaten by the accused and Dupatta from her head was snatched and, thus, her modesty was outraged by the accused.

4. The Police of Police Station, Aishmuqam, on receipt of the said written report, registered FIR No. 75/2012 for offences punishable under Sections 436A, 447, 427, 336, 354, 323 RPC and started investigation in the matter. On completion of the investigation by the Police, the offences punishable under Sections 147, 449, 336, 354, 427, 323 RPC were established whereas offence punishable under Section 436A was not established against the accused/respondents.

5. The accused were charged sheeted for the aforementioned offences. They denied the charges so framed against them and opted for trial. Prosecution was asked to produce evidence to prove the charges and 09 out of 14 witnesses were produced.06. The witnesses who have been produced and examined in this case are PWs - Javid Ahmad Bhat, Mohd. Ramzan Bhat, Ghulam Hassan Lone, Mst. Zeba, Abdul Rehman Bhat, Aijaz Ahmad Bhat, Mohammad Shafi Bhat, Abdul Rehman Hajam. The trial Court on appreciation of evidence produced came to the conclusion that the parties are inimical to each other, the complainant is also facing trial in respect of an incident for which the accused had filed report before the Police, a month prior to the occurrence in question, the witnesses have made contradictory statements and have also made major improvements in their statements. The trial Court held that the prosecution had failed to prove the charges beyond doubt, as such, the trial Court while acquitting the accused dismissed the charges leveled against them. The State did not file any appeal against the acquittal of the accused. The complainant has challenged the order of acquittal through the medium of present Criminal Revision Petition. PW- Javed Ahmad Bhat is the complainant on whose instance the FIR in question was registered. His statement is not only self-contradictory, but also he has made major improvements in the said statement. Similarly, other witnesses hav