The judgment highlighted the importance of factual evidence and the limitations on the court's power to interfere with an order of acquittal.

Challenging and impugning the judgment dated 23. 2006 passed by the Judicial Magistrate No.1, Mettur, in C.C.No.179 of 2003, this criminal revision case is focussed.

2. Avoiding digressive discussion, pithily and precisely, I would like to portray the facts as under:

(a) The police laid the police report in terms of Section 173 of Cr.P.C. as against respondents 2 to 14 herein for the offence under Sections 447, 427, 379 IPC on the ground that on 22. 2003, at about 9.45 p.m.(night), near Kaveripuramvinayagapuram, the accused persons constituted an unlawful assembly, armed with deadly weapons, such as crowbar, axe etc., and trespassed into the P.W.1s private pathway and cut and removed his gates worth Rs.1000/-and took them away. Inasmuch as the accused pleaded not guilty, the trial was conducted.

(b) During trial, on the prosecution side P.Ws.1to 6 were examined and Exs.P1 to P5 were marked. On the accuseds side no oral evidence was adduced, however, Exs.R1 to R3 were marked.

(c) Ultimately, the trial Court acquitted the accused of the offence with which they were charged.

.3. Animadverting upon the said acquittal, this revision has been filed on various grounds, the pith and marrow of them would run thus:-

.The Court below failed to take into consideration the evidence of the witnesses in the proper perspective. P.Ws.1 to 6 and Exs.P1 to P5 are more than enough to drive home the guilt of the accused, but the Magistrate, without applying the law properly, simply picked holes in the case of the prosecution and acquitted the accused.

4. Heard both sides. The learned Government Advocate would submit that the State has not preferred any appeal as against the judgment of acquittal.

5. The point for consideration is as to whether there is any perversity or non-application of law on the part of the Magistrate in acquitting the accused.

.6. The learned counsel for the respondents/accused by inviting the attention of this Court to the fact that the very path way, which the de-facto complainant claims to be his own, is one belonging to the villagers as such and except the said passage, there is no passage/road for the villagers to go to the other village and also to the respective houses and as such, the complainant was not right in contending that it was his own path way and that he had put up the gates. P.W.6-the photographer, who had taken photographs of the alleged scene of crime, clearly and categorically, in his deposition stated that there is no trace of any gates having been in existence there. The learned counsel for the respondents/accused by inviting the attention of this Court to the negatives and the corresponding photos of the alleged scene of occurrence would develop his argument that there is nothing in the photo that there were any gates, which were allegedly thieved away by the respondents/accused.

7. A plain reading of the judgment of the trial Court would indicate and exemplify that P.Ws.2 and 3 are the brothers of P.W.1 and except their interested testimony, there is no other evidence, even though there were other houses situated nearby the alleged scene of crime. The alleged stolen gates were not recovered by the police and for that matter, even the weapons of offence were also not recovered.

8. Indubitably and uncontrovertibly, unassailably and unarguably even before the emergence of this criminal case, there was a civil case instituted at the instance of the de-facto complainant himself, claiming exclusive right over the pathway concerned and that there was no interim injunction granted in that case. Accordingly, the learned counsel for the respondents/accused argued that the revision petitioner, purely for the purpose of harassing and compelling the accused to agree for his unjustifiable claim, has chosen to dish out the false plea and foist the case.

9. At this juncture, my mind is reminiscent and redolent of the following decisions of the Honourable Apex Court (I) AIR 1962 SC 1788 [K.Chinn