The judgment of acquittal was confirmed based on the principle that if two views are possible, the view favoring the accused must be taken into consideration.

1. The criminal appeal arises out of the judgment of acquittal dated 24.03.2005, made in C.C.No.98 of 1996, on the file of the Judicial Magistrate's Court No.1, Kancheepuram.

2. The appellant as a complainant preferred a private complaint stating that on 10.12.1994, at about 5.55 p.m., the respondents/accused 1 & 2 had trespassed into P.W.1's office namely, Kanchipuram Co-operative Housing Society, which was situated in Door No.12A, Sappani Pillaiyar koil street, Kanchipuram, where P.W.1/complainant was a Secretary. One Velliveediar was the Secretary of the Chengai MGR District Cooperative Society (Employees Co-operative Thrift and Credit Society), where P.W.1/complainant was the President, during the year 1984 to 1991. A1 is the elder brother and A2 is the husband of Velliveediar.

3. On the fateful day (i.e.) on 10.12.1994, at 5.55 p.m., A1 and A2 unlawfully trespassed into the office of Velliveediar and assaulted her. At the time, P.W.3/Lakshmi, P.W.4/Ashok Kumar and one Venkatesan were present, who are working along with Velliveediar. P.W.2/Mallika, who is the Superintendent under P.W.1's Society, intimated the fact to P.W.1 that A1 and A2 assaulted Velliveediar and there was a hue and cry. Immediately, P.W.1 came out of his room and questioned them what is going on. At the time, A1 told to P.W.1 to do his work and also abused him using filthy language. Hence, P.W.1 returned to his room and gave a complaint to Siva Kanchi police station over phone. Head Constable Egambaram, who received the call, directed P.W.1 to give complaint in person. Suddenly, the accused A1 and A2 entered into the room of P.W.1 and took the wooden ruler, which was kept in his table and assaulted P.W.1 on his head, when P.W.1 prevented the same, he sustained injury on his right elbow. A2 also attempted to assault him, at the time, Velliveediar, wife of A2 prevented him. P.W.2/Mallika, P.W.3/Lakshmi, P.W.4/Ashok Kumar, one Krishnamurthy, Thilakavathy and Venkatesan witnessed the same. After coming out from the office, A1 and A2 were standing outside and abused P.W.1 in filthy language. They left the place after 6.15 p.m. Thereafter, P.W.2 written the complaint on the dictation of P.W.1 and P.W.1 gave the complaint before Sivakanchi Police station, where it was taken on file as C.S.R. No.125/1994 and the receipt given by them was marked as Ex.P1. Then he went to the Hospital, where P.W.5/Dr.Punitha kumari treated P.W.1 and gave wound certificate Ex.P5. Since the police has not registered a case, he is invoking provision under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. and the same has been received by P.W.6/Vedarathinam, Sub-Inspector of Police and registered the case. The copy of the complaint was marked as Ex.P2, which was registered in Crime No.487/1995 on the file of the Sivakanchi police station. Since the police was not properly investigated the matter, P.W.1/appellant herein had preferred W.P.No.17998/1995 for a Writ of Mandamus, directing the 1st respondent therein to withdraw the complaint preferred by the P.W.1., who was the petitioner therein and the same was disposed of. Since the police had not taken any effective steps, appellant/P.W.1 was constrained to file a private complaint against respondents/accused 1 and 2 under Sections 447, 452, 323, 353 and 506(ii) IPC r/w 190(1)(a) r/w 200 Cr.P.C.

4. The learned Magistrate had taken the cognizance of the offences against A1 under Sections 447, 323 and 506(i) IPC and against A2 under Sections 447 and 506(i) IPC. After following the procedure, the trial Court framed necessary charges. Since the accused pleaded not guilty, the trial Court examined P.W.1 to P.W.6 and marked Exs.P1 to P5. The trial Court placed the incriminating evidence against the accused and the accused denied the same and marked Ex.D1 on their side. After considering the oral and documentary evidence, the trial Court acquitted A1 and A2, against which, the present appeal has been preferred by P.W.1/complainant.

5. Mr. G. Krishnamurthy