The main legal point established in the judgment is that the charges against the accused must be proved beyond reasonable doubt, and if the evidence presented by the prosecution is not sufficient to meet this standard, the court will affirm the acquittal.

1. The Appellant/Complainant has projected the present Criminal Appeal as against the Judgment dated 30.05.2005 in C.C.No.95 of 2004 passed by the Learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Udumalpet, Coimbatore District, in acquitting all the Respondents/Accused.

2. According to the Learned Counsel for the Appellant, the Judgment of the trial Court dated 30.05.2005 in C.C.No.95 of 2004, is contrary to law and devoid of merits.

3. The Learned Counsel for the Appellant submits that the trial Court should have seen that the ingredients of Sections 147, 148, 294(b), 324, 427, 447 and 506(ii) of IPC were made out against the Respondents/Accused.

4. Advancing his arguments, the Learned Counsel for the Appellant strenuously contends that the trial Court should have seen that the evidence of witnesses are not contradictory to each other and as such the ingredients of the offences under Sections 147, 148, 294(b), 324, 427, 447 and 506(ii) of IPC were made out.

5. Expatiating his submissions, the Learned Counsel for the Appellant submits that the Doctor, who was examined as PW.5, had given a clear evidence sufficient enough to convict the Respondents/Accused.

6. Proceeding further, the Learned Counsel for the Appellant projects an argument that the trial Court ought not to acquit the Respondents/Accused by giving them 'benefit of doubt', when the witnesses PW.2 to PW.4, who were eye witnesses to the occurrence, had made a clear statement.

7. Per contra, the Learned Counsel for the Respondents submits that the trial Court had taken into account the over all assessment of the facts and circumstances in an integral fashion and also it had analysed the evidence of prosecution witnesses and had come to a resultant conclusion that the offences levelled against the Respondents/Accused were not proved beyond reasonable doubt and granted them the 'benefit of doubt' in their favour and acquitted them in terms of Section 248 (1) of Cr.P.C.

8. It comes to be known that the Appellant had preferred a Private Complaint before the trial Court under Section 200 of Cr.P.C. According to him, on 30.03.2003 at about 4 p.m. in the evening, while he was returning to his village, after attending a function, Rajamanickam came before him and informed that in his land, the Maize raised by him were being harvested by his sister Ramathal, her husband Eswaran, Sadasivam, Sureshkumar and Thirunirai Selvi and when he went to his land, he saw that the Accused in violation of the Court order had formed an unlawful assembly and entered upon his land by committing trespass and they were harvesting the said Maize. When he made an enquiry with First Respondent/First Accused (since deceased) by pointing out as to why they were committing this kind of atrocity, the Respondents/Accused (all of them) informed him that the Judgment was delivered in their favour by the Court and all the Respondents/Accused scolded him in bad words by uttering that if he entered the land, they would murder him and by so saying, the Sixth Respondent/Sixth Accused beat him with a log in her hand on his back, and the Third Respondent/Third Accused Eswaran caught hold of him and First Respondent/First Accused (since deceased) had stabbed him on his left side of the Chest with the knife, she had in her hand and other Respondents/Accused had beaten him on his hand and legs and also, they again threatened him by saying that if he again entered his land, they would murder him. Further, all the Respondents/Accused had entered upon his land by committing an act of trespass and by beating him they took away the Maize and Maize grain (Maize kathir) of 70 bags valued about Rs.42,000/. In this regard, he lodged a Complaint in Crime No.63 of 2003 on the file of Madathukulam Police Station. However, no action was taken by the police. Hence, he had filed the present Private Complaint against the Respondents/Accused for the offences committed by them under Sections 147, 148, 294(b), 324, 427, 447 and 506(ii) of IP