The judgment emphasizes the importance of proving the essential ingredients of criminal offenses beyond reasonable doubt.

1. This Criminal Appeal arises out of the judgment of acquittal dated 26.07.2006 in C.C.No.344 of 2004 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate's Court No.I, Poonamallee.

2. The appellant and the respondent are own brothers and there are two properties, which are joint family property of both the parties. It was mutually agreed by both the appellant/complainant and respondent/accused that the properties situated at Jai Nagar, Valasaravakkam, comprised in S.No.214 to an extent of 2666 sq.ft. and S.No.215/1 to an extent of 1417 sq.ft. which stands in the name of the accused to be transferred in favour of the appellant for sale and in turn, the accused undertakes to receive a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- towards the said arrangement. In terms of such arrangement, the accused had executed a general power of attorney in favour of the appellant empowering him to sell the aforesaid properties. On the strength of the power of attorney, the appellant sold the property in S.No.215/1. But the accused without sending any notice to the appellant cancelled the power of attorney and trespassed into the property situated in S.No.214 to an extent of 2666 sq.ft. Hence, the appellant/complainant filed a suit for partition and separate possession in O.S.No.123 of 2000 and also filed another suit in O.S.No.125 of 2002 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Poonamallee for injunction and an interim injunction was granted restraining the respondent/accused to interfere with the possession of the property in S.No.214.

3. The case of the appellant is that during pendency of the suit, on 09.03.2002 at about 8.00 a.m., on receipt of Court notice, the accused trespassed into the house of the appellant and made criminal intimidation. On the same day, the appellant lodged a complaint before Valasaravakkam police station and the same was not entertained by the police. Therefore, the appellant forced to file a private complaint against the accused before the Court on 10.03.2002 and it was referred to Sub-Inspector of Police, Valasaravakkam police station under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. for investigation and the same was registered in Crime No.153 of 2002 under Sections 448, 504 and 506(i) IPC and the final report was filed as ''Mistake of facts”. Hence, the appellant preferred private complaint against the accused for offences under Sections 406, 448, 504 and 506(i) IPC.

4. The trial Court has taken cognizance of offences only under Sections 448 and 506(i) IPC, after recording the sworn statement. Since the accused pleaded not guilty, the trial Court examined P.W.1 to P.W.4 and marked Exs.P1 to P4 on the side of the complainant and on the side of the respondent, Ex.D1 was marked. The trial Court after considering the oral and documentary evidence, acquitted the accused, against which, the present criminal appeal is preferred by the appellant/complainant.

5. Challenging the judgment of acquittal passed by the trial Court, learned counsel for the appellant/complainant submits that the trial Court has not properly appreciated the evidence of P.W.1 to P.W.3 and also P.W.4, who is an independent witness and Ex.P4/rental agreement between the appellant and one Saravanan. It is further submitted that P.W.4/independent witness deposed about the criminal intimidation made by the accused. But the trial Court erroneously disbelieved the evidence of P.W.4 by holding that the appellant had not proved the ownership of the house. Hence he prayed for conviction of the accused/respondent herein.

6. Resisting the same, learned counsel for the respondent/accused submits that P.W.1/complainant by name Ezhumalai is having enmity towards the respondent/accused. P.W.2 is none other than the wife of P.W.1 and P.W.3 is father-in-law of P.W.1, so they are close relatives of P.W.1 and hence, their evidence are rightly discarded by the trial Court. The evidence of P.W.4, who is alleged to be the eye witness, has not supported the case of the complainant. It is further submitted that the judgm