In reviewing appeals against acquittals, the Appellate Court should intervene only when compelling reasons exist, particularly if the Trial Court’s findings appear unreasonable.

1. Heard.

2. The State has filed this petition under S.378(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure for grant of leave to file an appeal against the judgment of acquittal dated 29-9-2006 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Jangir, in Criminal Case No. 493/2005.

3. The petition is barred by limitation of 405 days and I. A. No. 1 /08 has been filed for condonation of delay in filing the petition.

4. The brief facts are that charges were framed under S.294, 506 Part II and 447 of I.P.C. against the respondents on account of an alleged incident which took place at about 2.00 p.m. on 8-11-2001 in village - Pamgarh. The allegations are that they abused the complainant namely Dushyant Kumar (PW 2), threatened him and also demolished the wall, which was being constructed on the directions of the complainant. The complainant claims that the wall was being constructed on his own land and such action of the respondents was punishable under the aforesaid Sections of I. P. C. After conducting trial, the Trial Court, on the face of evidence of defence witnesses namely Ram Kumar Keskar (DW 1) and Deendayal Bashkar (DW 2), disbelieved the version of the complainant - Dushyant Kumar (PW 2) as also his father Tikaram (PW 1) and recorded a finding that in fact, the presence of the accused persons at the place of occurrence is doubtful and the accused persons are entitled for acquittal in this case.

5. Learned counsel for the State submits that the Trial Court committed an error of law while disbelieving the evidence of PW 1 - Tikaram and PW 2 - Dushyant Kumar. He takes me to various paragraphs of the judgment passed by the Trial Court. The Trial Court vide para 19 of the judgment has believed the version of DW 1 - Ramkumar Keskar, who was called in the Court along with the attendance register from the office of accused - C. R. Lahare. It has been observed that C. R. Lahare was shown present in the office according to the attendance register (Ext. D. 1C) on 8-11-2001 and the same was also testified by the oral evidence of DW 1 - Ramkumar Keskar. Vide para 20 of the judgment, the Trial Court has believed the version of DW 2 - Deendayal Bashkar, who deposed that on the date of incident i.e. 8-11-2001, accused - Saheblal Madhukar was on tour. He also produced the relevant record of the office marked as Ext. D. 2. It is on the face of this evidence, the Trial Court has held that the versions given by the prosecution witnesses, especially PW 1 - Tikaram and PW 2 - Dushyant Kumar, were not reliable and the presence of the accused persons at the place of occurrence becomes doubtful and the accused persons were acquitted.

6. In the matter of Budh Singh and Others v. State of U. P. , 2006 (9) SCC 731 : 2006 CriLJ 2886, the Apex Court held that in a matter of appeal against acquittal, the High Court does not ordinarily set aside a judgment of acquittal in a case where two views are possible, although the view of the Appellate Court is a more probable one. However, while dealing with a judgment of acquittal, it is free to consider the entire evidence on record so as to arrive at a finding as to whether the views of the Trial Court were perverse or otherwise unsustainable. It is also entitled to consider as to whether in arriving at a finding of fact, the Trial Court has failed to take into consideration admissible evidence and has taken into consideration evidence brought on record contrary to law. Similarly, wrong placing or burden of proof may also be a subject matter of the scrutiny of the Appellate Court.

7. Further, in the matter of V. N. Ratheesh v. State of Kerala , AIR 2006 SC 2667 : 2006 CriLJ 3634, the Apex Court held