ORAL JUDGMENT

1.The present acquittal Appeal has been filed by the State, under Section 378 Cr.P.C., against the Judgment and Order dated 9.6.1999, rendered in Criminal Case No.8283 of 1996 by the learned Civil Judge (SD) & Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Surendranagar. The said case was registered against the present respondents – accused for the offence punishable under Sections 447, 341, 506(2), 114 of Indian Penal Code. The said Judgment of the trial Court has been challenged by the State on the ground that the Judgment and order passed by the learned Magistrate is against the law and evidence on record.

2.According to the prosecution case, on 13.10.1996 near the Water Tank, behind Jani Colony, Surendranagar, the respondents have carried out illegal construction on the plot which is of the ownership of the original complainant and on the way of godown (Godam) the present respondents have constructed Kachha Chhapra and the way of the original complainant was closed. When the complainant requested the respondents – accused he was threatened by the present respondents. Thus, the respondents – accused have committed the offence of trespass and wrongfully restraining and criminal intimidation and they have abetted each other in commission of the said offence. So the complainant has filed complaint against the present respondents u/ss. 447, 341, 506(2), 114 I.P. Code. Thereafter, the charge-sheet was filed against the present respondents and the charge was framed against the respondents – accused. The accused pleaded not guilty to the charges. Then the prosecution has led oral as well as documentary evidence and then at the conclusion of the trial, the learned trial Judge has found no substance in the prosecution case and, therefore, acquitted both the respondents – accused from the said offence vide impugned Judgment. The said Judgment of the trial Court has been challenged by the State on the ground that the Judgment and order passed by the learned Magistrate is against the law and evidence on record.

3.I have heard learned APP Ms. Darshana Pandit on behalf of the Appellant – State Government and learned Advocate Mr. R.D. Raval, appearing on behalf of the respondents – accused. I have also gone through the Judgment and order passed by the trial Court.

4.It is contended by learned APP Ms. Darshana Pandit that sufficient oral as well as documentary evidence was produced before the trial Court, but the trial Court has not considered the said evidence in favour of the prosecution and wrongly acquitted the said respondents from the charges levelled against them. It is also contended by the learned APP that the original complainant was a sole owner of the said land and he was empowered and entitled to use the way to Godown (Godam) and both the respondents have created hurdles/ obstacles and they have wrongly restrained the complainant and also committed criminal trespass. She has also contended that from the oral evidence of witnesses it is established by the prosecution that the present respondents have committed criminal intimidation and they have abetted each other, yet, the trial Court has not considered the entire evidence of the prosecution as a whole which has been led before the trial Court and wrongly held that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt.

5.Learned Advocate Mr. Raval, appearing on behalf of the respondents – accused has contended that the prosecution has failed to establish the particular area which was used by the present respondents and failed to connect them and to establish that from the conduct of the present respondents the prosecution has proved the ingredients of Section 503 I.P. Code. He has also contended that so far as the question of abetment and abettor, from the whole evidence of the prosecution, the prosecution has failed to establish that both the respondents are the abettors and they abetted each other. He has also contended that the ownership of the disputed place