ORDER

The present application is leave to appeal u/S.378(4) of Cr.P.C being aggrieved by the judgment dated 30.8.2022 passed by JMFC,Alot, Distt. Ratlam in RCT Case No.39/2014 whereby the learned JMFC acquitted the respondents for offence u/S.379 of IPC.

2. The facts of the case are that appellant and respondent are the neighbours. They are having their field near to each other and both are having one common tube well for cultivation and and there is dispute between the appellant and respondents as both are claiming and fighting for possession of tube well. Later on dated 21.5.2012 when the appellant received phone call from the neighbours Shav Singh, Bheru Singh and Shankar Singh that the motor of tube well and pipes of tube well are being stolen by the respondents, then the son of the appellant visited police station to lodge the report against the accused persons but the police officials did not lodge the report of theft against the accused persons. Thereafter appellant filed written complaint to higher officials and also filed written complaint to SDM court for giving him stolen pipes and cable and motor of the tube well and the SDM court allowed the application. The respondents filed the revision and the order of SDM court was set aside. After trying all the possibilities for lodging of FIR but no action has been taken against the respondents, therefore, on 23.1.2014 the appellant has filed private complaint against the respondents and after taking cognizance trial court has recorded the statement of the complainant and also recorded the statements of accused persons u/S.313 of Cr.P.C. After conclusion of trial, the trial court acquitted the respondents from the charges u/S.379 of IPC.

3. Upon perusal of the record and the impugned judgment it is evident that the incident is alleged to have taken place on 21.5.2012. The complaint was filed on 1.8.2013. It is alleged that one rod which was alleged to be seized from the accused persons has been identified by the present appellant.

4. Counsel for appellant submits that since the rod was identified, therefore, the trial court is erred while acquitting the accused persons for commission of offence. The seizure of rod of motor pump and its identification alone would not be sufficient to reverse the order of acquittal. A rod cannot be identified to be a particular rod of the complainant. The scope of interference against an order of acquittal is very limited.

5. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State Vs. K. Narsimhachary reported in (2005) 8 SCC 364 said that as per well settled principle, if two views are possible, the appellate Court should not interfere with the findings of acquittal recorded by the lower Court; it can only be interpreted where the material on record leads to sole inescapable conclusion of the guilt of accused.

In the case of T. Subramanian Vs. State of Tamil Nadu, (2006) 1 SCC 401, the Apex Court has reiterated the same principle relying upon said judgment and by interfering in appeal the judgment of the High Court was set aside restoring the judgment of the trial court acquitting the accused. In the case of K. Prakashan vs. P.K. Surenderan, (008) 1 SCC 258, the Apex Court has observed that in case two views are possible, the appellate Court shall not reverse the judgment of acquittal only because the another view may be possibly taken.

6. The Apex Court has held in the case of Mahavir Singh Vs. State of M.P., (2016) 10 SCC 220 that in the cases of acquittal by the court of law, the court has to be very cautious in interfering in an appeal unless there are compelling and substantial grounds to interfere with the order of acquittal.

7. Accordingly, the appeal is devoid of any merit and is hereby dismissed. (VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLA) JUDGE VM