JUDGMENT : Misra, J. - Prahallad Mohapatra filed a complaint against the Respondents alleging that they uprooted and removed Mung crop on 20th of March, 1960, from the lands of the Appellant bearing plot Nos. 487 and 492 with an area of about 2 acres, and damaged the crop putting the Appellant to a loss of Rs. 500/-. The motive alleged was that the Appellant had impounded their cattle and out of grudge the damage was done. The Respondents deny the occurrence and plead that due to party faction in Grama Panchayat election where both parties were supporting rival candidates the prosecution has been falsely foisted. 2. The learned Magistrate acquitted the accused persons giving them benefit of doubt after discarding the defence plea that the case was falsely foisted on account of rivalry in Grama Panchayat election. The complaint has filed the appeal u/s 417, Code of Criminal Procedure after obtaining necessary leave. 3. The principles governing interference with an order of acquittal are now well settled. In the latest unreported decision of the Supreme Court later reported M.G. Agarwal and Anr. v. The State of Maharashtra 1963 S.C.D. 441, the entire position has been reviewed. Those principles are that the powers of the High Court in dealing with criminal appeals are equally wide whether the appeal in question is one against acquittal or against conviction. But the approach of the High Court in dealing with appeals against acquittal is somewhat different. It would naturally bear in mind the presumption of innocence in favour of accused persons, and the further fact that the presumption is strengthened by the order of acquittal. The fact that the accused is entitled to the benefit of reasonable doubt must always be present in the mind of the High Court when it deals with the merits of a case and as an appellate court the High Court is generally slow in disturbing the finding of fact recorded by the trial court particularly when the said finding is based on an appreciation of oral evidence as the trial court has the advantage of watching the demeanour of the witnesses who have given evidence. However circumspect and cautious the approach of the High Court may be, in dealing with the appeals against acquittal it is entitled to reach its own conclusions upon the evidence adduced by the prosecution in respect of the guilt or innocence of the accused. The High Court would undoubtedly bestow special care in the shifting of evidence and must examine the reasons on which the order of acquittal is based and should interfere only when the view taken by the acquitting Judge is clearly an unreasonable one. It is however not necessary for the High, Court before reversing a judgment of acquittal that it must characterise the findings recorded therein as perverse. The question in ultimate analysis is whether on the materials produced by the prosecution the High Court would be justified in reaching the conclusion that the prosecution case had been established beyond reasonable doubt and that the contrary view taken by the trial court was erroneous. 4. Keeping the aforesaid principles in view the prosecution case must be examined. The complainant examined six witnesses. P.W. 1 is the complainant himself. P.W. 5 is not an occurrence witness. He merely proves the receipts (ext. 3 series) issued by him as the keeper of the fine house. P.W. 1 admits in cross-examination that the people of Dihasarichuan and Bhargola are inimical to him. Respondents 1 to 5 and 8 are of Bhargola and Respondents 6 and 7 are of Dihasarichuan. He further states that Sudhakar and Jayram were contesting for Sarpanchship. He was supporting Sudhakar. Accused persons and some other villagers were in support of Jayram. It is therefore clear that on of the complainant's own admission even prior to the date occurrence there is strained feeling between the complainant and the accused persons. It is necessary to examine closely the prosecutions case to determine if a false case has been foisted on account of this bad relationship. P.Ws. 2 to 4 and P.W. 6 are occurrence witnesses. They fully support the case of the complainant. The land from which the Mung crop was removed is visible from the house of P.W. 2. The only comment made by Mr. Mohanty on his evidence was that he had not informed this fact of removal and damage of Mung crop to anybody. P.W. 3 has 5 acres of land near the suit land. The land from which the Mung crop was removed is visible from the house of P.W. 2. The only comment made by Mr. Mohanty on his evidence was that he had not informed this fact of removal and damage of Mung crop to anybody. P.W. 3 has 5 acres of land near the suit land. The only comment made against his evidence as that he could not identify 25 other persons who were with the accused while uprooting the Mung crop. There is no evidence that these 25 persons were known to any of the prosecution witnesses. Therefore there is no absurdity in his statement. Nothing has been suggested against P.W. 4. Mr. Mohanty referred me to a Khatian (ext. D) to show that P.W. 4 is a co-sharer of p.w.1. On examination however he could not establish the relationship through the Khatian. No such answers supporting the defence suggestion have been obtained from p.ws 1 and 4. Against P.W. 6 the suggestion was that he is the scribe of two handnotes (exts. A and C) in favour of Sarat Chandra, Mohapatra, brother of the complainant, and the complainant respectively. These two handnotes were never put to either P.W. 1 or P.W. 6 to establish that P.W. 6 is the scribe for the family of P.W. 1 in respect of different documents and as such was interested in them. These handnotes were exhibited after the close of the prosecution case through the evidence of d.w. 4 who was not present at the time the handnotes were executed. He merely identifies the signature and the writing of Sunakar on exts. A and C. In cross-examination he admits that he sees the signature and the writing of P.W. 6 on exts. A and C for the first time. He had never any correspondence with Sunakar. His evidence is not sufficient to prove the execution of exts. A and C. He himself is not an attestor to these documents. I would hold that exts. A and C have not been proved and even if they are held to be proved, on their basis no inference can be drawn that P.W. 6 is interested in P.W. 1 as scribe without these questions being put directly to p.ws. 1 and 6 for giving them an opportunity to offer their explanations. 5. On behalf of the defence 4 witnesses have been examined. 1 and 6 for giving them an opportunity to offer their explanations. 5. On behalf of the defence 4 witnesses have been examined. D.W. 4 is not an occurrence witness. D.W. 1 clearly admits that there is a case between him and the complainant before the Assistant Settlement officer for recording names in the record-of-right. No reliance can be placed on his evidence. He states in cross-examination that about one year 10 months back the occurrence took place. Mr. Misra placed some reliance on this statement showing an admission on the part of d.w. 1. I do not attach much importance to this statement in view of his statement in examination-in-chief that he has not seen the accused persons removing Mung from the land. His evidence does not show that on the date of occurrence he was present throughout so as to see the removal, and consequently his evidence that he has not seen the accused persons removing Mung from the land does not in any way affect the prosecution case. D.W. 2 clearly admits that he belongs to the accused party. No reliance can be placed on his evidence. He states in examination-in-chief that he does not know if the accused cut Mung from any land of the complainant. His evidence in no way affects the prosecution case. D.W. 3 makes a statement that in the disputed year the Mung crop was taken by the complainant. This is a positive assertion by that the complainant removed the Mung crop in order to establish that the accused persons have not removed the crop. He however, admitted in cross-examination that he cannot say from how much land the complainant removed Mung and that he does not know for which land the case was started. He admits that he heard about the case due to rumour. He cannot even give the names of the accused persons and to crown all there is litigation between his brother Nata Padhan and the complainant. No reliance can at all be placed on the evidence of this witness. 6. Regarding motive P.W. 1 stated that previously the people of Bhargola destroyed his crop and he impounded their cattle and hence the accused persons bore grudge against him. There is no other oral evidence excepting that of P.W. 1 that previously the complainant impounded the cattle of the people of Bhargola. Ext. 6. Regarding motive P.W. 1 stated that previously the people of Bhargola destroyed his crop and he impounded their cattle and hence the accused persons bore grudge against him. There is no other oral evidence excepting that of P.W. 1 that previously the complainant impounded the cattle of the people of Bhargola. Ext. 3 series are the receipts passed by the pound keeper P.W. 5 to show that Sarat Chandra Mohapatra, Budhi Bhoi and the complainant impounded cattle for a period beginning from 25-2-1960 to 28-3-1960. D.W. 2 admits that Sarat Chandra Mohapatra is the brother of the complainant and p.w.4 states that Budhi Bhoi is the Bhag tenant of the complainant. The receipts however do not show as to whose cattle were impounded, and that at any rate the cattle of the accused persons were impounded. P.W. 5, the pound keeper does not throw any light is to whether the cattle of the accused persons were impounded by the complainant and his men at different times. We are therefore left with the only evidence of P.W. 1 that he was previously impounding the cattle of the accused persons. The large number of receipts filed by the complainant to show that he impounded cattle for a period of. 3 weeks immediately before the occurrence lends some support to the complainant's story. But in the absence of confecting evidence which was available to the complainant and which he failed to prove, I am not inclined to hold that the complainant establishes the fact of his impounding the cattle of the accused persons prior to the occurrence. The motive by way of impounding cattle is not therefore established. But the admitted fact on either side is that there is bad relationship and enmity between the complainant and the accused persons on account of Grama Panchayat election. The accused persons have as much a motive to destroy the crop of the complainant as the complainant has a motive to foist falsely a case. As was however observed by the Supreme Court in Gurcharan Singh and Another Vs. State of Punjab, the question of motive is of no importance where the positive evidence against the accused is clear, cogent and reliable. 7. Mr. As was however observed by the Supreme Court in Gurcharan Singh and Another Vs. State of Punjab, the question of motive is of no importance where the positive evidence against the accused is clear, cogent and reliable. 7. Mr. Mohanti argues that the complainant did not lodge any information to the village choukidar, daffadar or S.I. of Police and attempts was not made to trace out and produce the uprooting Mung plants and the police were not taken to get production or to the field wherefrom the Mung crop was removed. There is no substance in this comment. The complainant chose to go to court direct and file the complaint and not to take resort to prosecution through the police. It was open to the complainant to adopt such a course in law and no adverse comment can be made on this score. Mr. Mohanti further argues that where the trial court has entertained a doubt as to the genuineness of the prosecution case and the benefit has been given to the accused the acquittal cannot be interfered with unless it is held that there was absolutely no basis whatever for such doubt and in such circumstances the question of crediting or discrediting any witness individually cannot arise for consideration as the conviction is based on a general doubt as to the entire case. There is absolutely no substance in this argument. The legal position has been clearly discussed by me and there is no material on record for entertaining general doubts. Even though there may be party faction in a village, the prosecution case may be accepted with regard to the complicity of the guilt of the accused when it is established through independent and reliable witnesses. 8. I have fully discussed that the evidence of p.ws. 2 to 4 and 6 support the case of the complainant P.W. 1 and nothing has been suggested against those independent witnesses. Their evidence is clear, cogent and reliable and on their evidence I hold that the prosecution proves beyond reasonable doubt the commission of the offence by the accused persons. 9. I have examined very minutely the oral evidence in the case and I now proceed to examine the reasons given by the learned Magistrate in passing his order or acquittal. Even the learned Magistrate finds that p.ws. 9. I have examined very minutely the oral evidence in the case and I now proceed to examine the reasons given by the learned Magistrate in passing his order or acquittal. Even the learned Magistrate finds that p.ws. 2, 3 and 4 corroborate P.W. 1 as to the uprooting and damage of the crop. He however discarded their evidence as according to him P.W. 6 Sunakar Mohapatra states that when he asked the accused persons they told that as P.W. 1 was impounding their cattle they were damaging the crop. According to the learned Magistrate this version of P.W. 1 is not corroborated by any other prosecution witness though all the witnesses were present at the spot at a time. This statement of the learned Magistrate is clearly based on an error of record. P.W. 2 stated in examination-in-chief to the effect, "Complainant came there with 3 to 4 others. He protested but the accused persons did not hear him. They said that the complainant raised the crop in their village and was impounding their cattle". P.W.4 also stated, "When I protested the accused persons said that the complainant is impounding their cattle and therefore they are uprooting the Mung". It is manifestly clear that p.ws. 2 and 4 support the statement of P.W. 6 as to what the accused persons stated while protest was made. This error of record has vitiated the learned Magistrate's finding. The learned Magistrate gave another reason that P.W. 1 himself admits in cross-examination that his crop, neither paddy nor Mung was ever damaged by the accused persons. This statement is based on another error of record. P.W. 1 had stated in cross-examination. "The accused persons have never damaged my paddy crop. No accused persons have obstructed me while I sowed Mung crop, neither the accused persons have damaged the Mung seedlings. The Mung seedlings remained on the disputed land for 2 months from the day of sowing". It is clear that the conclusion was based on an error of record. The learned Magistrate himself does not accept the interestedness of P.W. 6 with P.W. 1 on the evidence of P.W. 4 whose evidence he discards. The Mung seedlings remained on the disputed land for 2 months from the day of sowing". It is clear that the conclusion was based on an error of record. The learned Magistrate himself does not accept the interestedness of P.W. 6 with P.W. 1 on the evidence of P.W. 4 whose evidence he discards. The next reason given by the learned Magistrate is that all the witnesses say that there were 25 other persons along with the accused and that it is surprising that in a village how their names could not be found. This reasoning is also erroneous. There is no evidence on record that those 25 other persons were the villagers of the accused and that they were known to any of the prosecution witnesses. In the absence of such evidence, there is nothing surprising if the witnesses cannot give the identity of those persons. Another reason given by the learned Magistrate was that the witnesses beginning from P.W. 1 to P.W. 6 say that at the time of occurrence there were persons like Achuti Behera, Hadibandhu Padhan and others, but they have not been examined and the prosecution has not explained the non-examination of those persons. There is no substance in this argument. It is not incumbent upon the prosecution to examine all the witnesses available. It is open to the prosecution to choose as to the witnesses it would rely upon for establishing its own case. It was open to the defence to examine. Achuti Behera, Hadibandhu Padhan and others if the defence was of opinion that they would support the defence case. 10. I have examined all the materials on record and the reasons on which the order of acquittal is based. I am satisfied that the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. On the other hand, the judgment of the learned Magistrate is not a judgment in accordance with law. He has failed to examine the evidence on record and based his judgment purely on errors of record, surmises and conjectures. I have not the least hesitation in saying that the judgment of the learned Magistrate is clearly an unreasonable one. 11. I would accordingly set aside the order of acquittal and convict the Respondents u/s 427, Indian Penal Code. The action was very high handed. Each one of them is sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. I have not the least hesitation in saying that the judgment of the learned Magistrate is clearly an unreasonable one. 11. I would accordingly set aside the order of acquittal and convict the Respondents u/s 427, Indian Penal Code. The action was very high handed. Each one of them is sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 100/- and in default to undergo R.I. for one month each. If fine is realised, an amount of Rs. 300/- (three hundred) would be paid to the complainant as compensation. 12. Appeal allowed. Final Result : Allowed