JUDGMENT : Acharya, J. - This is an appeal against the judgment of acquittal passed by a Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Banki. 2. The complainant filed a case u/s 427, Indian Penal Code alleging that the accused persons committed mischief by cutting the northern ridge and encroaching upon a portion of his land thus causing him a damage of Rs. 100/-. In course of the trial, the complainant entered into a compromise with accused Arakhit Das and Dukha Das on the intervention of well-wishers and as such those two accused persons were acquitted at that stage. The case proceeded against the other four accused (Respondents in this appeal) who all were acquitted by the impugned judgment. 3. The defence took the plea that the ridge as usual was in existence and this false case was foisted against them due to complainant's previous enemity with them. One defence witness was examined in the case. 4. With regard to accused Dayanidhi Sahu, the finding of the Court below is that he was only a labourer and was absolutely not concerned with the dispute between the parties. He cannot., therefore, be said to have Acted with any deliberation in the commission of the act, if at an, in order to wilfully cause wrongful loss or damage to the complainant, and so he has been rightly acquitted. The Appellant also does not press this appeal against him. 5. As has been laid down by their Lordships of the Supreme Court, in dealing with an appeal against acquittal, this Court has the same power as in a Criminal Appeal against a judgment of conviction and is entitled to reach its own conclusion upon the materials on record in respect of the guilt or innocence of the accused. But 8011 the same, in an appeal against acquittal the Court has to make a cautious approach because of the overriding consideration flowing from the presumption of innocence, which in a case of t his nature is strengthened by the order of acquittal passed in favour of the accused. 6. In the perspective of the above salutary observations, I thoroughly examined the evidence on record. The complainant (p.w. 1) besides himself has examined five other witnesses. p.ws. 1 to 4 are the eye witnesses to the occurrence. 6. In the perspective of the above salutary observations, I thoroughly examined the evidence on record. The complainant (p.w. 1) besides himself has examined five other witnesses. p.ws. 1 to 4 are the eye witnesses to the occurrence. The complainant asserts claim to the ridge in question on the basis of a custom that the northern ridge of a plot generally belongs to the person who has his land to the south adjacent to it, and that being so, he should have led cogent evidence to prove the said custom. There is nothing worthy of consideration in that direction. It is not the complainant's case that the ridge was standing on his own land and for was constructed by him, and so it cannot be said that the said ridge belonged to him. p.w. 5 rather stated that "The ridge in question belongs to both accused and complainant", and he could not 'say who repairs the disputed ridge. It is not the case of the complainant that wrongful loss or damage was also otherwise caused to the complainant by the alleged removal of the said ridge. It is not stated as to how the amount of damage alleged (Rs. 100/-) was calculated. The complainant's case suffers from various other infirmities. It is only the complainant and p.w. 2 who stated about some encroachment into the complainant's land, without giving the necessary details. The other p.ws. did not support this part of the complainant's case. p.w. 4 rather stated that the accused only amalgamated the cut portion of the ridge with their land. According to the complainant, excepting p.ws. 2, 3 and 4 none else saw the occurrence, but p.w. 4 stated that other neighbouring tenants were working in their fields at the time of occurrence, which again is contradictory to the statement of p.w. 3. p.ws. 3 and 4 were chance witnesses, having no land near the complainant's land. p.w. 2 denied to have been p.ws, 3 and 4 at the spot, though be saw the accused persons cutting the entire ridge in question. p.w. 2 himself, as admitted by him, very frequently visits the Criminal Courts either as a witness or as an accused in some cases. p.w. 3 could not give the boundary of the land in question. p.w. 2 himself, as admitted by him, very frequently visits the Criminal Courts either as a witness or as an accused in some cases. p.w. 3 could not give the boundary of the land in question. He could not state as to which of the accused persons were actually cutting the ridge, and in what way each of them participated in the occurrence. According to p.w. 4 the occurrence took place in the month of Bhadrab whereas according to p.ws. 1 and 3 it took place in Ashadha. On the actual cutting of the ridge there are discrepancies on material particulars in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses. The evidence of p.ws. 5 and 6, two cousin brothers, is not of any avail. They were examined after a long lapse of time. They do not know anything about the occurrence. p.w. 6 at first stated that the ridge has now been shifted towards the land of the accused, but later he went back on the same. A reading of the prosecution evidence on the whole does Dot inspire confidence. The defence plea of litigation between the parties, has been partially admitted by the complainant. 7. For the reasons stated above I am satisfied that the judgment of acquittal cannot be interfered with. The appeal accordingly is dismissed. Final Result : Dismissed