JUDGMENT : N.K. Das, J. - The complainant appealed against three persons who were accused in the trial Court. Leave has been granted only in respect of Kanhu Charan Patnaik (accused No. 1 in the trial Court) who was charged u/s 323/504 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. The case of the prosecution is that Gobinda Chandra Patnaik, who was one of the accused persons but acquitted, had encroached in some portion of land pertaining to plot No. 218 of village Chatiagaz. A spot enquiry was made by the Assistant Consolidation Officer and demarcation was given by the said officer in respect of six decimals of land. After demarcation was made, the complainant, with the help of P.Ws. 2, 3 and 4 was putting stones on the boundary of the land demarcated. At that time, the Respondent (Kanhu Charan Patnaik) came there and objected. When the complainant did not listen to his objections, Kanhu Charan abused him in filthy language and assaulted him by means of a Chappal on his back. The plea of the Respondent is denial of the occurrence. 3. The prosecution examined P.W. 1, the complainant and his three labourers namely P.Ws. 2, 3 and 4 and the doctor P.W. 5. The trial Court has acquitted the Respondent on the ground that there is a bona fide claim of right relating to the property and non-examination of the Consolidation Officer who is one of the important witnesses of the occurrence. 4. Admittedly the property in question is adjacent to the lands belonging to the Respondent. There is a dispute between the Appellant and the Respondent relating to the very same property. On the date of occurrence i.e. on 8-2-1976, a demarcation was made by the Consolidation Officer and when the boundary stones were being put by the labourers, the Respondent claimed that land to be his. From the materials available on record it is clear that there is bona fide claim of right by the Respondent and a title suit is still pending. On the date of occurrence some demarcation was made by the complement and at that time if the Respondent took objection to that, he was within his own rights as the claim of right to the property is still under dispute in the civil Court. 5. The alleged occurrence as narrated by P.Ws. On the date of occurrence some demarcation was made by the complement and at that time if the Respondent took objection to that, he was within his own rights as the claim of right to the property is still under dispute in the civil Court. 5. The alleged occurrence as narrated by P.Ws. 1, 2, 3 and 4 is inconsistent with the facts stated in the petition of complaint and the initial deposition of P.W. 1. It is evident from the statements of P.Ws. 3 and 4 that the Consolidation Officer was at a very short distance when the occurrence is said to have taken place. He being a responsible officer of Government, was the best witness to speak about the occurrence. In view of the fact that there has been strained feeling between the Appellant and the Respondent and that a civil suit is pending, the non-examination of the independent witness, who happens to be a responsible witness, is also a material factor for consideration. On the aforesaid analysis, I find no illegality in the judgment of the trial Court. In the result, the appeal has no merit and is accordingly dismissed. Final Result : Dismissed