JUDGMENT : N.K. Das, J. - This appeal is directed against the order of acquittal of the Respondents who were charged u/s 395, Indian Penal Code. Complainant claims that she is the wife of one Hazari Mohapatra. Her case is that two days after the death of Hazari, the Respondents on 6-6-1976 at about 8 a.m. came to the shop of the complainant. She was caught hold of by Respondent No. 1 and was dragged to the road. During that time many persons had gathered in the house of one Ekadasia P.W. 3. Inspite of protest by the people the articles in the shop were taken away under threat by the Respondents. She reported the matter at the Police Station but the police did not take any action and thereafter filed the petition of complaint. The plea of the Respondents is totally denial of the charge. Respondent No. 1 has taken the stand that he is the adopted son of late Hazari Mohapatra. After the death of Hazari, the complainant tried to remove the properties belonging to Hazari but Respondent No. 1 made a report at the police station. He claims to be the owner of the properties being the adopted son of Hazari. This case has been filed by the complainant with false allegations to harass Respondent No. 1 and his brothers. 2. Undisputedly Respondent Nos. 2 to 5 are brothers of Respondent No. 1. It is admitted that there is dispute between the complainant and Respondent No. 1. Complainant claims to be the married wife of late Hazari which is denied by Respondent No. 1. Respondent No. 1 also claims to be the adopted son of Hazari which is denied by the complainant. There is a deed of adoption executed by Hazari Mohapatra in favour of Respondent No. 1. A suit for setting aside the deed of adoption is pending in the Civil Court which was filed by Hazari Mohapatra. Two days before the date of alleged occurrence, Hazari died. The stand taken by Respondent No. 1 is that the complainant wanted to take away the properties belonging to Hazari and he tried to obstruct. A suit for setting aside the deed of adoption is pending in the Civil Court which was filed by Hazari Mohapatra. Two days before the date of alleged occurrence, Hazari died. The stand taken by Respondent No. 1 is that the complainant wanted to take away the properties belonging to Hazari and he tried to obstruct. Respondent No. 1 has examined the police officer of the Police Station who has put the date of the alleged occurrence and the information lodged by Respondent No. 1 against the complainant alleging that the complainant was trying to remove the properties belonging to Hajari and he has sought the help of police. 3. The trial Court has found that the story of the complainant appears to be improbable and is tainted with suspicion. It appears that the witnesses are not consistent in their evidence and they have tried to develop the story from stage to state. Moreover there is a lot of contradiction on material points between the evidence of the complainant as well as the evidence of other witnesses examined by her. Most of the witnesses examined in the case for the complainant are in inimical terms with the Respondents. Therefore, their evidence is to be scrutinised carefully to find out whether reliance can be placed on their testimony and they can be said to be truthful witnesses. It transpires from their evidence that the ceremonial function was going on in the house of P.W. 3 and religious function of Jagnya was also held in the village. The occurrence is said to have taken place at about 8 a.m. in the month of June. Curiously enough no independent person of the village has come forward to support the complainant about the incident. Allegations of the complainant are that the Respondents came in a body, threatened her, she was dragged to the road and thereafter articles of the shop were carried away by the Respondents. Undisputedly, the occurrence, as described, is to continue for some time and it is quite natural that the people of the locality would see when P.W. 5 says that she also raised hue and cry. 4. The evidence of P.W. 5 also is not consistent all through out. The narration of facts given by her in Court shows that a major portion of all the material particulars is absent in the F.I.R. lodged by her. 4. The evidence of P.W. 5 also is not consistent all through out. The narration of facts given by her in Court shows that a major portion of all the material particulars is absent in the F.I.R. lodged by her. About the Respondents going to the house of P.W. 5 the evidence of P.W. 5 and that of her witnesses are different. The description or the incident of attack on p w. 5 given by her is also unbelievable as other witnesses examined by her do not support such contention. If the incident would have taken place as narrated by P.W. 5, then in natural course of human conduct the other witnesses could have been able to describe the details. When P.W. 5 says that Respondent No. 1 caught hold of the tuft of her hair P.W. 2 says the name of another person who have done so. The story given by P.W. 5 at the initial stage and the story given, by her at the time of trial is self contradictory and, as such, no reliance can be placed on her testimoney about this incident. P.W. 5 narrated the incident and names the persons who entered inside the house and who came out and the persons who were said to have removed the articles but on this count the evidence' of P.W. 3 contradicts the evidence of P.W. 2. So also the evidence of P.W. 4 contradicts the evidence of P.W. 2. The evidence of P.Ws. 2, 3 and 4 is contradictory to that of P.W. 5. As regards question of threatening, the evidence of P.Ws. 1, 2, 3 and 4 is also not worthy of credit. While the complainant has come out with a case that the Respondents threatened her, P.W. 2 says that none of them had opened their mouth. There is also contradiction on material particulars in the evidence of all the prosecution witnesses. Complainant has further tried to say that the Respondents came to her house being armed with weapons but in her initial statement at the time of lodging complaint, she did not make any statement regarding such a fact. She states that she cried while she was being dragged and assaulted by the Respondents but this fact is not supported by any of her witnesses. She states that she cried while she was being dragged and assaulted by the Respondents but this fact is not supported by any of her witnesses. In view of the aforesaid circumstances and the type of evidence adduced by the complainant, I am in agreement with the findings of the trial Court that the complainant has failed to establish the charge against the Respondents. It appears that the complainant and Respondent No. 1 are fighting with each other about the properties of late Hazari Mohapatra, one claiming as adopted son and the other as the widow. 5. It is contended on behalf of the Appellant that the trial Court has committed error in giving findings as to the fact whether the complainant is the widow or not and if Respondent No. 1 is the adopted son or not and about the deed of gift. It is well settled that the findings of the Criminal Court are not binding on the parties in this respect and, as such even if, rightly or wrongly, the trial Court has given a finding it is not binding on the parties. After scrutinising the evidence, I do not find any compelling reason to interfere with the decision of the trial Court. 6. In the result, the appeal fails and is, accordingly, dismissed. Final Result : Dismissed