JUDGMENT 1. This appeal by Special Leave under Section 378(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure arises out of an order of the learned Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, Jodhpur District, Jodhpur dated October 18, 1976, whereby the three accused- persons were acquitted of the offences punishable under sections 324, 427 and 447 of the papal Code. 2. Put briefly the facts are- At about 4 p m. 5-4-71, the complainant Devilal was erecting stone slabs on the bowndary of his field, situate in Mojja Karamsaria. Contiguous to it, in the east is situate the field of the accused-persons, who are father and sons inter se. They came together to the field of the complainant and started pulling down the stone slabs and asked him, not to raise any construction there. The complainant asserted his right. Thereupon, accused Jainarain and Asharam caught hold of the complainant and gave him slaps and fist blows. P.W. 4 Shaktidan, who was present there, came to intervene. Accused Satyanarain pushed him down and struck a blow on his left leg with a 'Kassi'. Thereafter, the accused went away. P.W. 4 Shaktidan was taken to Government Dispensary, Mathania, where Dr. (P.W. 1) gave him medical aid and also examined his injury. The complainant lodged a report of the occurrence at police station, Mathania on 6-4-71. The police, after some preliminary investigation, dropped the matter. The complainant. then lodged a complaint in the court below on 17-4-71. The learned Magistrate summoned the accused-persons and after following the procedure meant for trial of a warrant case framed charges against the accused-persons. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed that the place of occurrence belonged to them and was in their possession at all the relevant times including the day of occurrence. During trial, the complainant examined 5 witnesses and filed some documents. In defence, some documents were filed and three witnesses were examined. On the conclusion of trial, the learned Magistrate found no incriminating material against the accused. The accused-persons were, consequently, acquitted and the complaint was dismissed. Aggrieved against the order of acquittal, the complainant has filed this appeal. 3. I have heard Mr. J.R. Tatia, learned counsel appearing for the complainant and Mr. Doongarsingh, learned counsel for the accused-persons. I have also gone through the case file. 4. Mr. The accused-persons were, consequently, acquitted and the complaint was dismissed. Aggrieved against the order of acquittal, the complainant has filed this appeal. 3. I have heard Mr. J.R. Tatia, learned counsel appearing for the complainant and Mr. Doongarsingh, learned counsel for the accused-persons. I have also gone through the case file. 4. Mr. Tatia, learned counsel for the complainant contended that the acquittal of the accused-persons was wholly erroneous and based on a wrong appraisal of evidence. It was proved that the court-below paid too much weight to minor discrepancies and tried to pick up holes in evidence even though there were none. It was contended that the direct evidence of the two victims viz. P.W. 3 Devilal and P.W. 4 Shaktidan and P.W. 5 Ranna. was strong enough to seek the conviction of the accused. But, it was wrongly brushed aside on flimsy ground. The order of acquittal was, thus, unwarranted and must be quashed. 5. In reply, learned counsel for the accused supported the impugned order and submitted that the evidence led in by the complainant was so hopeless and infirm that no conviction was possible on its strength. It was argued that the learned Magistrate had advanced weighty and convincing reasons for acquitting the accused and as per settled law in appeals against acquittal, this Court should not interfere in the findings of the trial court. 6. I have taken the respective contentions into consideration. Section 386. Cr. P.C. deals with the powers of the appellate courts, which apply equally to all appeals whether they are against conviction or acquittal. The appellate court can, in an appeal against an order of acquittal, reverse such order under Clause (a) of the aforesaid section and convict the accused and pass sentence in accordance with law. In discharging this duty, the appellate court has and must be presumed to have powers of reviewing and re-assessing the evidence adduced in the trial court. There is no bar that while hearing the appeal against acquittal, the fitting of the lower court cannot be inferred with. If the powers to reverse an order of acquittal are there, the powers to make a reappraisal of the evidence must be accepted because the former cannot be accomplished without having a recourse to the later. There is no bar that while hearing the appeal against acquittal, the fitting of the lower court cannot be inferred with. If the powers to reverse an order of acquittal are there, the powers to make a reappraisal of the evidence must be accepted because the former cannot be accomplished without having a recourse to the later. Of course, while discharging the above function under Clause(a) due regard should be given to the view of the trial court as to the credibility of the witnesses. 7. The grievance of the complainant is that the court-below failed to properly appreciate the evidence adduced before him. As stated earlier, he examined 5 witnesses. P.W. 1 Dr. Sinha stated that he found an injury 11/2" X 1/2" hone deep on the anterier aspect of left leg of Shaktidan. In cross-examination, he admitted that this injury could be caused by the pointed end of a stone. Though, he examined P.W. 4 Shaktidan on 5-4-71 but prepared the report Ex.P/l on 6-4-71. The reasons stated by him for not preparing the injury report on 5-4-71 are not convincing. P.W. 2 Khechidan was the Revenue Inspector of the Circle, he deposed that the place of occurrence was found in the complainant's field Khasra No. 23/A. In cross-examination, he admitted that when he visited the site, no party was present. It also does not appear that he took the measurements from any particular point The question of possession over the land, where the boundary wall was being raised, is of vital significance because a charge under section 447, IPC was there against the accused. It was incumbent on the complainant to adduce satisfactory evidence to prove his possession over the place of occurrence. The testimony of P.W. 2 Khechidan is certainly not sufficient to prove his possession. 8. Coming to the actual occurrence, there are three witnesses viz. P.W. 3 Devilal, P.W. 4 Shaktidan and P.W. 5 Ranna. P.W. 1 Devilal deposed that he was given slips and fist blows by accused Jainarain and Asharam. But, in his police statement, Ex. D/1 with which, he was confronted, he stated that accused Jainarain addressed abusive words to him and accused Satyanarain caught his neck. He did not state in Ex. D/l that he was given slaps and fist blows by any of the accused persons. There is, thus, material contradictions in his two statements. But, in his police statement, Ex. D/1 with which, he was confronted, he stated that accused Jainarain addressed abusive words to him and accused Satyanarain caught his neck. He did not state in Ex. D/l that he was given slaps and fist blows by any of the accused persons. There is, thus, material contradictions in his two statements. P.W. 4 Shaktidan deposed that accused Jainarain and Asharam gave slaps and fist blows to Devilal. But in his police statement Ex. D,2, he did not state so. He stated therein that accused Satyanarain caught the neck of Devilal and gave a slap. He was confronted with his above statement in Ex. D/2. He could give no satisfactory explanation for this major contradiction. The presence of P.W. 5 Ranna is highly doubtful. He was examined for the first time in court on 15-1-1975. His name was not mentioned in the complaint. He was also not examined during investigation. It appears that he has been falsely introduced by the complainant. 9. P.W. 3 Devilal deposed that accused Satyanarain caused an injury on the left leg of Shaktidan by a 'Kassi'. But again, in police statement Ex. D/1, it has not been mentioned that accused Satyanarain struck any blow. In portion C to D in Ex. D/1, what has been stated, is that the accused Satyanarain had a 'Kassi' and Shaktidan received an injury with it. 10. The learned Magistrate has scanned the evidence of these witnesses thoroughly and carefully. He has advanced a number of reasons as to why they were not reliable and their evidence not sufficient to prove the guilt of the accused. As discussed above, the story of the complainant is inconsistent. The evidence adduced by him is haulting and discrepant. For want of compelling reasons. it is difficult lot me to disagree with the learned Magistrate on his conclusion that the evidence was not sufficient to prove the charges. He had an opportunity and advantage to see the witnesses and their demeanour. It does not appear that the learned Magistrate has committed any error in reading the evidence. 11. Under our Criminal jurisprudence an accused is presumed to be innocent and this presumption of innocence is reinforced by his acquittal in the trial court. In appeal, there should be strong and sound reasons to set at naught this presumption. There are no such reasons before me. 11. Under our Criminal jurisprudence an accused is presumed to be innocent and this presumption of innocence is reinforced by his acquittal in the trial court. In appeal, there should be strong and sound reasons to set at naught this presumption. There are no such reasons before me. The accused have been rightly acquitted and no interference is called for. 12. There is no force in this appeal and the same is dismissed. *******