SUDHANGSU SEHHAR GANGULY, J. ( 1 ) THIS appeal is directed against an order of acquittal passed by Shri K. Chakraborty, learned Judicial Magistrate, Additional court, Barrackporo on 9. 11. 1983. ( 2 ) THE prosecution case was that the complainant-respondent Smt. Umasashi Devi was a tenant of the appellant accused Krishna Debnath in respect of two rooms and a cow shed and that the latter and the other accused in a body demolished the said cow - shed on 2 1. 7. 1980 causing a loss to her of about Rs. 500/ -. The accused-respondents were charged under sections 147/427/446 of the Indian Penal Code. The complainant examined all the witnesses before the learned Magistrate. The respondent also examined one amongst them. On a consideration of the facts the learned Magistrate has acquitted the accused respondents of the charges framed against them and hence this appeal. ( 3 ) IT is urged from the side of the appellants that on a proper appreciation of the materials on record the learned Magistrate ought to have convicted them. ( 4 ) THE learned Advocate for the appellant has very kindly taken me through the evidence of all the witnesses examined by the complainant to establish her case. It appears that even though the learned Magistrate has held on this evidence that there was really a cowshed and further that it was demolished as alleged from the side of the appellants, the evidence adduced by the complainant herself and her witnesses just failed to breed any conviction in the learned Magistrates mind for the purpose of holding that it was the accused-respondent who were responsible for the demolisation of the said cow-shed. The reason for this is that all the witnesses examined by the appellant had some kind of enmity with the respondents or otherwise they were relations of the appellant herself. ( 5 ) FROM a perusal of the evidence I find that the learned Magistrate was perfectly justified in pointing out that the witnesses who appeared on the side of the appellants were her relations or inimically disposed towards the respondents and disbelieving them on that grounds. Not even a single witness examined by the appellants may be described as an independent witness. It is true that it is not this law that partisan or interested witnesses should be disbelieved because they are partisan or interested. Not even a single witness examined by the appellants may be described as an independent witness. It is true that it is not this law that partisan or interested witnesses should be disbelieved because they are partisan or interested. Their evidence may be accepted if it stands careful scrutiny, Harihar v. State of U. P. 1, and some assurance of this interested evidence is found from independent source qua each of the accused (A. I. R. 1975 S. C. 216 ). In the case at hand the prosecution did not examine any independent witness though such witness were available. Anil Shosh (P. W. 5) a grand son-in- law at the complainant says that same local people assembled at the time of the occurrence. None of them was examined to lend credence to the evidence of the interested witnesses. In that view of the matter it cannot be said that the learned Magistrate made any mistake by refusing to hold the prosecution allegation established against the present respondents relying upon the evidence of the prosecution witnesses alone none of whom may be considered as an independent witness. ( 6 ) BESIDES, it must also be taken into consideration that the learned Magistrate had every opportunity of seeing the demean ours of the prosecution witnesses when they were being examined. Presumably their manner of deposition bred lack of confidence as to their truthfulness in the mind of the learned Magistrate. In view of these circumstances. I am of the opinion that the finding and final decision of the learned Magistrate in this case should not be interfered with. ( 7 ) THE present appeal must therefore fail and it is hereby rejected. Send the L. C. R. back to the learned Magistrate immediately.