JUDGMENT : P.K. Patra, J. - This appeal u/s 378(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Act 2 of 1974) (for short "Cr. P. C") is directed against the judgment of acquittal dated 26-6-1986 passed by Shri C. R. Das, S. D. J. M, Kendrapara in I C C. No. 336 of 1985 (Tr. Case No. 1193 of 1985). The prayer for leave to appeal was granted in Cri. M. C. No. 459 of 1986. 2. The appellant filed the complaint case against the four respondents under sections 426/323, I. P. C. alleging that on 10-10-1985 afternoon they caused wrongful loss worth Rs. 20-00 to him by damaging the standing paddy crop in his filed by allowing two bullocks and one cow to graze there. When the appellant found the cattle inside his paddy filed, he drove them towards kine house, but was intervened by the four respondents and was assaulted in front of their house. The defence plea is one of denial and false implication due to land dispute between the parties. 3. Miss Bijaylaxmi Tripathy, learned counsel for, the appellant, and Mr. Niranjan Singh, learned counsel for the respondents, were heard at length. Miss Tripathy contended that the learned S. D. J. M. ought to have convicted the respondents after concluding that the complainant (p. w. 1) has been fully corroborated by the eye-witnesses to the occurrence p.ws. 2, 3, 4 & 5) and should not have held that prosecution case has not been established by cogent, convincing and credible evidence and hence the impugned judgment is liable to be set aside and the respondents are liable to be convicted of the charge, Mr. Singh strenuously refuted the contention of Miss Tripathy contending that the statements of the p. ws. are bristling with inconsistencies and infirmities and that the learned S. d. J M has rightly acquitted the respondents rejecting the prosecution case. 4. In support of his case the appellant examined five witnesses including himself and the defence examined one in support of its plea, The appellant and respondents are residents of village Boulanga under Patkura Police Station in the erstwhile district of Cutttack (now in the district of Kendrapara). In the complaint petition he has mentioned that the land in dispute appertains to Khata No. 214, plot No. 362/1158 measuring Ac. 0.09 dec. In the complaint petition he has mentioned that the land in dispute appertains to Khata No. 214, plot No. 362/1158 measuring Ac. 0.09 dec. He claims to have purchased the said land in 1974 from p. w. 5, who in turn claims to have purchased the same from the original owners Dura Dei and Fula Bewa in the year 1954. The defence plea is that the father of respondent Nos. 1, 3 and 4 had purchased the said land from the original owners and the, land of respondent No. 2 adjoins the same and due to dispute regarding ownership of the said land this, false case has been foisted by the appellant. In the above background the statements of the p. ws. require careful scrutiny before recording an order of acquittal or conviction of the respondents. 5. The appellant has examined himself as p. w. 1 and has stated that, he had grown Biali variety of paddy on the disputed land in the, year in question and on the date of occurrence, i. e, 10-10-1985 at about 2 p. m. respondent Hemanta had allowed two heads of bullock and one cow to graze in that paddy field and thereby caused a loss of Rs.20.00 and that when he was taking the cattle to kine house the respondents abused him in filthy language in front of their house and respondent Hemanta dealt a push on his chest while the other, respondents assaulted him by means of fist blows and slaps and rescued the cattle and at the intervention of witnesses, he left the place. In his statement in cross-examination p. w. 1 has stated that the land in dispute is situated near the village and while he was going to his land with manure he found the cattle damaging the paddy crop on a portion of his land on the eastern side measuring 2 decimals. According to him respondent Hemanta was in front of him and the other respondents were behind him when they assaulted him. He has denied, to have sustained any swelling due to assault and he has not been medically examined. He has also not stated if he sustained pain over his body due to assault. According to him respondent Hemanta was in front of him and the other respondents were behind him when they assaulted him. He has denied, to have sustained any swelling due to assault and he has not been medically examined. He has also not stated if he sustained pain over his body due to assault. He has admitted that the land of respondent Sarat is to the south of the disputed land, but has denied the suggestion that there was dispute between him and the respondents relating to ridge between the two lands. For the above reasons it will not be safe to place reliance on p. w. 1 without corroboration to base a conviction of the respondents. P. w. 2 has stated that while he was cutting hemp in his land he found cattle of respondent Hemanta damaging the paddy crop of the complainant and the complainant taking the cattle to kine house. He returned to his house and found respondent Hemanta dealing a neck push to the appellant and the other respondents dealing fist blows and slaps to the appellant and when he protested, the respondents left the place with the cattle. In his statement in cross-examination he has stated that the appellant was not assaulted on the land in question, but on the western side of the house of respondent Sarat and that the respondents were standing in front of the appellant when they assaulted him, which is not consistent with the statement of the appellant (p. w. 1) himself. It is elicited from his mouth that one Bulli Bewa had filed a case against him and others which ended in acquittal but he could not say if respondent Arjuni was a witness against him or not. Thus the statement of p. w. 2 being inconsistent with the statement of p. w. 1 and being tainted with interestedness cannot be relied Upon and cannot be said to have corroborated the statement of p. w. 1. P. w. 3 who claims to be an eye-witness to the occurrence has stated that the occurrence took place on the R. E. O. Road and he saw p. w. 1 going with cattle when respondent Hemanta dealt a push on his chest and the other respondents dealt fist blows and slaps and the respondents rescused the cattle. P. w. 3 who claims to be an eye-witness to the occurrence has stated that the occurrence took place on the R. E. O. Road and he saw p. w. 1 going with cattle when respondent Hemanta dealt a push on his chest and the other respondents dealt fist blows and slaps and the respondents rescused the cattle. In his statement in cross-examination he stated that the assault took place for about fifteen minutes, whereas p. w. 1 has stated that the assault took place for about ten minutes. Thus the statement of p. w. 3 is also not consistent with the statement of p. w. 1 on material particulars and hence reliance cannot be placed on him. P. w. 4 has stated that while he was cutting paddy in his land situated near the land in dispute, he found appellant Hemanta allowing his cattle to graze in the paddy field of the appellant and he p. w. 4) instructed him to take away the cattle and at that time the appellant reached there and took the cattle to kine house. He has hot stated regarding assault on the appellant. In his statement in cross-examination he could not say it he was an accused in a G. R. Case instituted by one Bulli Bewa and if respondent Arjuni was a witness in that case. He has stated that on the date of occurrence he did not talk with p. w. 1. It is suggested to him that be was running a grocery shop at Choudwar and that p. w. 1 was his servant who was looking after his landed property. Thus the statement of p w. 4 is also found to be tainted and not consistent when the statement of p. w. 1 inasmuch as he is silent regarding assault on p. w. 1 which in normal course of conduct could not have escaped his notice. Hence p. w. 4 is also not worthy of credence and cannot be relied upon. P. w. 5 has simply stated that he purchased the case land from Dura Dei and Fulla Bewa in 1954 and sold the same to p. w. 1 in 1974 and he has not stated anything regarding the occurrence. 6. The learned S.D.J.M. while discussing the evidence on record, has failed to appreciate the evidence properly and has come to the erroneous conclusion that p. ws. 6. The learned S.D.J.M. while discussing the evidence on record, has failed to appreciate the evidence properly and has come to the erroneous conclusion that p. ws. 2, 3, 4 and 5 have fully corroborated the statement of p.w. 1 regarding the occurrence in this case. Notwithstanding the above conclusion he, however, held that the prosecution case is not true and has not been proved beyond all reasonable doubts and accordingly acquitted the respondents. As discussed above, the statements of the so-called eye-witnesses to the occurrence, p, ws. 2, 3 and 4, are found to be incredible and reliance cannot be placed on them and the statement of p. w. 5 is of no assistance to the appellant. The statement of the appellant (p. w. 1) himself cannot be said to be unimpeachable and cannot be relied upon without corroboration. For the above reasons the respondents cannot be held guilty of the charge under sections 426/323, I. P. C. and the judgment of acquittal cannot be interfered with. Thus the appeal is found to be devoid of any merit and is liable to be dismissed. 7. In the result, the Criminal Appeal is dismissed and the impugned judgment dated 26-6-1986 in I.C.C. No. 336 of 1985 (Tr. Case No. 1193 of 1985) passed by the S.D.J.M.. Kendrapara is confirmed. 8. Crl. appeal dismissed. Final Result : Dismissed