Judgment B.N.P.Singh, J. 1. The respondents along with Nokhe Lal Pandit was prosecuted for offences punishable under Secs. 147, 447 and 379/34 of the Indian Penal Code on accusation that on 24th July, 1988, they removed logs of mango tree from the field of Ramwatar Rai, the appellant, of value of Rs. 4,000.00 and on resistance, threatened him with dire consequences. It seems that initially the police was set in motion when a police case had been registered on behest of Ramawatar Rai. However, the police case ended in fiasco, as police submitted final report, pursuant to which, a petition of complaint was filed in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sitamarhi and it is how that trial commenced against the respondents. 2. In the eventual trial, the prosecution examined four witnesses on behalf of the appellant, while three witnesses were examined on behalf of the respondents, there being accusations and counter-accusations between the parties. Both the parties laid their claims over the disputed land, from which the mango trees were cut and removed on the bullockcart. Sale-deeds, order passed by Assistant Director in the Consolidation proceedings and also extract of Khata was placed on the record on behalf of the appellant and as against that, the defence while examining Shiv Chandra Singh, D.W. 1, Shiwan Rai, D.W. 2 and Hanuman Rai, D.W. 3 placed on the record. sale-deed (Exts. B and C) and also rent receipts. Hanuman Rai, D.W. 3 had been stating before the trial Court that the respondents acquired title and possession of the disputed land from one Kaleshwar Rai and they had been in its possession for about 16/17 years. Apart from Ram Autar Rai, other three witnesses too were examined on behalf of the prosecution to State cutting of mango tree and removal of its logs by the respondents from custody of said Ram Awatar Rai (P.W. 4). The trial Court on appreciation of evidence placed on the record, took into consideration belated prosecution against the respondents, the witnesses cited in the petition of complaint having not been examined at trial and also order passed by Sub-divisional Magistrate, Sitamarhi in a proceeding u/s. 144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in case No. 365 of 1989(Ext. E) in which possession of the respondents was found by the authority concerned. E) in which possession of the respondents was found by the authority concerned. It was noticed by the trial Judge that though the complainant had laid his claim over the disputed land on strength of Benami purchase, neither the name of vendee was ever disclosed, nor any witness was ever examined at trial on this score, and to crown all, notwithstanding laying claim over the disputed land, the complainant in his evidence, admitted that name of the vendee was not recorded in the Government record and the land was not even mutated in his name. He did not know as to whether he was paying rent to the Government and above all, he admitted in most certain term that the disputed land stood in the names of Mahesh Ram and Kishun Das. The inconsistent evidence of the witnesses about identity of the P.O. land from where the mango trees were allegedly removed by the respondents, was also taken into consideration by the trial Judge. The trial Judge also noticed in-coherent statement of the witnesses as to when the mango tree fell due to storm, pursuant to which it was removed by the respondents. The trial Court on these premises finding insufficiency of evidence to lend assurance to the prosecution allegation rendered verdict of acquittal and exonerated respondent of the charges. 3. The aggrieved complainant with leave of the Court has filed this appeal to assail the finding recorded by trial Court. Notices were also issued to the respondents. Though name of Counsel appearing for the appellant and respondents were appearing in the cause-list, no one appeared on repeated calls. However, I have perused the record and critically analysed the finding recorded by the trial Court, and in view of the infirmities, that has crept in the prosecution evidence I am of the view that no contrary view can be taken than what was taken by the trial Court and, in view of this, the appeal being meritless is dismissed.