JUDGMENT : P.K. Tripathy, J. - After obtaining special leave u/s 378(4), Code of Criminal Procedure vide order passed on 22.6.1988 in Criminal Misc. Case No. 232 of 1988, Appellant has filed the present appeal, challenging to the order of acquittal passed on 29.2.1988 by learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Khurda in I.C.C. Case No. 13 of 1986. 2. Case of the Appellant as the complainant, in short, is that the accused persons have their homestead property adjoining to her premises vide Plot No. 581 in Mouza- Tangi. On 28.12.1985 at about 11 A.M. during her absence from the house, the accused persons allegedly demolished the compound wall as well as green fence put by her. She lodged report in the Police-station but no action was taken and therefore, she instituted the complaint on 27.1.1986. In respect of that occurrence she cited Jogi Nayak (P.W. No. 2), Aintha Kalasha (P.W. No. 3), Srivastya Jena and Krushna Chandra Paikray, as witnesses to the occurrence. In course of trial, besides, the aforesaid P. Ws 2 and 3 she examined Pradip Kumar Mohaptra (p.w. No. 4) a Photographer and Naba Swain (P.W. No. 5). 3. On assessment of evidence and keeping in view of the cognizance of the offence u/s 427, Indian Penal Code. learned J.M.F.C. on assessment of evidence on record, found that the complainant (PW. No. 1) was not an eye-witness to the occurrence and P. Ws 2,3 and 5 all of whom have described themselves as chance witnesses, have contradicted in the manner the occurrence was witnessed by them and therefore, such evidence was not credible. Accordingly, the accused persons, were granted acquittal. 4. Learned Counsel for the Appellant, placing such evidence argues that the evidence of P. Ws 2 and 3 are sufficient to prove the charge against the accused persons and learned J.M.F.C. unreasonably rejected such evidence. Mr. D.K. Mohapatra, Learned Counsel who appeared as amicus curiae because of non-participation in the hearing by the counsel for the accused Respondents, argued in support of the impugned judgment of the Court below. He also argued that appreciation of evidence by the Court below being not suffering from perversity or unreasonableness therefore, this Court should not interfere with such factual finding. 5. According to the provision in Section 386 Code of Criminal Procedure the Appellate Court has the jurisdiction to set aside an order of acquittal. He also argued that appreciation of evidence by the Court below being not suffering from perversity or unreasonableness therefore, this Court should not interfere with such factual finding. 5. According to the provision in Section 386 Code of Criminal Procedure the Appellate Court has the jurisdiction to set aside an order of acquittal. Such a course is open to the Appellate Court only in the event of recording a finding that there is illegality or perversity in appreciating the evidence on record or following the provisions of law both substantive and procedural. The Appellate Court shall not readily interfered with a factual finding recorded by the Court below or the opinion expressed by the Trial Court relating to particular item of evidence unless for reasons to be recorded,the Appellate Court finds that such finding and conclusion of the trial Court is illegal or patently absured. 6. In this case, the evidence of P.W. No. 1 and the Photographer P.W. No. 4 does not prove anything against the accused persons relating to the occurrence of demolition. Evidence of both the witnesses and Ext. 3 are post-occurrence. Trial Court disbelieved the evidence of PW. No. 5, a chance witness, on the ground that he had the temperament to speak falsehood in as much as he narrated in his evidence that complainant was present in her house at the time of occurrence and he saw her. PWs 2 and 3 are similarly chance witnesses and the Trial Court noted contradictions in their evidence as to which part of the wall was demolished. Not only that, Trial Court also referred to the evidence in cross-examination of the said two witnesses, which indicates that the said witnesses were unable to state if any of the accused persons did any act of demolition of the compound wall. Under such circumstance, Trial Court entertained a doubt on the truthfulness of the said witness and accordingly acquitted the accused persons on a close perusal of the evidence on record. This Court finds no reason to differ from that view. Though the Trial Court, has added to such ground, the ground of delay in lodging the complaint but whether or not such ground is added damages already caused to the complainant's case because of the above noted discrepancy in the evidence tendered from her side. This Court finds no reason to differ from that view. Though the Trial Court, has added to such ground, the ground of delay in lodging the complaint but whether or not such ground is added damages already caused to the complainant's case because of the above noted discrepancy in the evidence tendered from her side. In view of that, finding no merit in the appeal, this Court dismisses the same. Final Result : Dismissed