JUDGMENT : B.K. Patel, J. - This Criminal Revision is directed against the judgment and order dated 28.07.1995 passed by learned Special Judge, Balasore in Special Case No. 34 of 1994 acquitting O.P. Nos. 2 to 5- accused persons of the charges for commission of offences under Sections 342, 323 and 294 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (for short the 'I.P.C.') as well as Sections 3(ii) and (iii) and 4 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act (for short 'the SC and ST (PA) Act'). 2. Case was initiated on the basis of report lodged by the Petitioner-informant-P.W.1. It was alleged in the F.I.R. that the occurrence took place on 05.11.1993 morning when P.W.1 alighted in the railway station from a train and was taking tea in a nearby tea-stall at Khantapada. P.W.1, being a member of the Home Guards, was in his uniform. It was alleged that O.P. Nos. 2 to 5- accused persons, due to previous land dispute, abused him in filthy language. When P.W.1 protested, the accused persons assaulted him by means of chapals, cycle chain, kicks and fist blows in presence of others including P.W.2. When P.W.2 intervened, he was also assaulted by means of cycle chain. Thereafter, the accused persons took P.W.1 by the side of railway line to the house of one Kasi Biswal of village Oliapatana. While so taking, P.W.1 was assaulted on every square of the village. Thereafter, they made P.W.1 naked and took away his bag containing sale deeds, records of right and cash of Rs. 500/ -. The accused persons were also alleged to have forcibly taken P.W.1's signature on a blank paper and to have threatened to kill P.W.1 unless he vacated land. On arrival of P.W.4, the Grama Rakhi, the accused persons left. On the basis of such allegations, Khantapada P.S. Case No. 164 of 1993 appears to have been registered for commission of offences under Sections 342, 323, 294, 384 and 506 read with 34 I.P.C. as well as Sections 3 and 4 SC and ST (PA) Act. However, on completion of investigation, charge sheet was submitted against O.P. Nos. 2 to 5 for commission of offences under Sections 342, 323, 294 and 506 read with 34 I.P.C. as well as Sections 3 and 4 SC and ST (PA) Act. However, on completion of investigation, charge sheet was submitted against O.P. Nos. 2 to 5 for commission of offences under Sections 342, 323, 294 and 506 read with 34 I.P.C. as well as Sections 3 and 4 SC and ST (PA) Act. In course of trial, five witnesses P.Ws.1 to 5 were examined by prosecution. P.W.3 was the Medical Officer who had examined P.Ws.1 and 2, whereas P.W.5 was the investigating officer. The accused persons examined a defence witness D.W.1. Documentary evidence was also adduced. Learned Special Judge, upon consideration of the materials on record, held that the prosecution has failed to prove the case against the accused persons beyond all reasonable doubt, and accordingly, passed the impugned judgment and order. 3. Though attempt was made by the learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner to find fault with the learned trial Court in appreciating the evidence adduced by the prosecution and it was urged that undue emphasis was placed on minor contradictions and infirmities, it may be observed that there is little scope for a Revisional Court to re-appreciation the evidence on record. Even if a view different from the one taken by the learned trial Court is possible, if the view taken by the trial Court is reasonable, its findings should not be disturbed in exercise of revisional jurisdiction. In the present case, while denying the prosecution allegations, defence took the plea that the accused persons were falsely implicated in the case due to previous enmity between the informant on the one hand and villagers led by the accused persons on the other hand, in connection with their objection against possession of a piece of Anabadi land by the informant. In fact Petitioner also in course of his examination as P.W.1 categorically admitted that there was dispute between him and his co villagers as pleaded by the accused persons. In this connection, upon reference to documentary evidence produced by the defence, it was found by the learned trial Court that on the basis of representation made by his co-villagers, proceeding was initiated for eviction of the Petitioner from a piece of government land which he had encroached, as the encroachment caused obstruction to passage to a place of worship. In this connection, upon reference to documentary evidence produced by the defence, it was found by the learned trial Court that on the basis of representation made by his co-villagers, proceeding was initiated for eviction of the Petitioner from a piece of government land which he had encroached, as the encroachment caused obstruction to passage to a place of worship. On 04.11.1993, i.e. on the day preceding the date of occurrence, the Petitioner appears to have been evicted from the encroached land and paddy crop which he had raised on said land appears to have been kept in the custody of O.P. No. 4. However, on the date of occurrence itself, the Petitioner tried to re-encroach the land by uprooting the flag which was fixed in course of eviction. When the Tahasildar sought for police help, the Officer-in-Charge of Police Station, being influenced by Petitioner who happens to be a member of the Home Guards, did not take any action for which the Tahasildar had to approach the Superintendent of Police. Thus, it is evident that the Petitioner bore grudge against the accused persons for having led the co-villagers against him to evict him from the encroached land. Therefore the learned trial Court rightly held that evidence adduced on behalf of the prosecution required close scrutiny. On scrutiny, it is found that in course of his examination in Court not only P.W.1 but also P.W.2 vitally contradicted with his version contained in the FIR and police statement. P.W.1 deposed in Court that the accused persons challenged and abused him by calling him 'Dhoba' which allegation had not been made in the FIR or police statement. P.Ws.1 and 2 also contradicted as regards the manner of assault on them by the accused persons. Though Petitioner-P.W.1 deposed that he was dealt with two hundred to two hundred fifty blows in course of occurrence and that P.W.2 was dealt more blows, than him. P.W.3, the Medical Officer, testified to have found only one contusion on P.W.1 and only one abrasion on P.W.2. P.W.4 the Grama Rakhi simply deposed that on his arrival accused persons fled away from the spot. His version, more particularly as regards the allegation of P.W.1 to have been made naked by the accused persons, is contradictory to the version of the informant himself. P.W.4 the Grama Rakhi simply deposed that on his arrival accused persons fled away from the spot. His version, more particularly as regards the allegation of P.W.1 to have been made naked by the accused persons, is contradictory to the version of the informant himself. On an appraisal of the evidence of the three material witnesses P.Ws.1, 2 and 4, it was rightly observed by the learned trial Court that their evidence is replete with improvements, discrepancies and contradictions. It is also pertinent to observe that the informant himself having failed to substantiate the allegation of theft or extortion as made in the F.I.R., charge sheet was not submitted against accused persons for alleged commission of offence u/s 384 I.P.C. Learned trial Court has also taken note of non-examination of independent witnesses stated to have seen the occurrence. Therefore, in the background of admitted hostile relationship between the parties and in view of circumstances indicating that investigating agency was partial towards the Petitioner, there appears no infirmity in the conclusion recorded by the learned trial Court to the effect that in view of the nature of evidence adduced by the prosecution, charge against the accused persons has not been proved beyond reasonable doubt. In Such circumstances, there is no ground to justify interference with the impugned judgment and order. Therefore, the Criminal Revision is dismissed. Final Result : Dismissed