Judgment 1. The Appellant/Complainant has projected the present Criminal Appeal as against the Judgment dated 30.05.2005 in C.C.No.95 of 2004 passed by the Learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Udumalpet, Coimbatore District, in acquitting all the Respondents/Accused. 2. According to the Learned Counsel for the Appellant, the Judgment of the trial Court dated 30.05.2005 in C.C.No.95 of 2004, is contrary to law and devoid of merits. 3. The Learned Counsel for the Appellant submits that the trial Court should have seen that the ingredients of Sections 147, 148, 294(b), 324, 427, 447 and 506(ii) of IPC were made out against the Respondents/Accused. 4. Advancing his arguments, the Learned Counsel for the Appellant strenuously contends that the trial Court should have seen that the evidence of witnesses are not contradictory to each other and as such the ingredients of the offences under Sections 147, 148, 294(b), 324, 427, 447 and 506(ii) of IPC were made out. 5. Expatiating his submissions, the Learned Counsel for the Appellant submits that the Doctor, who was examined as PW.5, had given a clear evidence sufficient enough to convict the Respondents/Accused. 6. Proceeding further, the Learned Counsel for the Appellant projects an argument that the trial Court ought not to acquit the Respondents/Accused by giving them 'benefit of doubt', when the witnesses PW.2 to PW.4, who were eye witnesses to the occurrence, had made a clear statement. 7. Per contra, the Learned Counsel for the Respondents submits that the trial Court had taken into account the over all assessment of the facts and circumstances in an integral fashion and also it had analysed the evidence of prosecution witnesses and had come to a resultant conclusion that the offences levelled against the Respondents/Accused were not proved beyond reasonable doubt and granted them the 'benefit of doubt' in their favour and acquitted them in terms of Section 248 (1) of Cr.P.C. 8. It comes to be known that the Appellant had preferred a Private Complaint before the trial Court under Section 200 of Cr.P.C. According to him, on 30.03.2003 at about 4 p.m. in the evening, while he was returning to his village, after attending a function, Rajamanickam came before him and informed that in his land, the Maize raised by him were being harvested by his sister Ramathal, her husband Eswaran, Sadasivam, Sureshkumar and Thirunirai Selvi and when he went to his land, he saw that the Accused in violation of the Court order had formed an unlawful assembly and entered upon his land by committing trespass and they were harvesting the said Maize. When he made an enquiry with First Respondent/First Accused (since deceased) by pointing out as to why they were committing this kind of atrocity, the Respondents/Accused (all of them) informed him that the Judgment was delivered in their favour by the Court and all the Respondents/Accused scolded him in bad words by uttering that if he entered the land, they would murder him and by so saying, the Sixth Respondent/Sixth Accused beat him with a log in her hand on his back, and the Third Respondent/Third Accused Eswaran caught hold of him and First Respondent/First Accused (since deceased) had stabbed him on his left side of the Chest with the knife, she had in her hand and other Respondents/Accused had beaten him on his hand and legs and also, they again threatened him by saying that if he again entered his land, they would murder him. Further, all the Respondents/Accused had entered upon his land by committing an act of trespass and by beating him they took away the Maize and Maize grain (Maize kathir) of 70 bags valued about Rs.42,000/. In this regard, he lodged a Complaint in Crime No.63 of 2003 on the file of Madathukulam Police Station. However, no action was taken by the police. Hence, he had filed the present Private Complaint against the Respondents/Accused for the offences committed by them under Sections 147, 148, 294(b), 324, 427, 447 and 506(ii) of IPC. 9. The said Private Complaint filed by the Appellant/Complainant was taken on file by the trial Court and summons were issued to the Respondents/Accused and on their appearance, they were given the copies of the Complaint and on behalf of the Appellant/Complainant, five witnesses were examined. 9. The said Private Complaint filed by the Appellant/Complainant was taken on file by the trial Court and summons were issued to the Respondents/Accused and on their appearance, they were given the copies of the Complaint and on behalf of the Appellant/Complainant, five witnesses were examined. As a matter of fact, PW.1 to PW.4 were examined to speak about the occurrence, also that PW.5 Doctor was examined. 10. It is not in dispute that as against First Respondent/First Accused (since deceased), charges were framed under Sections 452, 324, 294(b) and 506(ii) of IPC and in respect of Respondents 2, 4 to 6/Accused 2, 4 to 6, charges were framed under Sections 452, 294(b), 427, 323 and 506(ii) of IPC and in respect of Third Respondent/Third Accused, charges were framed under Sections 452, 294(b), 427, 341 and 506(ii) IPC by the trial Court. 11. Before the trial Court, on behalf of the Respondents/Accused, no witness was examined. 12. At the outset, it is to be pointed out that in an Appeal against acquittal, the Honourable High Court has enough powers to review the evidence on which the Judgment of acquittal was cemented upon. It cannot be gain said that the Appellate Court should not displace acquittal, if it is rested on reasonable, legitimate and plausible grounds as opined by this Court. Further, only if the Judgment of acquittal of the trial Court is perverse and based on irrelevant factors and materials, the Appellate Court will interfere and that too for forceful reasons. Indeed, when the reasons assigned by the trial Court to acquit the Accused are sturdy and good, the High Court would not reverse the Judgment of acquittal. After all, the premordial consideration of the Court ought to avoid miscarriage of justice. It cannot be doubted that in an Appeal against acquittal, the power of the Honourable High Court to reassess the evidence and reach its own conclusions are wide as those in an Appeal against conviction. However, if the view taken by the trial Court is not based on any hypothesis or conjectures, then the Judgment of the trial Court is not liable to be interfered with, in the considered opinion of this Court. 13. However, if the view taken by the trial Court is not based on any hypothesis or conjectures, then the Judgment of the trial Court is not liable to be interfered with, in the considered opinion of this Court. 13. The Appellant/Complainant, as PW.1 had deposed in his evidence that when he was returning to his village, from Thungavi to Kumaramangalm, Rajamanickam gave information to him at about 4 p.m. and when he went to his land at about 4.10 p.m. and that in his two acres land, he had raised Maize crop and that the Respondents 1 to 6/ Accused 1 to 6, in the same place, were harvesting the Maize and he had not mentioned about this in his Complaint and before the Police Station. 14. At this stage, this Court very pertinently points out that on perusal of the evidence of PW.1, it is quite clear that he had not categorically deposed that all the Respondents/Accused had trespassed into his land. Likewise, even PW.2 in his evidence had not crystal clearly stated that all the Respondents/Accused had trespassed into the land of PW.1/Appellant. Indeed on going through the evidence of PW.3 and PW.4, it is candidly clear that they had only deposed in their evidence that there was group of people assembled in PW.1's land. To put it succinctly, the evidence of PW.1 to PW.4, unerringly point out that they had not deposed in clear terms that all the Respondents/Accused had trespassed into the land of PW.1. It is true that the offence under Section 452 of IPC, namely, house trespass after preparation for hurt, assault or wrongful restraint is a cognizable, non-bailable, non-compoundable one and triable by any Magistrate. Under this section, the necessary ingredient of committing an act of house trespass by the Accused concerned, is to be established on the side of Prosecution/ Private Complainant beyond reasonable doubt. However, it is seen from the evidence of PW.1 to PW.4 shows that the offence under Section 452 of IPC was not made out against the Respondents/Accused, in the considered opinion of this Court. 15. However, it is seen from the evidence of PW.1 to PW.4 shows that the offence under Section 452 of IPC was not made out against the Respondents/Accused, in the considered opinion of this Court. 15. Coming to the aspect that the Appellant/PW.1 was scolded in an indecent language by the Respondents 1 to 6/Accused on the day of occurrence, namely on 30.03.2003, it is to be pointed out that PW.1 alone had stated in his evidence that the Respondents 1 to 6/Accused 1 to 6 had scolded him. Even the evidence of PW.2, PW.3 and PW.4 also were not to the effect that the Respondents/Accused had scolded the Appellant/PW.1 in indecent language. In fact, the evidence of PW.2 to PW.4 do not corroborate the evidence of PW.1 in this regard. Though a plea is projected on behalf of the Appellant/Complainant that the place of occurrence was a public place and the trial Court was not correct in observing in paragraph 10 of the Judgment that there was no sufficient evidence to prove that the occurrence was taken place at a public place, this Court is of the considered view that the Appellant/PW.1 in his Complaint had categorically mentioned that in his land the Respondents 1 to 6/Accused had committed an act of trespass by entering upon his land and they were harvesting the Maize crop raised by him. As such, it is patently and latently clear from the Private Complaint projected by the Appellant/PW.1 that the incident/occurrence purported to have taken place only in his land, namely, a private land and not a public place/public land. In view of the fact that the evidence of PW.2, PW.3 and PW.4 had not supported the case of the Appellant/PW.1/Complainant in regard to the scolding by the Respondents/Accused by employing indecent language, this Court comes to an inevitable and irresistable conclusion that the charge under Section 294(b) of IPC as against the Respondents 1 to 6/Accused 1 to 6 was not proved beyond all reasonable doubt. 16. 16. Insofar as the offences under Sections 427 and 506(ii) of IPC levelled against the Respondents/Accused, although the evidence of PW.1 to PW.4 do point out that the Respondents/Accused were harvesting the Maize raised by the Appellant/PW.1 and that apart, notwithstanding the fact that on behalf of the Appellant/PW.1, it was stated that the Respondents/Accused had taken away the Maize of 70 bags, valued about Rs.42,000/-, there was no crystal clear evidence to show before this Court that all the Respondents/Accused had damaged the Maize and whether all of them had taken/carried away the Maize crop. In fact PW.2 and PW.4, had not spoken about the threat made to PW.1 by the Respondents/Accused. Per contra, only PW.1 and PW.3 had stated in their evidence that PW.1 was threatened by the Respondents/Accused. At this stage, a plea is taken on behalf of the Appellant/Complainant that PW.1 and PW.3 were interested witnesses and as such, their witnesses need not be acted upon in regard to the purported threat made by the Respondents/Accused made on the Appellant/PW.1. 17. It is well settled principle of Criminal Law that the offences said to have been committed by the Accused are to be proved beyond all shadow of doubt on the side of Prosecution. As far as the present case is concerned, in regard to the charges/offences under Sections 427 and 506(ii) of IPC, this Court, based on the evidence adduced on the side of Prosecution, comes to a consequent conclusion that two offences/charges under Sections 427 and 506(ii) of IPC levelled against the Respondents/A1 to A6 were not proved beyond all reasonable doubt, because of the simple reason that the evidence of PW.1 and PW.3 were not supported by the evidence of PW.2 and PW.4. 18. Coming to the plea that the Third Respondent/Third Accused caught hold of PW.1, in this regard, no sufficient explanation and evidence were offered on behalf of the Complainant/Prosecution side before the trial Court. 19. That apart, in regard to the offences/charges levelled against the First Respondent/First Accused (since deceased) under Sections 324 of IPC, PW.1 to PW.4 had deposed that the First Respondent/First Accused (since deceased) had stabbed PW.1 on chest with knife. In this regard, the evidence of PW.5 – Doctor, who gave treatment to PW.1, assumes significance. 19. That apart, in regard to the offences/charges levelled against the First Respondent/First Accused (since deceased) under Sections 324 of IPC, PW.1 to PW.4 had deposed that the First Respondent/First Accused (since deceased) had stabbed PW.1 on chest with knife. In this regard, the evidence of PW.5 – Doctor, who gave treatment to PW.1, assumes significance. PW.5 in his evidence had deposed that PW.1 had abrasion injury on his left side Chest measuring 6 x 1 cm. PW.5 went on to add in his evidence that abrasion injury that was found on PW.1 was not an injury that arose out of a knife injury and he also mentioned that the said abrasion injury would occur if a person falls down. To put it precisely, the evidence of PW.5 - Doctor does not lend support to the case of the Appellant/Complainant, to substantiate his case that he was stabbed by First Respondent/First Accused (since deceased) with knife on his chest. Consequently, this Court holds that the offence under Section 324 IPC levelled against First Respondent/First Accused (since deceased) was not proved on the side of Prosecution beyond all reasonable doubt. 20. Coming to the aspect of the offence under Section 323 IPC levelled against Respondents 2, 4 to 6/A2, A4 to A6, it is to be pointed out by this Court that PW.1 in his evidence had merely stated that other Accused beat with leg and hand and crushed him. Indeed PW.2 had only deposed that Nachimuthu/second Accused/second Respondent, Sadhasivam/Fourth Respondent/Fourth Accused (since deceased), Suresh kumar/Fifth Respondent/Fifth Accused beat Muthusamy/Appellant, but he had not specifically stated that the said Muthusamy/Appellant was beaten by the aforesaid persons with hands and legs. In this connection, one cannot ignore a vital fact that PW.3 had deposed in his evidence that the Respondents/Accused beat PW.1 with log (mattai). As such, there is a material contradiction/discrepancy in regard to the evidence of PW.2 and PW.3 as to the beating of PW.1 by the Respondents/Accused, which is not a favourable circumstance in favour of the Appellant/Complainant. Moreover, PW.4 in his evidence had deposed that Sixth Accused/Sixth Respondent had beaten PW.1 with log for four or five times, but strangely PW.2 in his evidence had not stated anything about the Sixth Accused/Sixth Respondent beating PW.1 with a log. Moreover, PW.4 in his evidence had deposed that Sixth Accused/Sixth Respondent had beaten PW.1 with log for four or five times, but strangely PW.2 in his evidence had not stated anything about the Sixth Accused/Sixth Respondent beating PW.1 with a log. In regard to the manner of attack made by the Respondents/Accused, the evidence of Prosecution witnesses do contain discrepancies/contradictions, which in the considered opinion of this Court, go in favour of the Respondents/Accused 1 to 6. 21. Be that as it may, in the upshot of detailed qualitative and quantitative discussions and this Court, on appreciation of entire facts and attendant circumstances of the present case in an encircling fashion and also taking note of the respective contentions advanced on either side, comes to an inescapable and irresistable conclusion that the charges levelled against First Respondent/First Accused (since deceased) under Sections 452, 324, 294(b), and 506(ii) IPC, the offences in respect of Respondents 2, 4 to 6/Accused 2, 4 to 6 under Sections 452, 294(b), 427, 323 and 506(ii) IPC, and the offences levelled against the Third Respondent/Third Accused under Sections 452, 294(b), 427, 341 and 506(ii) IPC were not made out on the side of the Appellant/Complainant beyond all shadow of doubt and this Court is in complete agreement with the view taken by the trial Court in C.C.No.95 of 2004 granting the Respondents 1 to 6/Accused 1 to 6, the benefit of doubt and acquitting them. At this stage, this Court pertinently points out that it is brought to the notice of this Court that the First Respondent/First Accused Ramathal and Fourth Respondent/Fourth Accused/Sadasivam expired on 02.02.2014 and 06.12.2013 respectively as per Death Certificates produced before this Court and the same are recorded. As such, the Present Appeal abates as against them. Consequently, the Criminal Appeal fails. 22. In the result, the Criminal Appeal is dismissed. Consequently, the judgment of the Learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Udumalpet, in C.C.No.95 of 2004 dated 30.05.2005 is affirmed by this Court for the reasons ascribed in this Appeal.