JUDGMENT : 1. Since all these appeals arise out of one and the same judgment, these appeals were heard together and they are disposed of by this common judgment. 2. The respondents 1 to 3 in Crl.A.No.165 of 2006 are the accused 1 to 3; the respondents 1 & 2 in Crl. A. (MD).No.147 are the accused 4 & 6 and the 1st respondent in Crl. A. (MD) No.166 of 2006 is the 5th accused in C.C.No.84 of 1997 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No. III, Nagercoil. The appellant herein is the complainant in the said case. He filed the said case by way of private complaint alleging that the respondents/accused had committed offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 427, 452, 354, 323, 294 and 506(ii) IPC. By judgment dated 13.12.2002, the learned Magistrate convicted all the accused under various penal provisions and accordingly imposed punishment upon them as follows: Accused Conviction Sentence A1, A2, A3, A4 & A6 U/s.147 IPC Rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs.500/-, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for one month each. A5 U/s.148 IPC Rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.500/-, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for one month. A1 & A3 U/s.452 IPC Rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for two months each. A2, A4, A5 & A6 U/s.448 IPC Rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs.500/-, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for one month each. A2 & A3 U/s.354 IPC Rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for two months each. A4, A5 & A6 U/s.427 IPC Rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs.500/-, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for one month each. A1 & A3 U/s.506(ii) IPC Rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for two months each. 3. The accused 1 to 3 were acquitted from the charge under Section 323 IPC. A1 & A3 U/s.506(ii) IPC Rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for two months each. 3. The accused 1 to 3 were acquitted from the charge under Section 323 IPC. Challenging the said conviction and sentence, the accused 1 to 3 filed C.A.No.3 of 2003; the accused 4 & 6 filed C.A.No.160 of 2002; and the 5th accused filed C.A.No.161 of 2002, before the learned Sessions Judge, Kanyakumari Division at Nagercoil. By a common judgment dated 07.02.2006, the lower appellate Court allowed all the appeals and set aside the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial Court and acquitted all the accused. Challenging the same, the complainant is before this Court with these appeals. 4. The case of the complainant is as follows; (a) PW1 is a resident of Krishnan Pudur Village in Kanyakumari District. PW2 is his wife. PW3 is his son. PW4 is his neighbour. It is stated that on the night intervening 24.03.1997 and 25.03.1997, PWs.1 to 3 were sleeping in their house and at about 01.15 a.m. on 25.03.1997, PW.1 heard the tapping of entrance door of the house. He opened the door and found that all the accused were standing outside. The accused trespassed into the house of PW1 and all of them indiscriminately attacked PWs.1 to 3. They also caused extensive damage to the house and movables in the house. Then, they took PWs.1 & 3 by force in a car to the Police Station. PW4, who is a neighbour, came to the place of occurrence and heard about the same, and he in turn informed PW6, a close relative to PW1, about the occurrence. PW6 went to the Police Station and found PWs.1 & 3 in the Police Station lock-up. When he enquired the Police, they told that they were arrested and there were going to be sent to the Court for judicial remand. Accordingly, in connection with the cases in Crime Nos.175 of 1997 and 176 of 1997, PWs.3 and 1 respectively were sent to the Court for judicial remand. They were accordingly remanded and later on they came out on bail. Accordingly, in connection with the cases in Crime Nos.175 of 1997 and 176 of 1997, PWs.3 and 1 respectively were sent to the Court for judicial remand. They were accordingly remanded and later on they came out on bail. (b) In respect of the above stated occurrence, alleging that the accused have committed offences, as stated above, the appellant herein filed a private complaint before the learned Judicial Magistrate No. III, Nagercoil, upon which the learned Judicial Magistrate took cognizance of the offences. The accused denied the accusation. During trial, in order to prove the case, the appellant/complainant had examined as many as six witnesses and marked 11 documents and also exhibited one material object. (c) Out of the said witnesses, PWs.1 to 3 have vividly spoken about the entire occurrence inside their house and the alleged attack made by these accused. PW4, who is a neighbor and who came to the place of occurrence soon after the occurrence, has spoken about the intimation given to PW6 and PW6 has stated that he found PWs.1 & 3 in the Police Station. PW5 is the photographer, who, according to the appellant, took photograph of the house after the incident and the said photographs have been marked as MO.1 series. (d) When the above incriminating materials were put to the accused, they denied the same as false. On their side, they examined one Iyappan Pillai as DW1 and marked two documents viz., FIR in Crime No.175 of 1997 and FIR in Crime No.176 of 1997. Mr. Iyappan Pillai was the then Sub Inspector of police attached to Suseendiram Police Station. He has stated that he was the investigating officer in the case in Crime Nos.175 and 176 of 1997. He has further stated that PW3 – Dheeraj is the accused in Crime No.176 of 1997. According to him, he was arrested by him only on 25.03.1997 at 9.00 a.m. at Melakrishnan Pudur Junction. Then, he was forwarded to the judicial Remand on 25.03.1997. Ex.D1 is the remand report. In Crime No.176 of 1997, PW1 is the sole accused. According to DW1, he was arrested on 25.03.1997 at 9.00 a.m. at Melakrishnan Pudur Junction and he, later on, remanded to judicial custody. Ex.D2 is the remand report. Then, he was forwarded to the judicial Remand on 25.03.1997. Ex.D1 is the remand report. In Crime No.176 of 1997, PW1 is the sole accused. According to DW1, he was arrested on 25.03.1997 at 9.00 a.m. at Melakrishnan Pudur Junction and he, later on, remanded to judicial custody. Ex.D2 is the remand report. According to the accused, they did not commit any crime as alleged by the prosecution and as a matter of fact, the PWs.1 & 3 were arrested legally by DW1 and later on, they were remanded to the judicial custody. Since they were arrested in connection with the cases in Crime Nos.175 & 176 of 1997, according to the accused, the complainant parties have falsely deposed against them. (e) Having considered the above materials, the trial Court convicted all the accused as stated in the second paragraph of the judgment and accordingly punished them. Challenging the same, the accused separately filed three appeals before the learned Sessions Judge, Kanyakumari Division at Nagercoil. By common judgment dated 07.02.2006, the lower appellate Court has acquitted all the accused. That is how the complainant is before this Court with these appeals. 5. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant/ complainant would submit that the evidences of PWs.1 to 3 are highly convincing and corroborated each other. Their evidences are further corroborated by PWs.4 to 6. He would further submit that on flimsy grounds, the lower appellate Court has acquitted the accused. He would point out that one of the grounds upon which the lower appellate Court has acquitted the accused is a minor contradiction regarding the time of occurrence. PW1 has stated that the occurrence was at 01.15 a.m., whereas PW2 has stated that it was at 01.30 a.m. According to the learned counsel, the lower appellate Court was not right in giving much weightage to that minor contradiction. So far as the overtacts are concerned, according to the learned counsel, PWs.1 to 3 have cogently given evidence, but there are some minor contradictions. The lower appellate Court has given undue weightage for these minor contradictions, the learned counsel contended. So far as the damage caused to the house, the learned counsel would submit that apart from the evidences of PWs.1 to 3, the evidence of PW5 – Sri Kumar, who is a photographer by profession and the photographs viz., MO.1 series, would go to corroborate. So far as the damage caused to the house, the learned counsel would submit that apart from the evidences of PWs.1 to 3, the evidence of PW5 – Sri Kumar, who is a photographer by profession and the photographs viz., MO.1 series, would go to corroborate. This has not been considered by the lower appellate Court, the learned counsel contended. 6. The learned counsel would further submit that at the time, when PWs.1 & 3 were produced, of-course, there is no record that they made any complaint about the occurrence to the learned Judicial Magistrate and the assault made on them by the Police. But, in fact, when PWs.1 & 3 told about the same to the learned Magistrate, it was not recorded by him and instead the learned Magistrate wanted them to work out their remedies elsewhere. The learned counsel would, therefore, submit that the judgment of the lower appellate Court deserves interference. 7. It is represented that the second respondent in Crl. A. (MD).No.165 of 2006 / A2 viz., Mr. Kumaresan, is no more. Therefore, Crl. A. (MD).No.165 of 2006 is dismissed as abated in respect of second respondent/A2. 8. I have heard the learned senior counsel appearing for the respondents 1 to 3/accused 1 to 3 in Crl. A. (MD).No.165 of 2006. Since there was no representation for the respondents 1 & 2/Accused Nos.4 & 6 in Crl. A. (MD).No.147 of 2006 and the 1st respondent/A5 in Crl .A. (MD).No.166 of 2006, this Court appointed Mr. S. Lingarasu, learned counsel, as Legal Aid Counsel to argue the case in favour of them. I have heard him also. 9. According to the learned counsel for the accused, at the time when PWs.1 & 3 were produced before the Magistrate on arrest, they did not make any complaint at all against the accused 1 to 3, who are Police officials, as well as against the others. The learned senior counsel would submit that had it been true that the occurrence had taken place as it is now projected by the prosecution parties, certainly PWs.1 & 3 would have, thereafter, told the Magistrate about the same. He would further submit that nothing would have prevented PWs.1 & 3 to ask for medical examination, when they were produced before the learned Magistrate, had it been true that they were attacked. That was also not done. He would further submit that nothing would have prevented PWs.1 & 3 to ask for medical examination, when they were produced before the learned Magistrate, had it been true that they were attacked. That was also not done. When they were in the prison also, they did not ask for any medical aid. All these things would go to show that there is no truth in the allegations. So far as the photograph evidence is concerned, it is stated that the photograph was taken at about 09.45 p.m., whereas the occurrence itself was at 01.15 a.m. in the night. For these reasons, the lower appellate Court has acquitted all the accused, which, according to the learned counsel, does not require any interference at the hands of this Court. 10. I have considered the above submissions. 11. At the outset, I should say that in a case of an appeal against acquittal, if it is possible that there are two views, which are equally poised, this Court cannot substitute a view which is adverse to the accused in the place of the view taken by the lower Court. Apart from that, the presumption of innocence is now held to be a part of a fair trial falling under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Such presumption of the innocence gets further strengthed and even doubled when the lower Court recorded acquittal of the accused. Therefore, unless strong grounds are made out to rebut the said presumption, it is not possible for this Court to substitute its views, even if it is possible in the place of the view taken by the lower Court. With the above settled principles of law in mind, let us now analyse the evidences available. 12. Admittedly, there were criminal cases pending against PWs.1 & 3. According to DW1, they were legally arrested elsewhere and they were brought to the Police Station. But, PWs.1 & 3 would dispute the same. According to them, these accused came to the house of PW1, trespassed into the same, caused extensive damage to the property, attacked them and took PWs.1 & 3 to the Police Station from their house. According to DW1, they were legally arrested elsewhere and they were brought to the Police Station. But, PWs.1 & 3 would dispute the same. According to them, these accused came to the house of PW1, trespassed into the same, caused extensive damage to the property, attacked them and took PWs.1 & 3 to the Police Station from their house. When PWs.1 & 3 were produced before the Magistrate, had it been true that the arrest, as spoken to by DW1 was not correct and that they were taken from their house illegally, nothing would have prevented PWs.1 & 3 to inform the same to the learned Magistrate. But, admittedly, they did not whisper anything about the occurrence to the learned Magistrate at the earliest point of time. The only explanation offered now is that though they stated about the occurrence, the learned Magistrate did not record the same. This statement cannot be accepted, because this Court has to only believe the Judicial proceedings. As rightly point out by the learned senior counsel Mr. V. Kathirvelu, at least, they would have asked for examination by Doctors. Such request was also not made to the learned Judicial Magistrate. At least when they were in jail, they would have asked for medical aid. That was also not done. 13. Apart from that, PW5 has been examined to speak about the photographs taken. His evidence has completely destroyed the prosecution case, because, according to him, he took photograph at 9.45 p.m. itself, whereas the occurrence was early in the morning at 01.15 a.m. If really the occurrence had taken place at 01.15 p.m. on 25.03.2007, there would have been no occasion for PW5 to take the photographs on 24.03.2007 at 9.45 p.m. Above all, PW5 has stated that he took photograph of a house. He has not stated that it was the house of PW1. PW1 has also not identified the house in the photographs. Thus, the link between the photographs and the place of alleged occurrence has been completely lost. All these facts have been taken into account by the lower appellate Court to give the benefit of doubt to the accused and to acquit them. The conclusion arrived at by the lower appellate Court cannot be stated to be perverse. In my considered view, from the evidences available, no other view adverse to the accused could be taken. All these facts have been taken into account by the lower appellate Court to give the benefit of doubt to the accused and to acquit them. The conclusion arrived at by the lower appellate Court cannot be stated to be perverse. In my considered view, from the evidences available, no other view adverse to the accused could be taken. There could be only one view that the prosecution has failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubts. Thus, I do not find any merit in these appeals. 14. In the result, these criminal appeals are dismissed and the common judgment passed by the lower appellate Court inC.A.Nos.160 of 2002, 161 of 2002 and 3 of 2003 is confirmed. The Legal Aid Services Authority is directed to pay remuneration to Mr. S. Lingarasu, learned counsel, who argued the case of the respondents 1 & 2 in Crl. A. (MD).No.147/2006 and the 1strespondent in Crl. A. (MD).No.166/2006.