JUDGMENT K.R.Shriram, J. - The prosecution has filed this appeal impugning a judgment passed by the 8th Adhoc Assistant Sessions Judge, Pune on 2nd August 2002. There were 16 accused all of whom are acquitted. The main charge was under Section 435 of IPC but other provisions of the IPC were also included, viz., Section 143, 147, 149, 336, 427, 323, 504 and 506 of IPC for the offences of riot, mischief by fire to the hut, beating, abusing and criminally intimidating the complainant etc. 2. On 5th December 1994, the complainant Vijay Damodar Vanjale (PW2) had lodged a complaint in the Lonikalbhor Police Station. According to the complainant, on 4th December 1994 at 11.45 p.m. accused no.3 Balasaheb Kamathe had been to his house and called him out by his name. When he went out, accused no.3 Balasaheb raised an issue and an argument ensued and in the heat of the moment abused him and also punched him on his face. When the complainant''s brother Somnath had tried to intervene, the complainant dragged him inside the house and both locked themselves inside the house. At about 12.00 midnight accused no.3 Balasaheb called about 30 to 40 persons including the other 15 accused to the spot. It is alleged that all those men started abusing the complainant, kept banging on the door of the house and pelted stones at the house of complainant. It is also alleged that a tube light opposite the complainant''s house was burning and the accused no.3 had shouted and instigated others to demolish the complainant''s house and also to burn the sugarcane field and somebody, it seems, also disconnected the electricity supply. At that time, the complainant''s wife Neelam (PW3) and maternal aunt one Kalawati had told one Dharamaraj, accused no.1, that they will look into the matter the following day and he should control others. It said some of the female accused had beaten Neelam (PW3) and Kalawati and hence, they had to run inside the house. It is also alleged that before leaving the spot, the mob had broken the complainant''s water tap and continued pelting stones. It said accused no.4 Ramdas Kamathe climbed up and tried to uproot the tin roof and accused no.1 Dharmraj Kamathe had told the mob not to remove the tin roof. It is also alleged that before leaving the spot, the mob had broken the complainant''s water tap and continued pelting stones. It said accused no.4 Ramdas Kamathe climbed up and tried to uproot the tin roof and accused no.1 Dharmraj Kamathe had told the mob not to remove the tin roof. It is also said, while the aggressors were proceeding towards the road, accused no.13, Indubai, had told the mob to burn the complainant''s sugarcane crop and some one set fire to the complainant''s standing sugarcane crop. The fire, it is alleged, had gutted the complainant''s kiln labourers'' (Gautam and Janardhan) huts which were standing in the field. Damage in excess of Rs. 50,000/was caused and hence the complaint. 3. There is a background to the incident. The land bearing gat no.102 situated at Fursungi was purchased by the grandfather of the complainant and since then, it was in the family''s possession. Right from the beginning there has been a dispute between complainant''s family and Kamathe family to which many of the accused belong to. The field of accused no.8 Dadasaheb Kamathe is also adjacent to the filed on the spot. One Gokul Gulabsingh Paradeshi also has his field adjacent to the field on the spot. It seems the Kamathe family and the Gokul Paradeshi quarreled with the complainant from time to time. 4. P.S.O. Shri Parvatrao Kengale (PW4) had registered the offence punishable under the provisions mentioned earlier and handed over its further investigation to A.P.I. Shri Hindurao Narayan Godse (PW5). The complainant had shown the spot of occurrence in presence of two puncha witnesses, viz., Tukaram Laxman Jangale (not called to give evidence) and Shankar Gulab Harphale (PW1) to the investigating officer. The Investigating Officer had seized 78 stones, pieces of bricks, pieces of burnt sugarcane from the spot and accordingly prepared spotcumseizure panchanama. The Investigating Officer had recorded statements of Kalawati, Somnath, Sarubai, Neelam, Lalita, Madhukar and also the complainant''s labourers Gautam, Pushpa, Janardhan, Sushila and complainant''s sister Usha. On completion of the investigation, the Investigating Officer had submitted charge-sheet against the 16 accused in the Court of JMFC, Pune by further citing 30 to 40 other accused as un-traced. On 21st January 2002 JMFC Court No.7, Pune had committed the case to the Sessions Court, Pune. The statements of accused under section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 were recorded. On 21st January 2002 JMFC Court No.7, Pune had committed the case to the Sessions Court, Pune. The statements of accused under section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 were recorded. Accused have neither examined any defence witness nor have they deposed on oath. Defence of accused is of total denial. It is the case of the accused that on account of their long standing dispute with the complainant they have been falsely prosecuted. 5. Though statements of 11 persons were recorded by the prosecution, evidence of only 5 persons were led, of which PW1 was the eye witness, PW2 was the complainant, PW3 was the wife of the complainant and two others were the police officers. None of the others, who were present, including Kalavati or the kiln labourers, etc. were examined by the prosecution. In the charge-sheet, 14 witnesses have been cited. There were not even identification parade carried out by the police. Kalawati and Neelam, who were supposed to have been eye witnesses when the scuffle between Balasaheb and the complainant was alleged to happened on 4th December 1994 at 11.45 p.m., only Neelam (PW3) has been examined but Kalawati has not been. There is no evidence as to how the sugarcane field was set on fire and by whom. Nobody has identified the person or persons who set fire. In the statement and in the evidence it is vaguely stated that accused no.8 called others to set fire to the field but there is nothing to corroborate that. It has to be also noted that in the complaint it is stated that the two huts of the kiln labourers were set on fire with the sugarcane field. There is no reference at all to any alleged injury caused to the labourers or damage to their articles which were inside the huts. The statement of one Gautam, who was the kiln labourer has been recorded along with Pushpa, Janardhan and Sushila but none of them have been produced as prosecution witness. Even the spot panchanama, Exhibit 30, produced by the Investigating Officer is silent on this aspect. It is also stated in the evidence of PW2 that his brother Somnath had intervened and tried to rescue him from Balasaheb (accused no.3) but the evidence of Somnath has not been recorded. Even the spot panchanama, Exhibit 30, produced by the Investigating Officer is silent on this aspect. It is also stated in the evidence of PW2 that his brother Somnath had intervened and tried to rescue him from Balasaheb (accused no.3) but the evidence of Somnath has not been recorded. It is also stated that the complainant and his brother Somnath ran inside the house and locked the house from inside. Then how did they know who set fire to the field. How did they know who broke the water tap connection. It is the case of the complainant that accused no.3 called out other 15 accused to come to the spot. Admittedly the village Fursundi is about at a distance of 2 km from the sugarcane field of the complainant and all accused reside at Fursundi village. It is not anybody''s case that the other 15 accused had also accompanied Balasaheb at the time of his calling out the complainant at 11.45 p.m. and allegedly punching him on his face. It is incomprehensible that his calling out the others from the spot or his scream would travel a distance of 2 km and all the other 15 accused would have reached the spot in 15 minutes. It is nobody''s case that the other 15 accused had accompanied accused no.3 Balasaheb but stayed little away. It has to be also noted that PW1, PW2 and PW3 are highly interested witnesses. PW1 Shankar Harphale is the husband of complainant''s sister. PW3 is the wife of the complainant PW2. PW2 the complainant has also admitted that he was facing an assault case in the Court of JMFC at Pune in which Rajendra Pratapsingh Pardeshi, accused no.16, was the complainant. It has also been admitted by the complainant that there has been disputes running between his family and the family of the accused since the time of his grandfather. There are admittedly suits and counter suits pending between his brother in law Shankar Harphale and accused no.13 Indubai A. Kute, who is alleged to have instigated others to set fire to the sugarcane field. 6. There are also various contradictions as listed in the impugned judgment. The evidence of PW2 also is rather vague and general. There are admittedly suits and counter suits pending between his brother in law Shankar Harphale and accused no.13 Indubai A. Kute, who is alleged to have instigated others to set fire to the sugarcane field. 6. There are also various contradictions as listed in the impugned judgment. The evidence of PW2 also is rather vague and general. His deposition that accused no.3 Balasaheb instigated others to throw stones at his house is also insufficient to prove the allegations to set fire to the complainant''s house particularly, when he and his brother Somnath are supposed to have ran inside the house and locked themselves in, fearing for their life. PW2 has stated his brother Somnath tried to intervene and dragged him inside the house and then shut the door from inside but PW3 has deposed it is she and Kalawati who had pushed the complainant and Somnath inside the house and shut the door from outside. There is also an electricity distribution point in the field on the spot around which the sugarcane crop was standing. No damage to the distribution point has been reported. All these indicate that the prosecution has miserably failed in tagging the accused. I see no merit in the case of the prosecution. It has also been observed by the Trial Court, and rightly so, that certain portions of the statement made by PW3, which has been marked "A" in the statement recorded under section 161 of the CRPC, 1973 is contradicting with the stand taken by PW3 in the examination in chief. PW3 has also been confronted with this contradiction by the defence. That itself damaged the case of the prosecution. 7. The Apex Court in Chandrappa & Ors. vs. State of Karnataka (2007) 4 SCC 415 in paragraph 42 has laid down the general principles regarding powers of the Appellate Court while dealing with an appeal against an order of acquittal. Paragraph 42 reads as under : 42. That itself damaged the case of the prosecution. 7. The Apex Court in Chandrappa & Ors. vs. State of Karnataka (2007) 4 SCC 415 in paragraph 42 has laid down the general principles regarding powers of the Appellate Court while dealing with an appeal against an order of acquittal. Paragraph 42 reads as under : 42. From the above decisions, in our considered view, the following general principles regarding powers of appellate Court while dealing with an appeal against an order of acquittal emerge; (1) An appellate Court has full power to review, re-appreciate and reconsider the evidence upon which the order of acquittal is founded; (2) The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 puts no limitation, restriction or condition on exercise of such power and an appellate Court on the evidence before it may reach its own conclusion, both on questions of fact and of law; (3) Various expressions, such as, ''substantial and compelling reasons'', ''good and sufficient grounds'', ''very strong circumstances'', ''distorted conclusions'', ''glaring mistakes'', etc. are not intended to curtail extensive powers of an appellate Court in an appeal against acquittal. Such phraseologies are more in the nature of ''flourishes of language'' to emphasise the reluctance of an appellate Court to interfere with acquittal than to curtail the power of the Court to review the evidence and to come to its own conclusion. (4) An appellate Court, however, must bear in mind that in case of acquittal, there is double presumption in favour of the accused. Firstly, the presumption of innocence available to him under the fundamental principle of criminal jurisprudence that every person shall be presumed to be innocent unless he is proved guilty by a competent court of law. Secondly, the accused having secured his acquittal, the presumption of his innocence is further reinforced, reaffirmed and strengthened by the trial court. (5) If two reasonable conclusions are possible on the basis of the evidence on record, the appellate court should not disturb the finding of acquittal recorded by the trial court. 8. There is an acquittal and therefore, there is double presumption in favour of the accused. Firstly, the presumption of innocence available to the accused under the fundamental principle of criminal jurisprudence that every person shall be presumed to be innocent unless he is proved guilty by a competent court of law. 8. There is an acquittal and therefore, there is double presumption in favour of the accused. Firstly, the presumption of innocence available to the accused under the fundamental principle of criminal jurisprudence that every person shall be presumed to be innocent unless he is proved guilty by a competent court of law. Secondly, the accused having secured his acquittal, the presumption of his innocence is further reinforced, reaffirmed and strengthened by the trial court. For acquitting the accused, the Trial Court observed that the prosecution had failed to prove its case. The Trial Court indicated that the root cause should be the family enmity between the family of the accused and the complainant which is in complainant''s own words has been going on from the time of his grandfather. 9. In the circumstances, in my view, the opinion of the Trial Court cannot be held to be illegal or improper or contrary to law. The order of acquittal, in my view, cannot be interfered with.