JUDGMENT : SANJAY KUMAR MEDHI, J. The instant appeal has been preferred under Section 378 of the Cr.P.C. against a judgment dated 24.07.2012 passed by the learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Cachar in C.R. Case No. 357 of 2008 under Sections 143/447/427/506 of the Penal Code, 1860 whereby, the learned Magistrate had acquitted the accused persons. It may be mentioned that initially against the aforesaid impugned judgment, an appeal was filed in the court of the Sessions Judge, Cachar in Criminal Appeal No. 28/2012 which was however, dismissed vide judgment dated 01.07.2013 because of lack of jurisdiction. Thereafter, the present appeal has been preferred before this Court. 2. The complainant is the appellant herein. The complaint was lodged before the learned Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate in the year 2008. The gist of the complaint is that the accused persons had formed a group and came to the property of the complainant with an intention to grab the properties including land. They had carried with them sticks, spades and other weapons. It was also alleged that the accused persons were powerful persons and brother of the complainant was also attempted to be assaulted with dangerous arms. The complainant and other family members were also attempted to be assaulted. In the process the accused persons dispossessed the complainant from his plot of land. 3. The learned Trial Court after examining the complainant under Section 200 Cr.P.C. and on perusal of the materials on record took cognizance u/s 143/447/427/506 IPC and issued process. The accused accordingly appeared, pleaded “not guilty” and the trial began. The complainant side had examined 6 witnesses whereas the defence did not adduce any evidence. 4. The learned Trial Court framed three points of determination and after elaborate discussion of the materials on record including the deposition, held that the complainant side had failed to bring home the charge against the accused-persons and accordingly acquitted them on benefit of doubt. 5. As indicated above, the validity of the aforesaid judgment dated 24.07.2012 was tried to be challenged before the learned Sessions Judge who vide order dated 01.07.2013 had dismissed the appeal as is not maintainable due to want of jurisdiction. Thereafter, the present appeal has been filed. 6. I have heard Shri I. Alam, learned Counsel for the appellant. I have also heard Shri N.K. Kalita, the learned Additional P.P., Assam. Thereafter, the present appeal has been filed. 6. I have heard Shri I. Alam, learned Counsel for the appellant. I have also heard Shri N.K. Kalita, the learned Additional P.P., Assam. The records received by this Court have also been perused. 7. Before adventing to adjudicate the lis before this Court, it would be prudent to bear in mind the settled principles of law which are required to be followed while deciding an appeal filed against an order of acquittal in a criminal case. An accused in a criminal case is always presumed to be innocent. Such presumption stands fortified by an order of acquittal which is passed by the Trial Court having jurisdiction. The innocence of the accused having been fortified by such judgment, an appellate Court would be loath in substitution its own views with the views of the learned Trial Court only because another view is plausible. This Court is further reminded of the principles that unless the findings arrived at by the learned Trial Court are absolutely perverse or based on no evidence, such findings are generally not to be interfered with by an appellate Court deciding appeal against acquittal. 8. With that backdrop in mind let us examine the case. 9. As stated above, there were 6 nos. of witnesses. According to the PW1, there was litigation u/s 145 of the Cr.PC amongst the parties so far as the land in question is concerned. Though allegation of criminal trespass was made, the ingredients of criminal trespass do not appear to have been made in the instant case. On the other hand, PW5 in his cross-examination had stated that a meeting was convened to decide the ownership of the land in question which did not succeed and therefore in absence of determination of ownership, the allegation of trespassing cannot be substantiated. 10. It further appears that the prosecution produced other witnesses including PW6 who are all interested witnesses and their residences are far away from the place of occurrence. The evidences of the PWs are also inconsistent with each other and divergent boundaries are given by various PWs. Such inconsistencies and failure to make an effective endeavour for proving the facts, the allegations could not be proved at all. Accordingly, the learned trial Court came to a finding that the versions of the various PWs do not inspire any confidence. 11. Such inconsistencies and failure to make an effective endeavour for proving the facts, the allegations could not be proved at all. Accordingly, the learned trial Court came to a finding that the versions of the various PWs do not inspire any confidence. 11. The evidence on record has been carefully perused and the judgment against which the instant appeal had been filed has also been carefully examined. 12. It appears from the deposition and the evidence on record that the ownership and possession of the land in question is itself in doubt and in absence of ownership as well as possession of a particular party, being determined, the allegation of trespass cannot be made and/or proved beyond reasonable doubt. 13. To bring home the charge of trespass, it has to be established that there has been unlawful entry upon a property which is in the possession of another and such unlawful entry should be with an intent to commit an offence or to intimidate, interested or annoyed possessor of the property. There is no evidence to show that the aforesaid ingredients of trespass have been duly proved in this case. It also transpires that the parties in dispute are related to each other and the allegation being of the year 2008 which have been held to be not proved, reopening the same after more than 10 years, in the opinion of this Court would not be a right step in the interest of justice. Further, the impugned judgment being based on reasons which are germane to the facts and circumstances of the case, no case for interference with the same is made out. 14. In view of the above, the instant appeal is held to be devoid of merits and accordingly dismissed. 15. Send back the LCR forthwith.