A V G NATARAJAN Vs. THIRUVEKADAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE complainant is the appellant. THE complainant filed a private complaint before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Tanjore District of Kumbakonam.

(2.) THE complainant's case is as follows: THE complainant is a mirasdar, having lands at THE peramanallur. THE complainants brother Shanmugham who was a village Administrative Officer, died four years before the date of complaint. THE complainant's brother Shanmugham had borrowed certain loan from Government and towards the same and it appears that a sum of Rs.648 was outstanding. On 30.3.1989 at about 1 p.m. the complainant was engaged in agricultural operation in his field, where thrashing was going on. At that time, the accused 1 to 5 came there and demanded the complainant to pay the said sum of Rs.648 due by the complainant's brother. THE complainant, then stated that he had nothing to do with the debt incurred by his brother and further there is a litigation pending between the wife of the said Shanmugham and the complainant and others, and therefore, he is not liable to make any payment. THE accused then stated that they have been instructed to somehow realise the loan and that unless they realise the same, their higher officials would find fault with them, and stating so, they pressed the complainant. THEy further refused to issue any demand notice when required by the complainant. Without any notice to the complainant, in his absence, at about 3 p.m., on the same day, the accused all came to the field of the complainant, and after breaking open to lock of the motor shed, criminally trespassed into the same, and removed stealthily the motor and pumpset after disconnecting the service connection. THE motor and pumpset worth Rs.6,000. Thus, the accused have committed the offence of theft of property. On account of the removal of the motor pump set, the complainant could not irrigate his lands and had suffered loss. THE act of the accused falls under Secs.147, 147, 452 and 379 of I.P.C. A complaint given at the Thiruvidai-maruthur Police Station did not produce any result, Nor the representation on made to the higher authorities proved fruitful. On account of the accused the complainant has been put to mental agony loss of property and reputation. Hence, the compliant.

(3.) IN the decision reported in Rajendra Prasad v. State of Bihar Rajendra Prasad v. State of Bihar, A.I.R. 1977 S.C. 1059 the ApexCourthas laid down the following proposition: When a trial court, with full view of the witnesses, acquits an accused after disbelieving direct testimony, it will be essential for the High Court, in an appeal against acquittal, to clearly indicate firm and weighty grounds, from the record, for discarding the reasons of the trial court in order to be able to reach a contrary conclusion of guilt of the accused. The High Court should be able to point out in its judgment that the trial court's reasons are palpably and unerringly shakyand its own reasons are demonstrably cogent. As a statutory rule of appreciation of evidence, in an appeal against acquittal, it is not legally sufficient that it is just possible for the High Court to take a contrary view about the credibility of witnesses but it is absolutely imperative that the High Court convincingly finds it well high impossible for the trial court to reject their testimony.