(1.) HEARD argument from the parties, hearing is concluded and the judgment is as follows.
(2.) APPELLANTS were prosecuted for the offence under Sections 395/447/427, I.P.C. in the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Jajpur, vide Sessions Trial No. 247/37 of 1988 arising out of I.C.C. Case No. 699 of 1981 of the Court of S.D.J.M., Jajpur. It is noted in the impugned judgment that the complainant and the accused persons are co -sharers and a suit for partition filed by the accused persons was decreed, and according to that decree the disputed area in the complaint petition fell to the share of the accused persons. In respect of that civil dispute ultimately the parties approached this Court in Second Appeal. Complainant states that with the allegation of demolition of a portion of the wall, a complaint was filed at an earlier stage in the year 1981, He again filed the complaint for the second time alleging that on 30.09.1981 accused persons forming an unlawful assembly, came and demolished the western side wall of the house and removed some usufructs besides taking away a brass jar ('Gara') and thereby committed offence under Section 395/447, I.P.C. Complainant also stated that he lodged F.I.R. at the police station, but police did not take action and therefore he filed the complaint under Section 200, Cr.P.C.
(3.) ON a conjoint reading of all the evidences and looking to the facts available on record, it is held that the occurrence is not proved beyond reasonable doubt and, therefore, accused persons are at least entitled to benefit of doubt, if not a clean -cut acquittal for the charge under Sections 395/447/427, I.P.C. Unreasonably the Trial Court refused to grant the same in their favour. As noted earlier, Exts. A and B create sufficient doubt on the truthfulness of the allegation labeled against the accused persons by P.W.1 and under such circumstance the order of conviction is set aside and the Criminal Appeal is allowed. The Bail Bonds executed by the appellants are discharged accordingly.