the relevant documents and therefore no interference with the we" reasoned judgment is calted for. He submits that in fact Narayan Das (PW-6), Mahesh Kumar (P-8)W and Bhagwan Das (PW-9) were not present at the time of execution of the socalledagreement and they are the tutored witnesses. He submits that even the agreement said to have been exetedcu by the accused persons and the complainant has not been produced by the prosecution. 7. While acquiingtt the respondents/accused the Court below has disbelieved the evienced of Narayan Das (PW-6), Mahesh Kumar (PW-8)andBhagwanDas (PW-9).From perusaloftherecord it is apparent that these witnesses have not seen any document having been executed between the parties. Further the evidence of Narendra (PW-3), Gokrana Lat (PW-4), indira Odnere (PW-5) and Ayai Das (P-7)W makes it clear that no such incident had ever taken placeandthustheyhavenotsuported pthecaseofthe prosecution. Ciose examination of the materiai available on record leads this Court to the conclusion that none of the witnesses cited by the prosecution have seen t he so called agreement having been executed between the parties and thus the Courtbelow‘hasrightly rejected the testimony put forth by them. Moreover, it is a settled law that if no manifest iegal error or perversity is visible in the judgment of acqittalu passed by the Court below and the ground onwhichitis based is reasonable and plausible, it should not be subjected to disurbancet i n appeal. 8. Thus the aforesaid exposition of the entire factual and legal scenario leads this C ourt to an inevitable conclusion that the judgment of acquittal has bene passed by the court below after undertaking an arduous and judicious exercise over the material available beoref it and therefore its subjection to dislodgment would mar the intertes of justice. 9. Resulntly,ta appeal being limbless to stand is consigned to dimissal.s Judgment accordingly. Sdl‘ 'x. Pritinker Diwaker Judge
