As per case facts, Mahaveer, claiming cultivating possession of land transferred by his aunt, alleged that respondents in 1998 impersonated his aunt to register a fake sale deed. After the ... fake deed was cancelled in 2000, and a new one registered in Mahaveer's favor, he reported that on a specific date, respondents forcibly harvested his wheat crop using weapons and threatened him, leading to an FIR. The trial court acquitted the respondents, granting them the benefit of doubt. The State of Haryana and an eye-witness subsequently appealed this acquittal to the High Court. The question arose whether the prosecution had proven the charges of criminal trespass, theft, and dacoity beyond reasonable doubt, especially considering the ongoing civil dispute over the land's possession. Finally, the High Court upheld the acquittal, finding no illegality or perversity in the trial court's judgment. It noted that revenue records did not support Mahaveer's possession claim, prosecution witnesses were often partisan or contradictory, and no crop recovery was made. An independent inquiry report also found the complainant's version false. Given the pre-existing civil proceedings and status quo orders regarding land title and possession, criminal liability could not be fastened when civil rights were unsettled.