Research › Search › Judgment

Orissa High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 759 (ORI)

RAGHABACHARAN PANDA v. T. DINDAYAL PATRA

2002-11-27

P.K.TRIPATHY

body2002
P. K. TRIPATHY, J. ( 1 ) NONE appears for the appellant. On the request of the Court Mr. S. K. Sahoo, learned counsel of the Court went through the records and addressed the Court as Amicus Curiae. ( 2 ) ( 3 ) ORDER of acquittal in I. C. C. No. 52 of 1983 (Tr. No. 109 of 1985) of the Court of J. M. F. C. , Aska is under challenge. Complainant in that case is the appellant whereas accused persons in that case are the respondents. ( 4 ) THE long and short of the prosecution case is that the disputed premises had been rented out by the accused No. 1 T. Dindayal Patra to the complainant where the latter was running a medicine shop in the name and style of 'mamata Medical Store' and on 17-11-1983 in the night at about 10 p. m. the accused persons broke open the lock of that medicine shop and removed articles to the house of accused T. Dindayal Patra and gave possession of that premises to accused Nos. 4 and 5 Gadadhar Patra and Rama Chandra Patra for running a betel shop. On the basis of such allegation charge for the offences u/ss. 457, 380/34, IPC was framed. Accused persons denied to the allegation and advanced the defence plea that the admitted owner of the premises i. e. accused No. 1 let out the disputed premises to accused Nos. 4 and 5 on 15-4-1983 through a registered document and since then accused Nos. 4 and 5 are in possession of that premises as tenants and since 1982 the complainant was no more in possession of that premises as tenant after being inducted as a tenant in 1979 because the complainant kept it under lock and key without opening the proposed medicine shop. ( 5 ) TO substantiate the accusation while prosecution examined three witnesses and relied on Ext. 1, the letter signed by the accused No. 1 having addressed to the Drug Inspector on 19-9-1979, accused persons have relied on the evidence of one witness, namely, Rasikaraj Kar and relied on the registered lease deed Ext. A dated 15-4-1983. ( 5 ) TO substantiate the accusation while prosecution examined three witnesses and relied on Ext. 1, the letter signed by the accused No. 1 having addressed to the Drug Inspector on 19-9-1979, accused persons have relied on the evidence of one witness, namely, Rasikaraj Kar and relied on the registered lease deed Ext. A dated 15-4-1983. ( 6 ) ON assessment of evidence on record trial Court found substance in the defence plea whereas non-credibility of the prosecution evidence to substantiate the aforesaid allegation and accordingly granted the benefit of doubt and acquitted the respondents u/s. 240 (1), Cr. P. C. ( 7 ) AFTER going through the complaint petition and the evidence on record and hearing Mr. Sahoo, this Court finds that though in his evidence P. W. 1 (complainant) has narrated the occurrence but there is glaring contradiction with respect to his evidence and the evidence of P. Ws. 2 and 3 about the manner in which the occurrence proceeded in the night of 17-11-1983. Such contradiction have been duly taken note by the trial Court. Apart from that, it appears that P. Ws. 2 and 3 both have claimed to be chance witnesses to the occurrence and as noted above there are glaring discrepancy in their evidence while narrating about the occurrence and the manner of participation by each of the accused persons. Above all, both the witnesses have stated that they have never purchased medicine from the said medicine shop after the year 1982. According to the complainant he was continuously running that medicine shop and even on the date of occurrence he closed the shop and went to the house. But P. Ws. 2 and 3 have sufficiently indicated in their evidence that such shop was defunct from the year 1982. Such evidence of P. Ws. 2 and 3 corroborates to the defence plea. Ext. 1 only goes to indicate that as back as on 19-7-1979 accused No. 1 had written to the Drug Inspector that he had let out that house on rent in favour of the complainant for the proposed 'mamata Medical Store'. On the other hand, Ext. A indicates that on 15-4-1983 the said premises was let out in favour of accused No. 4 Gadadhar Patra. There is no sufficient cross-examination to D. W. 1 while challenging existence of Ext. On the other hand, Ext. A indicates that on 15-4-1983 the said premises was let out in favour of accused No. 4 Gadadhar Patra. There is no sufficient cross-examination to D. W. 1 while challenging existence of Ext. A. Thus, taking totality of the aforesaid facts and evidence when a reasonable order of acquittal has been recorded by the trial Court, this Court finds no illegality in the impugned judgment to interfere with the same. The Crl. Appeal stands dismissed accordingly. Appeal dismissed.