Research › Search › Judgment

Orissa High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 631 (ORI)

Ganesh Chandra Pati v. Baidhar Pati

2003-10-29

A.S.NAIDU

body2003
JUDGMENT A. S. NAIDU, J. — This Criminal Appeal has been filed by the complainant-appellant impugning the judgment of the S.D.J.M., Nilgiri in ICC No.26 of 1984 acquitting the accused-respondents of the charge under Sections 379 IPC. 2. Prosecution case in brief is that on 7th of June, 1984 the accused-appellants committed theft of eighteen jackfruits from his tree, with the value of which was more than Rs.300.00. On the basis of the complaint filed by the appellant, the ac¬cused-respondents faced trial for the charge under Sections 379 IPC. The defence was complete denial of the occurrence. 3. In order to substantiate the case, the complainant-appellant examined himself as P.W.1 besides two other witnesses as P.Ws 2 and 3. The defence did not examine any witness. 4. The learned S.D.J.M. disbelieved the testimony of the prosecution witnesses as the same was shaky and there was no corroboration. The Court below also took note of the unexplained delay in filing the complaint and concluded that the prosecution was not able to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubts and accordingly acquitted the accused-respondents. 5. Mr. Baug, learned counsel for the appellant, forcefully submitted that the learned S.D.J.M. has not properly appreciated the evidence and the findings arrived at by him are contrary to the materials on record. It ws also submitted by him that the delay was properly explained and the statement of P.W.1 was corroborated to some extent by P.Ws 2 and 3. According to Mr. Baug, the judgment of the Court below is not in consonance with law and should be set aside. 6. Learned counsel for the respondents at the other hand took the pains to place the oral evidence and pointed out the discrepancies between the evidence of P.W.1 and that of P.Ws 2 and 3. It was also submitted that the delay of about five days in filing the complaint petition had not been explained which was fatal to the prosecution case. He also submitted that the order of acquittal of the respondents is just and proper and needs no interference. 7. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the evidence on record, I find that the statements of P.Ws 2 and 3 are shaky and do not corroborate the testimony of P.W.1. No neighboring witness has been examined by the complai¬nant to substantiate his case. 7. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the evidence on record, I find that the statements of P.Ws 2 and 3 are shaky and do not corroborate the testimony of P.W.1. No neighboring witness has been examined by the complai¬nant to substantiate his case. The delay in filing the complaint petition is also not properly explained. P.W.2 in his statement has clearly admitted that he was at a distance of forty to fifty cubits from the spot and had not seen who else was present at the spot. P.W.3 has stated that he had not gone to the spot at all. A cumulative assessment of the entire evidence loads to an irre¬sistible conclusion that the complainant has totally failed to establish the guilt of the respondents. The Court below has rightly appreciated the evidence and there is no error on the face of the record. The findings are also not perverse. I am therefore not inclined to interfere with the order of acquittal. 8. The Criminal Appeal is accordingly dismissed. Appeal dismissed.