Research › Search › Judgment

Orissa High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 254 (ORI)

Saraswati Patel v. Pradeep Kumar Joshi

2018-03-15

S.K.SAHOO

body2018
JUDGMENT : S.K. SAHOO, J. The appellant was the complainant in I.C.C. 62 of 1990 (Tr. No. 188 of 1991) wherein the respondent Pradeep Kumar Joshi was the accused. The respondent faced trial for the offences punishable under sections 447 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate Second Class, Sundargarh and the learned trial Court vide impugned judgment and order 10.01.1992 acquitted the respondent of all the charges. 2. It is the case of the complainant that she is widow of late Panchanan Patel who had purchased some agricultural lands from one Patait Gouri Sankar Sekhar Deo of Old Palace of Sundargarh in the year 1969 and possessing the same since then. After the death of her husband, the complainant was cultivating paddy crops every year in the land. It is the further case of the complainant that the owner of the land Patait Gouri Sankar Sekhar Deo subsequently executed an agreement of sale on 27.12.1977 taking all the consideration money of the land. It is the further case of the complainant that as the ceiling proceeding was pending, the owner of the land could not able to execute the registered sale deed but the complainant never felt any difficulty as she was possessing the land peacefully and paying land revenue regularly to Patait Gouri Sankar Sekhar Deo who had assured that the land would be registered in favour of the complainant after completion of ceiling proceeding. It is the further case of the complainant that the accused-respondent taking the advantage of the helplessness of complainant’s widowhood, forcibly entered into the scheduled lands and fenced the entire land by means of wooden sticks on 07.12.1990 and when the complainant protested in presence of the witnesses not to fence her lands, the respondent threatened to kill the complainant if she would enter into the land. After the complaint petition was filed, the initial statement of the complainant was recorded and inquiry contemplated under section 202 Cr.P.C. was conducted. During course of which one witness was examined. The learned S.D.J.M., Sundargarh was pleased to take cognizance of offences under sections 447 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code and issued summons to the respondent. After appearance of the respondent, the trial commenced. 3. During course of trial, the complainant examined three witnesses. During course of which one witness was examined. The learned S.D.J.M., Sundargarh was pleased to take cognizance of offences under sections 447 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code and issued summons to the respondent. After appearance of the respondent, the trial commenced. 3. During course of trial, the complainant examined three witnesses. P.W.1 Saraswati Patel is the complainant herself, P.W.2 Upendra Thakur is a neighbour of P.W.1 and P.W.3 was the servant of the complainant (P.W.1). The complainant exhibited one document, i.e. the certified copy of Misc. Case No.54/75 of 1990 which was marked as Ext.1. No witnesses was examined on behalf of the defence. 4. The learned trial Court after discussing the evidence on record formulated four points. (i) Whether the complainant was in possession of the case land on the date of occurrence; (ii) Whether the accused entered into or upon the case land; (iii) Whether the intention of such entry into the case land by the accused was to commit an offence, or to intimidate, insult or annoy the complainant. (iv) Whether the accused threatened the complainant with injury to her person, causing alarm in her mind; Discussing the point no.1, the learned trial Court held that admittedly the land belonged to Gouri Sankar Sekhar Deo and the complainant was claiming possession of the case land by purchase of the same in the year 1969. The agreement to sale dated 27.12.1977 is an important document for the prosecution but the prosecution has not attempted to produce the same or its certified copy by way of secondary evidence. Accordingly, it was held that the actual execution of such a document and the fact of delivery of possession is doubtful. The learned trial Court further held that the complainant had not given the details of the case land by giving the boundaries and therefore, it was not properly identified in the prosecution evidence. The learned trial Court further held since Title Suit no.110 of 1990 for declaration of title and for permanent injunction has been instituted by the complainant against the accused, it cannot said that the competent civil Court has given a verdict about the possession of the complainant, therefore, the complainant has failed to prove that she was in possession of the case land. Considering the second point, the learned trial Court has held that all the three witnesses examined by the complainant deposed three different things contradicting each other and evidence of the prosecution is not reliable and consistent and therefore, the prosecution has not been able to prove the point beyond all reasonable doubt. The learned trial Court discussed the third point and came to hold that there was entry of the accused into the case land. Considering the fourth point, it was held that the prosecution has failed to prove that there was a real threat of injury to the person of the complainant causing alarm to her. The learned trial Court further held that the occurrence took place on 7.12.1990 and complaint petition was filed on 19.12.1990 i.e., after twelve days and the delay has not been explained satisfactorily and therefore, the prosecution case should be viewed suspiciously. 5. Mr. Budhuram Das, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant failed to point out any illegality or infirmity in the reasoning given by the learned trial Court in acquitting the accused. 6. After going though the complaint petition, the judgment as well as the evidence on record, I find that the learned trial Court has not only formulated different points for determination but also discussed the evidence on record minutely and came to hold that the prosecution has not been able to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubt. I find no infirmity and illegality in the finding of the learned trial Court. It is the settled principle of law that in case of appeal against the order of acquittal, if two views are reasonably possible, the appellate Court should not interfere with the conclusions arrived at by the trial Court. The appellate Court should not disturb it even if it were possible to reach a different conclusion on the basis of the materials on the record because the trial Judge has the advantage of seeing and hearing the witnesses and the initial presumption of innocence in favour of the accused in not weakened by his acquittal. The appellate Court should not disturb it even if it were possible to reach a different conclusion on the basis of the materials on the record because the trial Judge has the advantage of seeing and hearing the witnesses and the initial presumption of innocence in favour of the accused in not weakened by his acquittal. The appellate Court, therefore, should be slow in disturbing the finding of fact of the trial Court and if two views are reasonably possible on the evidence on the record, it is not expected to interfere simply because it feels that it would have taken a different view if the case had been tried by it. (Ref:-Babu -Vrs.-State of Uttar Pradesh reported in A.I.R. 1983 Supreme Court 308). In view of the foregoing discussions, I am not inclined to interfere with the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned trial Court in acquitting the respondent of the charges under sections 447 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code. Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal stands dismissed.