Research › Search › Judgment

Orissa High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 142 (ORI)

Tarini Prasad Biswal v. Adikanda Biswal

2019-02-19

D.DASH

body2019
JUDGMENT D. Dash, J. - Being aggrieved by the order dated 24.03.1992 passed by the learned J.M.F.C., Jajpur in I.C.C. Case No. 303 of 1990 (T.R. No. 165 of 1991) acquitting the respondent accused) of the offence under Sections 447/427 IPC, the complainant as the appellant has filed the appeal. 2. Facts as laid in the complaint in brief are that on 25.10.90 around 10.00 A.M., the accused forcibly entered into the land and damaged the standing black gram crops raised by the complainant over there by ploughing the same and thus caused loss to the complaint to the tune of Rs. 200/-. It is alleged that when the complainant protested, the accused abused him in filthy language and then left the place. 3. The plea of the accused of one of complete denial. 4. The complainant has examined in total four witnesses including himself as RW.1. RW.s. 2 and 3 are the labourers of the complainant P.W.4 has been projected as an eye witness to the incident. The defence has examined three witnesses. 5. The Trial Court having formulated the points for determination has gone for analysis of evidence let in by the complainant and on their evaluation has held that the complainant has failed to prove his case under Sections 447/427 of the IPC against the accused. 6. None appears on behalf of the appellant. Learned counsel for the respondents has been heard. I have carefully read the judgment of Court below. The depositions of the witnesses examined by the complainant as also the defence have also been gone through. The documents exhibited by the parties in the trial have been perused. 7. It is the settled position of law that in the absence of any manifest illegality, perversity or miscarriage of justice, the order of acquittal passed by the Trial Court may not be interfered with by the High Court in exercise of appellate jurisdiction (Ref: Bindheswari Pr. Singh vs. State of Bihar; (2002) 6 SCC 650 ; Rathinam vs. State of Tamil Nadu, (2011) 11 SCC 140 and Sunil Kumar Sambhudayal & Gupta vs. State of Maharashtra; (2010) 13 SCC 657 . Singh vs. State of Bihar; (2002) 6 SCC 650 ; Rathinam vs. State of Tamil Nadu, (2011) 11 SCC 140 and Sunil Kumar Sambhudayal & Gupta vs. State of Maharashtra; (2010) 13 SCC 657 . It has been recently held in case of Madathil Narayanan vs. State of Kerala; (2018) 14 SCC 513 that if the Trial Court takes the view that the accused deserves to be acquitted on the basis of evidence on record, the same cannot be reversed unless and until it is found that the same is vitiated on account of gross perversity and erroneous appreciation of evidence on record. 8. The case of the complainant is that he had purchased the land in question from one Sashi Rekha Dibya and others by registered sale deed dated 10.2.84 and was in peaceful possession of the same by going on paying the land revenue to the State. It is said that he had raised black gram crops over the said land. Per contra, it is the case of the accused that one Binodini Swain had purchased a portion of the said land from one Manjulata Dibya and her two minor sons being the legal heirs and successors of deceased Biswanath Panda. When the complainant has failed to produce and prove the original sale deed and instead has got the certified copy of the registered sale deed said to be standing in his favour admitted in evidence, the accused has proved the registered sale deed standing in favour of that Binodini Swain. He has also proved the registration ticket in custody of said Sashi Rekha examined as D.W.2 after execution of the sale deed dated 10.2.84 which is projected as the document of title and possession in relation to land in question by the complainant. Said Sashi Rekha most interestingly having been examined as a witness from the side of defence has stated that as she did not receive the consideration amount, the registration ticket was not endorsed in favour of the vendee authorizing him to receive the original sale deed from the office of the Sub-Registrar and thereafter it has been cancelled for non-payment of consideration and for that reason no title and possession of the land in question has passed to the hand of the vendee. This has been assigned as the main reason that the complainant was not delivered with the possession of the land pursuant to the said sale deed. In such state of affair in evidence as regards the competing claim of title and possession, the Court below appears to be rightly arrived at a conclusion that the complainant has failed to establish his claim of possession over the land in question and upon further analysis of oral evidence as to the actual incident has refused to record a finding as to the happening of same and the role of the accused said to have been played therein. 9. In view of the discussion of evidence as made above, I do not find that the ultimate finding recorded for the Trial Court is vitiated on account of perversity and erroneous appreciation of evidence on record warranting interference within the scope and ambit of this appeal. 10. Accordingly, the appeal stands dismissed.