CHARUPRAVA DEI Vs. DURYODHAN MOHANTY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CHALLENGE in this appeal is to the judgment and order of acquittal recorded by the learned Sessions Judge, Cuttack, reversing the judgment and order of conviction passed by the learned Sub -Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Kendrapara, holding the accused -respondents guilty of the offences of rioting, house -trespass and extortion and convicting them under Sections 147, 448 and 384 of the Penal Code with a sentence of six months' rigorous imprisonment passed against each of them under Section 384 of the Penal Code without any separate sentence having been passed in respect of other two offences, by accepting the case of the complainant -appellant that owing to previous grudge and ill -will, the respondents, being armed with knife, sword and lathis, came in a body, entered her dwelling house on October 26, 1974 at about 8 to 9 p.m. and by the show of force and under the threat of assault, forcibly took her left thumb impressions on blank plain papers to convert the papers into valuable security, for which the complainant -appellant had filed a petition (Ext.1) before Sub -Divisional Magistrate, Kendrapara, on October 28, 1974 and she later made a petition of complaint before the learned Sub -Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Kendrapara, on Nov. 4, 1974. To bring home the charges to the respondents, the appellant, besides examining herself as PW 1, had sought reliance on the evidence of Khageswar Mallik (PW 2) and Anadi Mallik (PW 3) who had been catching fish nearby and had seen the respondents leaving the scene of occurrence. The evidence of the other witnesses who had proved some documents and had not testified about the occurrence was of a formal character. The respondents' case was one of denial and false implication and according to them, the appellant had foisted a false case against them, with the aid and assistance of some witnesses inimically disposal of towards them. They had examined three witnesses in their defence in order to get some documents admitted in evidence in their favour.

(2.) ON a consideration of the evidence, the trial court accepted the evidence of PW 1 holding that it got assurance from the evidence of PWs 2 and 3 and rejecting the plea of the defence, convicted the respondents as indicated above. The appellate court, on an assessment of the evidence, took a contrary view and held that none of the charges had been established.

(3.) THIS Court, in a recent case reported in 1982 Cut LR (Cri) 20 : (1982 Cri. L.J. LJ 942) State of Orissa v. Trinath Dash, referring to and relying on the principles laid down in a number of cases of the Supreme Court, has observed thus (at pp. 945, 946) :