LALMOHAN MOHANTA Vs. PURUSOTTAM MOHANTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Being granted leave by this Court in Criminal Misc. Case No. 1091 of 1995, the complainant in 1CC Case No.147 of 1992 of the Court of learned S.D.J.M., Karanjia has preferred this appeal against the judgment of acquittal passed in the said case.

(2.) The brief facts of the case are that the complainant was the Secretary of Panchasakha High School in village Miriganandi. On 22/8/1992 at about 6.00 P.M., one Pratap Manik came and requested him to attend a meeting scheduled to be held in the Panchayat Office but he refused, whereupon said Pratap Manik went away. After some time all the accused persons arrived and forcibly took him to the meeting place by catching hold of his left and right hands and also compelled him to put his signature on some papers. While the complainant protested, they assaulted him and therefore, he signed on the paper. Further, he was detained in the Panchayat Office for the night and on the next day, he was taken to Panchasakha High School at about 12 noon where the accused persons demanded the documents of the school from him. The complainant could not produce the documents for which the accused persons took him to his house. Some accused persons entered inside the house and forcibly took the documents from the Almirah kept in the house, brought the complainant to the school and left the place. The complainant reported the matter at Karanjia police station but as no action was taken, he filed the complaint alleging commission of the offences under Ss. 342/323/384/34 of IPC. 2. The accused persons took the plea of denial.

(3.) To prove its case complainant examined four witnesses including himself as P.W.4. After scanning the evidence on record, the court below ascertained whether the ingredients necessary to constitute each of the offences were available. Upon going through the evidence, it was held that none of the ingredients of the alleged offences was present so as to hold the accused persons guilty. The trial court further held that the delay of about three days in lodging the FIR had not been satisfactorily proved. On such finding the trial court acquitted the accused persons by judgment passed on 23/1/1995.