SASHI ROUT Vs. GOPAL BANDHU SARANGI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal was filed by the complainant Smt. Sashi Rout after obtaining special leave of the Court as required under section 378(4), Criminal Procedure Code against the order of acquittal of the accused persons passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Baramba.

(2.) The case of the prosecution is as follows: On 21-6-1978 respondent Gopal bandhu Sarangi, a Junior Engineer of the Telegraph Department, along with one Sibaprasad Behera (since acquitted), another Junior Engineer, came to the door of the complainant when her husband Managobinda Rout (P. W. 7), who was a Line Man in the said department, was absent. The accused persons wanted to search the house of the complainant alleging that P.W. 7 had committed theft of telephone poles and kept them inside the house. The complainant protested and suggested that they may search the house in presence of her husband. At this, it is alleged, accused-respondent Gopal bandhu Sarangi abused her in filthy language. The other accused directed Gopal bandhu to forcibly enter into the house and conduct the search. The complainant stood at the door and did not allow them to enter. Then accused-respondent Gopal bandhu gave a push to her right shoulder and forcibly entered into the house. However, nothing incriminating was recovered from the house. It is alleged that by such false accusation, the prestige of the complainant and her husband was lowered. So a complaint was filed on 24-6-1978 and the Magistrate took cognizance of offence under sections 448/352/500/34, Indian Penal Code.

(3.) The accused persons admitted to have gone to the village of the complainant on 21-6-1973 under the orders (Ext. D) of the S. D. 0. to make inquiry if Managobinda Rout had posted an electric pole in front of his house for taking electric line to his house. They, however, denied the allegations made by the complainant (P.W. 1). Their further case is that prior to the alleged occurrence, a departmental proceeding was started against P. W. 7 for misconduct and immoral activities arid they had inquired into the allegations and submitted report against P.W. 7, P.W. 7 was present in his house and seeing them he concealed his presence and apprehending that he might face another departmental proceeding for using the pole unauthorized, he has set up his wife to bring this false case against them.