LAWS(ORI)-2014-11-93

STATE OF ORISSA Vs. NILAPA ADEYA REDDY

Decided On November 14, 2014
STATE OF ORISSA Appellant
V/S
Nilapa Adeya Reddy Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE State in this appeal has called in question the order of acquittal dated 31.8.1995 passed by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge. Chatrapur in S.C. No. 51/345 of 1992 acquitting the respondent of the charge under Section 395, I.P.C. Prosecution case is that on 10.8.1991 night when informant PW 1 and his wife PP3 were sleeping in the bedroom of their house and his married daughter with her husband. PWs 2 and 4 respectively were sleeping in another room, around 11.30 p.m. he heard the sound of breaking open of the entrance door. No sooner did he wake up, he saw four culprits including respondent forcing their entry into the room. It is stated that the respondent guarded him and warned him not to make any nullah for else to face dire consequences. At that time another culprit closed his mouth and two others went and caught hold of his wife and snatched away the gold necklace from her person. It is also stated that one of them assaulted his wife. Next they went to the other room and broke upon the same, when the informant's daughter and son -in -law started running away through the backside door of the room. It is next stated that one more culprit was guarding the house from backside. So, he chased the son -in -law of the informant but failed in his attempt. The daughter of the informant had then concealed her presence underneath a straw heap. The culprits searched for her by focusing torch light and finding her brought to the house. They took away the gold necklace, gold chain and gold ring which she was wearing. She was then asked to disclose the place of concealment of property. Out of fear to life he pointed out the box kept in the house which was then broken and cash of Rs. 10,000 lying inside was looted away. All the culprit thereafter decamped carrying away the properties.

(2.) DURING trial the plea of the appellant is that of complete denial and false implication. It is stated that his child was being treated by the informant who treats patients by giving herbal medicines as an Ayurved practitioner and due to wrong treatment, the child expired for which he had abused the informant. Therefore, bearing grudge on account of the same, the present case has been foisted against him.

(3.) THE Trial Court upon evaluation of evidence of PWs 1, 2, 3 and 4 and also that of PW5 has found those to be inconsistent with one another and to be differing on material particulars. So, on the face of the admitted case that this respondent much earlier was known to PW 1 and was in visiting terms to his house having some reason for PW 1 to be annoyed with him, the evidence on record has not been found to be satisfactory and accordingly it has been found that there has been failure on the part of the prosecution to establish the charge by way of clear, cogent and reliable evidence. This Trial Court has not believed the evidence that the respondent was there as one of the members of the group who had entered into his house and looted away the articles. As it appears the Trial Court has further viewed the prosecution case with suspicion in view of the discrepancy appearing in the evidence of PW1 as well as the FIR narration. So, the complicity of this respondent has not been found to have been proved beyond reasonable doubt. Thus, the evidence on the above score having not been found to be above board the order of acquittal has been passed which is impugned in this appeal.