DHOBEI SAHU Vs. BIBATSA @ DAKTAR PRADHAN & ANR.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The complainant in the Court below as the Appellant has challenged the order of acquittal dated 16.10.1990 passed by Learned S.D.J.M., Talcher in ICC No. 97 of 1989 acquitting the Respondents of the charge's under Section 448/504/506/34 IPC.

(2.) Prosecution case as it reveals from the complaint petition filed by the Appellant is that the Respondents are the sons of his brother-in-law (wife's brother) namely Kunja Pradhan and Khageswar Pradhan. It is stated that the wife of the complainant and her brothers were having land at village Danara and it had been acquired for the purpose of Bharatpur Colliery Project. In view of the fact that the said land stood jointly recorded in the names of the wife of the complainant and her two brothers, all of them were entitled to get the compensation for the acquisition of the said land. So on 19.12.1989, they were asked to remain present for the purpose of receiving compensation. The wife of the Appellant could not remain present on that day for which the compensation amount could not be disbursed. It is alleged that for that reason the Respondents entered into the house of the Appellant asked his wife as regards the reason for not attending the Land Accusation Officer's Office and when Appellant's wife explained as to why she could not go to receive the compensation amount, it is alleged that the Respondents threatened her saying that they would cut the Appellant in to the pieces. Cognizance for offence under Section 448/504/506/34 IPC being taken, the Respondents ultimately faced their trial for the said offences.

(3.) The case of the Respondent No.2 is that he was absent at the place during the relevant time of alleged occurrence. It is also stated that the Appellant had taken a loan of Rs. 18,500 from the Respondents for the marriage of his eldest son and as it was not paid despite repeated demand, the case is said to have been falsely foisted.