STATE OF ORISSA Vs. SANTOSH KUMAR GIRI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal by the State under Section 378(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure for setting aside the order of acquittal passed by the learned JMFC, Baripada acquitting the accused persons (respondents) from the charge under Sections 447, 427, 379, 506, 509/34, IPC in G.R. Case No.594 of 1982/Trial Case No.43 of 1983.

(2.) PROSECUTION case, in short, is that P.W.9, husband of the informant - P.W. 10 purchased the disputed land from one Guru Charan Ray by means of a registered sale deed on 10.6.1982, took delivery of possession and started construction of a tiled -roof house thereon. On 21.6.1982 at about 9.00 A.M. while going to supervise the work of construction, P.W. 10 found that the respondents -accused persons were breaking the house under construction on the disputed land. She protested to such highhanded action of the respondents, but instead of paying any heed to her protest, respondents rebuked her in obscene and threatening language, destroyed the house and removed the building materials. P.W.10 lodged an F.I.R. before Baripada Town Police Station and basing on such F.I.R. investigation was undertaken and finally charge -sheet was submitted against the accused -respondents for the above noted offences.

(3.) IN order to establish the charges, the prosecution examined 11 witnesses and produced several documents, such as Amin report, trace map, copy of the judgment in G.R. case No. 594 of 1982, seizure list, original draft Khatian, certified copy of the order -sheets in T.S. No. 59 of 1983 and G.R. Case No.1233 of 1982 and these documents were marked as Exts. 1 to 15. The respondents also examined two witnesses and produced the parcha, Yadesh, mistake list, which were marked as Exts. A to C. Learned J.M.F.C, Baripada who conducted trial of the case, after considering the above noted evidence came to the conclusion that physical possession of the informant over the case land and the involvement of the respondent in the alleged occurrence was not established beyond reasonable doubt. He accordingly recorded an order of acquittal in favour of the respondents. Aggrieved with the said order, the State has filed the present appeal.