STATE OF ORISSA Vs. BISWANATH JENA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this appeal by the State Government, the order of acquittal of the respondents passed by the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Pun has been challenged.

(2.) The prosecution case may by briefly stated: - P.W.1 is a former Sarabarakar and a rich man of village Rayapur. In the said village, there was strong party faction. P.W. 1 belonged to one faction, whereas, the respondents belonged to the other. There were litigations between both the factions, so much so, that some time prior to the alleged occurrence P.W.1 had involved some of the respondents in a proceeding under Section 107 of Criminal Procedure Code. On account of previous enmity, the respondents entered into a conspiracy to do away with the life of P.W. I and with such intention, formed an unlawful assembly in the midnight of 18-3-1973 and in a body, being armed with deadly weapons, attacked his house. In order to escape from their attack, P.W. 1 along with P.W. 5 concealed himself inside a room of P.W. 2 wife of P.W. 1 and their niece, P.W. 4, obstructed the attackers. Although they succeeded in saving the life of P.W. 1, they could not save his property. The respondents removed in all about, 50 Bharans of rice and paddy and 60 Gaunis of green-gram from the house of P.W. 1. They also forcibly removed a gold necklace from P.W.2. As a result, P.W. I sustained loss of Rs. 16,700/-. The attack continued from midnight upto early hours of the morning. When it became daylight, P.W. 1 came out of the room where he had concealed himself, went to Brahmagiri Police Station and lodged F.I.R. (Ext. I). P.W. 12, the Investigating Officer during investigation seized the paddy from the houses of respondent Doma Jena and Madan Bhol, father of respondent Gandu Bhol. The necklace of P.W. 2, however, could not be traced. After close of investigation, he submitted charge- sheet against the respondents.

(3.) The learned Sub. Divisional Judicial Magistrate framed charges against the respondents under Sections 143, 379 and 551 of the Indian Penal Code (TI.P.C.T for short). He recorded the evidence of 12 witnesses. According to him, the prosecution could not establish the charges against the respondents. Therefore, he acquitted all of them.