SACHIDANANDA SAHU Vs. SANKAR SAHOO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Complainant in I.C.C. No.86 of 1985 (T.C. No.484 of 1986) is the appellant in this Criminal Appeal against the order of acquittal recorded by learned S.D.J.M., Athagarh and assails the same order of acquittal dated 8.9.1988 of the accuse respondents who faced trial for the charges under Sections 148, 454, 381,194 of the Indian Penal Code.

(2.) The allegation in the complaint petition as I find is that the villagers of two adjoining villagers, namely, Ichhapur and Ratnapur, the former falling within the jurisdiction of Athagarh Police Station and the latter within the jurisdiction of Dhenkanal Sadar Police Station were at dagger drawn with each other over the performance of Jara ceremony of Machhua Takhurani. There was all along attempts to resolve the differences between the two villages through the good offices of the nearby Panchayats. Since notwithstanding that tension prevailed to mount, prohibitory order under Section 144, Criminal Procedure Code was promulgated over the area and to two constables were deployed to maintain law and order. It is alleged that on 09.05.1985 all these accused/respondents moved in a mob of 200 to 300 persons having formed an unlawful assembly with the common object to break open the shop of the appellant and to commit theft of the articles stored therein by way of rioting and despite obstruction of the two constables posted there, they proceeded to the shop of the appellant situated in village Ichhapur being armed with deadly weapons, broke it open and carried away clothes, electric lights, fans cash box worth Rs.1,00,000/-. The appellant being informed about the incident rushed to the spot and found his shop being looted and article being carried away by the accused persons. The police was also informed and police from both Athagarh and Dhenkanal reached at the spot and the appellant lodged an FIR there at the spot mentioning the details of the incident before the O.I.C., Dhenkanal Sadar P.S. The FIR on the point of jurisdiction was transferred to the O.I.C., Athagarh P.S. But since the police did not show any promptitude for making recovery of the stolen articles and also to apprehend the respondents and dithered it, there was no recovery by the police of the stolen articles. On the other hand, the gentries of the two villages congregated in a meeting for an amicable settlement of all the outstanding disputes and in that meeting there was also discussion about the incident that took place and during the discussion there the respondents admitted their guilt and agreed to restore back the stolen articles to the appellant. Although a good number of resolutions found place in the decision of the gentlemen, the fact of the accused persons agreeing the restore back the stolen articles was deliberately left out in order to avoid future complications. On the other hand, the Sarpanch was given the responsibility of restoring back the stolen articles from the accused persons. But soon thereafter the respondents fell back on their words and did not return the stolen articles as promised by them and as such the complainant filed the complaint in the Court of S.D.J.M., Athagarh on 23.8.1985. The learned S.D.J.M., took cognizance of the offences as mentioned above and on receipt of the summons respondents appeared and faced the trial pleading not guilty to the charges as noted above and were ultimately acquitted thereof, which is under challenge in this Criminal Appeal.

(3.) On behalf of the complainant as many as 10 witnesses were examined when the accused persons examined 3 witnesses in support of their plea.