P RAJESWARI Vs. PADMA CHARAN SAHU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short "the Cr.P.C") preferred by the complainant-appellant challenging the impugned judgment dated 30.06.1990 passed by the learned S.D.J.M., Berhampur in l.C.C. No.66 of 1984 / T.R. No.922 of 1984 acquitting the accused-respondent of the charge under Sections 427 and 448 of the Indian Penal Code (for short "the IPC").

(2.) Case of the complainant-appellant, as embodied in the complaint petition is that she was in possession of a dwelling house situated at Urban Bank Road, Berhampur originally recorded in the name of her mother. On 06.05.1984 around 1.20 p.m. when she returned home from market, she found the accused-respondent engaging six labourers uprooting the doors. She being in possession, objected, but the accused-respondent divulged before her to have purchased that house from her brother who put him in possession and he having also succeeded in the Civil Suit vide T.S. No.71 of 1982, threatened her to leave the place. Visibly annoyed and disturbed for such unlawful act of the accused-respondent, despite pendency of Civil Suit, she lodged F.I.R. at Police Station. But, police having refused to receive the report, she approached the Office of the Superintendent of Police, Berhampur repeatedly, but having failed to meet the Superintendent of Police, she sent the F.I.R. by registered post. Despite of that, when no tangible action taken, she filed the complaint before the Court of the S.D.J.M, Berhampur registered as l.C.C. No.66 of 1984 on such cause of action. She adduced three witnesses in support of her case, but the Court of the S.D.J.M., Berhampur when held the accused-respondent not guilty under Sections 427 and 448 of IPC and acquitted him under Section 255(1) of Cr.P.C, she filed this appeal against the said order of acquittal raising a large many grounds.

(3.) The learned counsel for the complainant-appellant submits that since in this case, there was no delay in filing of complaint and substantial evidence adduced in support of her possession and mischief committed by the accused-respondent, the trial court omitted to consider all such material evidence while acquitting the accused-respondent, the impugned order of acquittal is to be reversed and the accused-respondent is to be held guilty under Sections 427 and 448 of IPC.