UMAKANTA MOHANTY Vs. DHIRA SAHOO AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 23.4.1991 passed by the learned J.M.F.C, Jajpur in I.C.C. No. 12 of 1989 (T.R. No. 130 of 90), wherein, he acquitted the accused -Respondent of the charge under Section 379 of the I.P.C.

(2.) THE Appellant was the complainant and the Respondent were the accused before the Court below. As per the complaint petition, the complainant was the owner in possession of the disputed land appertaining the Plot No. 166 under khata No. 645. He was in cultivable possession of the same since long. On 8.1.1989, at about 9.00 A.M., all the accused persons forcibly entered upon the said land and cut a Pipal tree standing over it to different sizes. They also cut the branches and took away the logs and branches. When the complainant protested, accused Dhira Sahoo, Bira Sahoo and Surendra Sahoo chased him to assault, but on the intervention of the witnesses, they could not be successful in their attempt. Then, the complainant reported the incident before the local police and as no action was taken, he got the complaint petition scribed through P.W.2, an advocate -clerk and filed it before the S.D.J.M., Jajpur. After recording the initial statement of the complainant and perusing the complaint petition, the S.D.J.M., took cognizance of the offence under Section 379 of I.P.C. against all the accused persons and transferred the case to the Magistrate, First Class, Jajpur for trial.

(3.) IN order to establish its case, prosecution examined five witnesses in all, as against one by the defence. After assessing the evidence on record, the trial Court acquitted all the accused persons of the charge under Section 379 of the I.P.C, holding that prosecution failed to produce the up -to -date record of right, that it did not examine the material witnesses and that the bona fide claim of right raised by the accused persons was not colourable pretence. Being aggrieved with the said order of acquittal, the complainant (hereinafter referred as 'Appellant') has preferred this appeal.