RADHANATH MOHANTY Vs. KRUPASINDHU MISHRA AND ANR.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision is preferred against the judgment of the learned Sub divisional Judicial Magistrate, Puri, dated 19 -10 -1984 acquitting the -opposite party No. 1 Krupasindhu Mishra of the charges under Sec. 448 and 338 IPC.

(2.) The prosecution case may be briefly stated thus: The opposite parties 1 and 2 are brothers. There was dispute between the Petitioner and the opposite parties 1 and 2 regarding the construction of a boundary wall. On 8 -4 -1980, during the absence of the Petitioner from his house, there was a quarrel between the wife and children of the Petitioner on the one hand and opposite party No. 1 on the other and during the course of the quarrel opposite party No. 2 had assaulted the wife and daughters of the Petitioner. As the Petitioner returned home after about 4 -30 P.M. obtaining a 144 Code of Criminal Procedure order against the opposite parties 1 and 2, the later got provoked and entered the house of the Petitioner and pelted stones at the Petitioner 's wife and assaulted the daughters of the Petitioner. P.W. 1 (the Petitioner) reported about the incident to the police when G.R. Case No. 585 of 1980 was registered against the opposite parties 1 and 2. Tile learned S.D. Jlvi, on a consideration of the evidence, while convicting the opposite party No. 2 under Sec. 448 and 338, I.P.C. acquitted the opposite party No. 1. Hence this revision is filed by the informant.

(3.) The scope of interference by this Court, when a revision against acquittal is preferred by a private party, is indicated by the Supreme Court in K. Chinnaswamy Reddy v/s. State of Andhra Pradesh and Anr. : AIR 1962 S.C. 1788 when their lordships of the Supreme Court on served thus: