The High Court · 2023
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK CRA No. 188 of 1995 From an order dated 23.01.1995 passed by learned S.D.J.M. Karanjia in 1CC Case No. 147 of 1992. Lalmohan Mohanta --------------- ...… Appellant -Versus- Purusottam Mohanta & Others .…. Respondents Advocate(s) appeared in this case :- _______________________________________________________ For Appellant : Mr. S. Mohanta, Amicus Curiae For Respondents : M/s. A.K. Sahoo, S.B. Das, Advocate
Legal Reasoning
Mr. S.K.Mishra, [Addl. Standing Counsel] _______________________________________________________ CORAM: MR. JUSTICE SASHIKANTA MISHRA J U D G M E N T 18th August 2023 SASHIKANTA MISHRA, J. Being granted leave by this Court in Criminal Misc. Case No. 1091 of 1995, the complainant in 1CC Case No.147 of 1992 of the Court of learned S.D.J.M., Karanjia has preferred this appeal against the judgment of acquittal passed in the said case. Page 1 of 8 2. The brief facts of the case are that the complainant was the Secretary of Panchasakha High School in village Miriganandi. On 22.08.1992 at about 6.00 P.M., one Pratap Manik came and requested him to attend a meeting scheduled to be held in the Panchayat Office but he refused, whereupon said Pratap Manik went away. After some time all the accused persons arrived and forcibly took him to the meeting place by catching hold of his left and right hands and also compelled him to put his signature on some papers. While the complainant protested, they assaulted him and therefore, he signed on the paper. Further, he was detained in the Panchayat Office for the night and on the next day, he was taken to Panchasakha High School at about 12 noon where the accused persons demanded the documents of the school from him. The complainant could not produce the documents for which the accused persons took him to his house. Some accused persons entered inside the house and forcibly took the documents from the Almirah kept in the house, brought the complainant to the school and left the place. The complainant reported the matter at Karanjia police station but as no action was taken, he Page 2 of 8 filed the complaint alleging commission of the offences under Sections 342/323/384/34 of IPC. 2. The accused persons took the plea of denial. 3. To prove its case complainant examined four witnesses including himself as P.W.4. After scanning the evidence on record, the court below ascertained whether the ingredients necessary to constitute each of the offences were available. Upon going through the evidence, it was held that none of the ingredients of the alleged offences was present so as to hold the accused persons guilty. The trial court further held that the delay of about three days in lodging the FIR had not been satisfactorily proved. On such finding the trial court acquitted the accused persons by judgment passed on 23.01.1995. 4. Heard Mr. Srikanta Mohanta, learned counsel for the complainant-appellant and Mr. S.K. Mishra, learned Additional Standing Counsel for the State. 5. Mr. Mohanta assails the impugned judgment by submitting that the court below has committed error in not relying upon the version of the P.W.4, even though he had stated about the occurrence clearly and consistently. Mr. Mohanta further argues that all the other witnesses Page 3 of 8 had clearly and consistently deposed about the occurrence and therefore, the court below committed an error in disbelieving them. 6. Mr. S.K. Mishra, learned State Counsel, on the other hand, submits that the Court below after appreciating the evidence on record did not find the existence of the necessary ingredients to constitute the alleged offences and therefore, it rightly acquitted the accused persons. 7. Before proceeding to scan the evidence on record, it would be apposite to keep in mind the principles to be followed by the Appellate court while hearing an appeal against acquittal as laid down by the Apex court in several decisions including the case of V. Sejappa vs. State By Police Insp. Lokayukta, reported in (2016) 12 SCC 150. In the said case, the following observations of the Supreme Court are relevant. “If the evaluation of the evidence and the findings recorded by the trial court do not suffer from any illegality or perversity and the grounds on which the trial court has based its conclusion are reasonable and plausible, the High Court should not disturb the order of acquittal if another view is possible. Merely because the appellate court on re-appreciation and re-evaluation of the evidence is inclined to take a different view, interference with the judgment of acquittal is not justified if the view taken by the trial court is a possible view.” Page 4 of 8 8. It has further been held in catena of decisions that there is a presumption of innocence in favour of an accused person and such presumption is strengthened by the order of acquittal passed in his favour by the trial court. Further, merely because on reappreciation of the evidence, a different view can be taken, it would not be justified for the Appellate Court to interfere with the judgment of acquittal. 9. Keeping the above principles in mind, the evidence on record may now be looked into. As already stated, the complainant examined four witnesses. P.W.1 is a neighbour of the complainant, he says that at the time of occurrence, he was in his house and after hearing hulla he came out and found the accused persons were forcibly taking the complainant to the Panchayat Office. To know the reason he went to the Panchyat Office along with one Kandra Mohanta and Nanda Mohanta. Significantly, said Kandra Mohanta and Nanda Mohanta were not examined. Therefore, there was no corroboration of the testimony of P.W.-1. P.W.2 stated that he was present in the meeting and the complainant was brought to the meeting. He does not say anything as to whether any force was applied by Page 5 of 8 the accused persons to bring the complainant to the meeting place. He also deposed about the complainant being compelled by the witnesses to put his signature. In cross examination, he admits that the resolution of the meeting was reduced to writing and many persons signed including himself and the complainant. His signature was also obtained forcibly, but he never raised any complaint or protest. He further expresses in ignorance as to what happened inside the house of the complainant. P.W.3 is the wife of the complainant. She stated in general terms that the accused persons forcibly took her husband from the house. The evidence of P.Ws. 2 and 3 as discussed above does not inspire confidence inasmuch as they have not stated as to how force was applied, if at all by the accused persons. The complainant being examined as P.W. 4 stated more or less as per his version in the complaint. 11. The above being the evidence on record, this Court fails to understand as to how the ingredients of the offence of Section 342 is made out inasmuch as there is no allegation nor proof of the complainant being obstructed by the accused persons. Since the complainant Page 6 of 8 was admittedly the Secretary of the School and was duty bound to attend the meeting, it cannot be said that he was forced to attend the meeting. Similarly, what documents were allegedly taken away by the accused persons from the Almirah of the complainant has not been stated in detail. That apart, there is no evidence whatsoever to show that the accused persons caused hurt to the complainant by any means. Thus, neither the offence under Sections 384 nor 323 are made out. Reading of the impugned judgment reveals that the trial court has taken note of the ingredients required to establish the offences and tested them against the evidence on record. The trial court found that the ingredients do not exist. In view of what has been stated hereinbefore, this Court fully concurs with such finding. 12. The court below had additionally taken note of the unexplained delay of three days in filing of the complaint and held that no plausible reason was cited or proved by the complainant. This Court is also of the same view. 13. For the foregoing reasons therefore, no case for interference with the order of acquittal is made out. Even if the evidence is stretched to some extent to arrive at a Page 7 of 8 different view than what was taken by the court below, it would not justify interference with the order of acquittal in view of the settled position of law discussed hereinbefore. 14. In the result, the appeal is found to be devoid of merit and is therefore, dismissed. (Sashikanta Mishra) Judge B.C.Tudu Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHIGAL CHANDRA TUDU Designation: Senior Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: Orissa High Court, Cuttack Date: 21-Aug-2023 13:12:07 Page 8 of 8