Orissa High Court
(In The Matter Of An Application ... vs Sankirtan Sahu And Others on 19 October, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
C.R.A No.237 of 1994
(In the matter of an application under Section 378 (4) of the Cr.P.C)
Bhabagrahi Bisoi .... Appellant
-versus-
Sankirtan Sahu and others .... Respondents
Appeared in this case by Hybrid Arrangement
(Virtual/Physical Mode):
For Appellant - None
For Respondents - Ms. Anima Kumari Dei
Advocate
CORAM:
MR. JUSTICE A.C.BEHERA
Date of Hearing :27.09.2023 :: Date of Judgment : 19.10.2023
A.C. Behera, J. This is an Appeal under Section 378 (4) of the Cr.P.C.,
1973, which has been preferred by the Appellant (who was the
complainant in 1.C.C. No.34 of 1992) challenging the judgment of
acquittal of the Respondents (those were the accused persons in 1.C.C.
No.34 of 1992) from the offences under Sections 294, 323 and 277 of the
I.P.C., 1860 passed on dated 25.06.1993 in 1.C.C. No.34 of 1992 by the
learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Phulbani.
2. The case of the complainant (Appellant) against the accused
persons (Respondents) before the Trial Court in 1.C.C. No.34 of 1992
was that, on 31.05.1992 at about 9 a.m. when he (complainant) was
going towards village well to fetch water, the accused (Hadibandhu
Sahu) came before him and obstructed. Then, the accused No.2 shouted
C.R.A. No.237 of 1994
{{ 2 }}
against the family members of the complainant alleging that, they had
killed his son through tantra. Immediately thereafter all the accused
persons gathered there and surrounded the complainant, but when the
complainant tried to proceed, then the accused persons assaulted him
(complainant) giving fist blows and also abused him in filthy languages,
but fortunately, Padmalava Bisoi (brother of the complainant) rescued
him (complainant) from the clutches of the accused persons. Thereafter,
all the accused persons threw stools to the house of the complainant, for
which, without getting any way, the complainant filed the case vide
1.C.C. No.34 of 1992 against the accused persons alleging the aforesaid
allegations against them.
3. On examination of the complainant and witnesses in 1.C.C. No.34
of 1992, cognizance of the offences under Sections 294, 323 & 277 of
the IPC was taken by the Court against the accused persons and trial of
the case vide 1.C.C. No.34 of 1992 proceeded against the accused
persons in the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Phulbani for the
offences under Sections 294, 323 & 277 of the IPC, 1860.
4. The plea of the defence was one of complete denial and false
implication of the accused persons due to previous enmity.
5. During trial, the complainant examined four (4) witnesses from his
side including him as P.W.1 and his brother (Padmalava Bisoi) as P.W.3.
But, whereas from the side of the defence two witnesses were examined
as D.Ws.1 and 2 respectively.
6. After conclusion of the trial of that 1.C.C. No.34 of 1992 and on
perusal of the materials and evidence available on Record, the Trial
Court found the accused persons not guilty with the offences under
Sections 294, 323 and 277 of the IPC and acquitted them all from the
C.R.A. No.237 of 1994
{{ 3 }}
said offences vide judgment dated 25.06.1993 passed in that 1.C.C.
No.34 of 1992 assigning the reasons that, there is no independent
corroboration to the evidence of two interested witnesses i.e. P.Ws.1 and
3 (complainant and his brother), those are the inimically disposed of with
the accused persons since long much prior to the initiation of the case.
7. On being aggrieved with the aforesaid judgment of acquittal
passed on dated 25.06.1993 in 1.C.C. No.34 of 1992 in favour of the
accused persons for their acquittal from the offences under Sections 294,
323 and 277 of the IPC, 1860, the complainant challenged the same by
preferring this Appeal being the Appellant against the accused persons
by arraying them (accused persons) as Respondents.
8. I have heard from the learned counsel for the Respondents only as
none appeared from the side of the Appellant to participate in the hearing
of the Appeal.
9. This is an Appeal against the judgment of an acquittal that too,
against the judgment of an acquittal passed in a complaint case.
<It is settled propositions of law that, a judgment of acquittal
cannot be disturbed unless the findings of the learned Trial Court
are perverse or unreasonable. Because, presumption of innocence is
reinforced by an order of acquittal passed by the learned Trial
Court in favour of an accused. So, there is double presumption of
innocence in favour of an accused after his acquittal. Because,
firstly the presumption of innocence i.e. available to him (accused)
under the fundamental principle of criminal jurisprudence that,
every person shall be presumed to be innocent unless he is proved
guilty by a competent court of law. Secondly, the accused having
secured his acquittal, the presumption of innocence is further
reinforced/reaffirmed and strengthened by the Court. Thirdly, if
two reasonable conclusions are possible on the basis of the
evidence on record, the Appellate Court should not disturb the
findings of an acquittal recorded by the Trial Court. Therefore, the
scope of interference in an Appeal against an acquittal like this
Appeal at hand is very limited.=
C.R.A. No.237 of 1994
{{ 4 }}
10. The Trial Court has acquitted the accused persons from the
offences under Sections 294 and 277 of the IPC, 1860 by assigning the
reasons in the judgment that, none of the witnesses of the prosecution
including the complainant and his brother (P.Ws.1 & 3) has deposed to
fulfill the essentials of Sections 294 and 277 of the IPC, 1860.
When the evidence of the witnesses of the complainant is not
fulfilling the essentials of Sections 294 and 277 of the IPC, then at this
juncture, the judgment of acquittal of the accused persons from the
offences under Sections 294 and 277 of the IPC, 1860 passed by the
Trial Court cannot be held as illegal or erroneous.
So far as the judgment of acquittal of the accused persons from the
offence under Section 323 of the IPC, 1860 is concerned;
in the judgment, <The Trial court has specifically assigned the
reasons that, it is forthcoming from the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 3 that,
they are not pulling well with the accused persons due to some litigation
with them prior to the occurrence. The two independent witnesses of the
case i.e. P.Ws.2 and 4 have not at all supported the evidence of P.Ws.1
and 3, for which, the offence under Section 323 of the IPC cannot be
held to be proved against the accused persons on the basis of the
evidence of two interested witnesses i.e. P.Ws.1 & 3, those are
inimically disposed of with the accused persons much prior to the
initiation of the case=.
The above observations of the Trial Court in the judgment for
acquittal of the accused persons from the offence under Section 323 of
the IPC are not improper in any manner.
11. As per the discussions and observations made above, when the
judgment of acquittal passed by the Trial Court in favour of the accused
C.R.A. No.237 of 1994
{{ 5 }}
persons for their acquittal from the offences under Section 294, 323 and
277 of the IPC are not unreasonable or improper, then at this juncture,
the question of interfering with the same through this Appeal filed by the
Appellant does not arise. So, there is no merit in the Appeal of the
Appellant, the same must fail.
12. In the result, the Appeal filed by the Appellant is dismissed on
merit. The impugned judgment of acquittal passed by the learned Trial
Court on dated 25.06.1993 in 1.C.C. No.34 of 1992 is confirmed.
13. Accordingly, the Appeal is disposed of finally.
(A.C. Behera),
Judge.
Orissa High Court, Cuttack.
19th October, 2023//Utkalika Nayak//
Junior Stenographer
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: UTKALIKA NAYAK
Designation: Junior Stenographer
Reason: Authentication
Location: High Court of Orissa
Date: 19-Oct-2023 17:26:48
C.R.A. No.237 of 1994
