Bhabagrahi Bisoi vs Sankirtan Sahu And Others

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.

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 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.

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.

The  plea  of  the  defence  was  one  of  complete  denial  and  false implication of the accused persons due to previous enmity.

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.

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 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.

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.

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.

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.”

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.

As per the discussions and observations made above, when the judgment of acquittal passed by the Trial Court in favour of the accused 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.

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.

Accordingly, the Appeal is disposed of finally.

……………………………..