Biswanath Pradhan vs Ratnakar Moharana

R.N. Biswal, J.—This appeal has been preferred u/s 378(4) of Code of Criminal Procedure against the judgment and order dated 19.7.1988 passed in I.C.C. Case No. 27 of 1987 (T.R. No. 294 of 1987) wherein the J.M.F.C., Ranpur acquitted the accused-Respondent of the charge u/s 380 of I.P.C.

As per the complaint case the accused-Respondent had visiting terms with the complainant. On 16.8.1987 the wife of the complainant kept one waist chain and two bracelets made of silver inside a box in her house in presence and in view of the accused-Respondent. Two days thereafter when she opened the box the ornaments were found missing. So, she strongly suspected the involvement of the accused-Respondent in the theft. A Panchayat was convened where the accused-Respondent confessed to have committed theft of those ornaments. A report was tendered to the O.I.C. of Ranpur Police Station but as it was not accepted the complainant filed the aforesaid complaint on 26.8.1987. After taking the initial statement of the complainant cognizance for the offence u/s 380 of I.P.C. was taken against the accused-Respondent who faced trial for the same.

The plea of the accused-Respondent was complete denial of his involvement in the crime in question.

In order to establish his case the complainant examined five witnesses including himself. After assessing the evidence on record the trial Court acquitted the accused-Respondent holding that there was no eyewitness to the occurrence and that the accused-Respondent confessed to have committed the crime only after being threatened. Being aggrieved with this order in the complainant has preferred this appeal.

Admittedly no body has been the accused committing the theft of the waist chain and bracelets. As rightly held by the trial Court there is long gap between suspicion and proof. That has to be bridged by the prosecution by reliable evidence. In the case at hand the gap has not been bridged. Further more when the gentle men present in the meeting challenged the accused that he had committed the theft and forced him to admit his guilt, then only he admitted the same as revealed from the evidence of the complainant/Appellant. Since the extra-judicial confession was not made out of free will the trial Court rightly did not rely upon the same.

Under such facts and circumstances, I am of the view that the impugned order does not suffer from any illegality and impropriety to be interfered with by this Court u/s 378(4) of Code of Criminal Procedure and as such the Criminal Appeal stands dismissed.