Important Point
When a reasonable order of acquittal has been recorded by trial Court, and High Court finds no illegality in judgment, it can not be interfered with.

Judgment

P.K. Tripathy, J.— None appears for the appellant. On the request of the Court Mr. Sangam Kumar Sahoo, learned counsel of the Court went through the records and addressed the Court as Amicus Curiae.

2. Heard.

3. Order of acquittal in I.C.C. No. 52 of 1983 (Tr. No. 109 of 1985) of the Court of J.M.F.C., Aska is under challenge. Complainant in that case is the appellant whereas accused persons in that case are the respondents.

4. The long and short of the prosecution case is that the disputed premises had been rented out by the accused No. 1 T. Dindayal Patra to the complainant where the latter was running a medicine shop in the name and style of ‘Mamata Medical Store’ and on 17-11-1983 in the night at about 10 P.M. the accused persons broke open the lock of that medicine shop and removed articles to the house of accu-sed T. Dindayal Patra and gave posse-ssion of that premises to accused Nos. 4 and 5 Gadadhar Patra and Rama Chandra Patra for running a betel shop. On the basis of such allegation charge for the offences under Sections 457, 380/34, I.P.C. was framed. Accused persons denied to the allegation and advanced the defence plea that the admitted owner of the premises i.e. accused No. 1 let out the disputed premises to accused Nos. 4 and 5 on 15-4-1983 through a registered docu-ment and since then accused Nos. 4 and 5 are in possession of that premises as tenants and since 1982 the complai-nant was no more in possession of that premises as tenant after being inducted as a tenant in 1979 because the comp-lainant kept it under lock and key without opening the proposed medicine shop.

5. To substantiate the accusation while prosecution examined three wit-nesses and relied on Ext. 1, the letter signed by the accused No. 1 having addresses to the Drug Inspector on

19-9-1979, accused persons have relied on the evidence of one witness, namely Rasikaraj Kar and relied on the registered lease deed Ext. A dated 15-4-1983.

6. On assessment of evidence on record trial Court found substance in the defence plea whereas non-credibility of the prosecution evidence to subs-tantiate the aforesaid allegation and accordingly granted the benefit of doubt and acquitted the respondents under Section 248(1), Cr.P.C.

7. After going through the comp-laint petition and the evidence on record and hearing Mr. Sahoo, this Court finds that though in his evidence P.W. 1 (complainant) has narrated the occurrence but there is glaring contra-diction with respect to his evidence and the evidence of P.Ws. 2 and 3 about the manner in which the occurrence pro-ceeded in the night of 17-11-1983. Such contradiction have been duly taken note by the trial Court. Apart from that, it appears that P.Ws. 2 and 3 both have claimed to be chance witnesses to the occurrence and as noted above there are glaring discrepancy in their evidence while narrating about the occurrence and the manner of participation by each of the accused persons. Above all, both the witnesses have stated that they have never purchased medicine from the said medicine shop after the year 1982. According to the complainant he was continuously running that medicine shop and even on the date of occurrence he closed the shop and went to the house. But P.Ws. 2 and 3 have suffi-ciently indicated in their evidence that such shop was defunct from the year 1982. Such evidence of P.Ws. 2 and 3 corroborates to the defence plea. Ext. 1 only goes to indicate that as back as on 19-7-1979 accused No. 1 had written to the Drug Inspector that he had let out that house on rent in favour of the complainant for the proposed ‘Mamata Medical Store’. On the other hand, Ext. A indicates that on 15-4-1983 the said premises was let out in favour of accused No. 4 Gadadhar Patra. There is no sufficient cross-examination to D.W. 1 while challenging existence of Ext. A. Thus, taking totality of the aforesaid facts and evidence when a reasonable order of acquittal has been recorded by the trial Court, this Court finds no