JUDGMENT

A. K. PARICHHA, J. — This is an appeal by the State under Section 378(1) of th Code of Criminal Procedure for setting aside the order of acquittal passed by the learned JMFC, Baripada acquitting the accused persons (respondents) from the charge under Sections 447, 427, 379, 506, 509/34, IPC in G.R. Case No.594 of 1982/Trial Case No.43 of 1983.

2. Prosecution case, in short, is that P.W.9, husband of the informant- P.W. 10 purchased the disputed land from one Guru Charan Ray by means of a registered sale deed on 10.6.1982, took delivery of possession and started construction of a tiled-roof house thereon. On 21.6.1982 at about 9.00 A.M. while going to supervise the work of construction, P.W.10 found that the re¬spondents-accused persons were breaking the house under construc¬tion on the disputed land. She protested to such highhanded action of the respondents, but instead of paying any heed to her protest, respondents rebuked her in obscene and threatening lan¬guage, destroyed the house and removed the building materials. P.W.10 lodged an F.I.R. before Baripada Town Police Station and basing on such F.I.R. investigation was undertaken and finally charge-sheet was submitted against the accused-respondents for the above noted offences.

3. The respondent denied the entire prosecution allegation and claimed bona fide right of possession over the case land.

4. In order to establish the charges, the prosecution examined 11 witnesses and produced several documents, such as Amin report, trace map, copy of the judgment in G.R. case No. 594 of 1982, seizure list, original draft Khatian, certified copy of the order-sheets in T.S. No. 59 of 1983 and G.R. Case No.1233 of 1982 and these documents were marked as Exts. 1 to 15. The re¬spondents also examined two witnesses and produced the parcha, Yadesh, mistake list, which were marked as Exts. A to C. Learned J.M.F.C., Baripada who conducted trial of the case, after consid¬ering the above noted evidence came to the conclusion that physi¬cal possession of the informant over the case land and the in¬volvement of the respondent in the alleged occurrence was not established beyond reasonable doubt. He accordingly recorded an order of acquittal in favour of the respondents. Aggrieved with the said order, the State has filed the present appeal.

5. Mr. A. K. Mishra, learned Standing Counsel submitted that the documents and oral evidence led by the prosecution, clearly establish that the disputed land had been purchased by P.W.10 and that she was in physical possession of the land and also that the respondents-accused persons damaged the house in question and removed the building materials after abusing the informant in obscene language. According to him, learned trial Court did not assess the evidence properly and also failed to follow the settled principles of law while deciding the case.

6. In spite of the case appearing in the list, none ap¬peared for the respondents.

7. In a case under Section 447, IPC, the burden is on the informant to prove his/her physical possession over the property and such burden becomes onerous when the accused persons claimed bona fide right of possession over the disputed property. So, the first thing to be seen in the present case, is, whether physical possession of the informant over the dispute land is established from the evidence on record. P.W.10 said that her husband P.W.9 purchased the disputed land in her name and after taking over possession they started construction of the house thereon. P.W.9 also stated that he purchased the case land from one Guru Charan Dey of Baliadiha and took possession from him. The vendor. Guru Charan Dey was not examined. P.W.1, who is a young boy of the locality, stated that he only heard about the purchase of the case land by the informant but he was unable to say the identity of the land purchased by the informant. P.W.2, who is a friend of P.W.9 and an attesting witness to the sale deed stated that after purchase, the