The prosecution must prove the essential elements of the offences charged in order to secure a conviction.

JUDGMENT :

A. Pasayat, J. - Twelve persons who are opp. party Nos. 1 to 12 in this revision application, faced trial on the basis of an information lodged by the present petitioner, for allegedly having committed offences punishable u/s 341 and 294 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short. 'IPC')- The learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Nayagarh did not accept the prosecution allegations, and directed their acquittal u/s 255(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, (in short, the 'Code').

2. The background facts as projected by the prosecution are as follows :

On 7-10-1987 at about 9 a. m. some of the villagers of Bakala- bandha were returning from Kanjian forest with fuel wood on their bullocks. On the way, at the outskirt of village Khutubandha some of the villagers of the said viilage(the accused persons headed by Narayan Biswal) restrained them and told them that the villagers of Bakalabandha cannot go on the village road of Khutubandha with their bullocks. Thereafter they abused them in filthy language. Out of fear the villagers of Bakalabandha did not tell them anything, and sent message to their village, for help. Chakradhar Swain, the present petitioner submitted a written report before the Officer-in-charge of Suagaon Police Station at about 7 p. m. Investigation was under taken, on completion whereof charge-sheet was submitted and the twelve accused persons faced trial

3. The accused persons pleaded innocence.

4. The learned Judicial Magistrate took up the following points for consideration ;

(i) Whether the accused persons in furtherance of their common intention of ail wrongfully restrained the informant and his villagers on the relevant date, at the time and place as alleged ?

(ii) Whether the accused persons in furtherance of their common intention of all abused the informant and his villagers in obscene language in a public place causing annoyance to others at the relevant time ?

5. Seven witnesses were examined to further the prosecution case. While the accused persons examined one witness named Chaitanya Nayak (PW 1) in support of their plea of innocence. The learned trial Magistrate came to hold that the place where the alleged obstruction took place was not a public road, and therefore. Section 341 had no application. Similarly as regards applicability of Section 294, IPC, he held that in view of the admission of the affected persons, who were examined as witness that no annoyance was caused. Section 294 had no application.

6. The learned counsel for the informant-petitioner strenuously urged that the analysis of the evidence as made by the learned Judicial Magistrate is erroneous and the order needs reversal. The learned counsel appearing for the accused however. supported, the judgment of acquittal.

7. In order to attract application of Section 341, IPC, which provides for punishment for wrongful restraint, it has to be proved that (i) there was obstruction by the accused ; (ii) such obstruction prevented a person from proceeding in a direction to which he had a right to proceed ; and (iii) the accused caused such obstruction voluntarily. The obstructor must intend or know or would have reason to believe that the means adopted would cause obstruction of the complainant. "Wrongful restraint" is defined in Sec. .339, IPC. The ingredients essential to make Section 339 applicable are ; (i) voluntary obstruction' of a person; (ii) the obstruction must be such as to prevent the person from proceeding in any direction in which he has a right to proceed. The Explanation to Section 339 makes it clear that the obstruction of a private way over land or water which a person in good faith believes himself to have a lawful right to obstruct, is not an offence within the meaning of Section 339. ?very citizen has a right to use the public road in a legal manner and will have a right to travel on it. But it an act is done in good faith with a belief that it is justified in law a conviction u/s 339 will