The judgment emphasizes the importance of substantial evidence and a reasonable explanation for delays in criminal cases.

JUDGMENT

S. K. Sahoo, J. - The matter is taken up through Video Conferencing.

2. This appeal has been preferred by the appellant Laxminarayan Panigrahi challenging the impugned judgment and order dated 03.02.1990 passed by the learned J.M.F.C., Balasore in I.C.C. Case No.309 of 1988 in acquitting the respondents Kishoremohan Mohapatra, Manoj Kumar @ Manu Mohapatra and Saroj Kumar @ Ninu Mohapatra of the charges under sections 447, 427, 379, 323 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The appellant preferred an application under section 378(4) of Cr.P.C. seeking for special leave to appeal from the order of acquittal which was granted in Criminal Misc. Case No.298 of 1990 as per order dated 27.08.1990 and accordingly, the present appeal was filed.

3. The prosecution case, in short, is that the appellant is the complainant in the said complaint petition and he presented the complaint petition on 31.10.1988 before the learned S.D.J.M., Balesore on the accusation that on 12.10.1988 at about 11.00 a.m., the respondents being armed with deadly weapons such as axe, lathi, katuri, sickle and sword entered into his land which appertains to Khata No.97, Plot No.529 at Mouza-Ghoadapada having an area of Ac.0.06 decimals and cut about fifty cubits of dry and green fence from the said land and they also cut and removed some trees which were also standing on the boundary of the said plot. The appellant raised protest but the respondents abused him in filthy language and then the respondents also assaulted the appellant for which he sustained injuries. When the witnesses came to the spot and raised protest against the conduct of the respondents, they fled away.

4. After the presentation of the complaint petition, the initial statement of the complainant was recorded and finding prima facie case, the learned S.D.J.M., Balesore took cognizance of offences under sections 447, 427, 379 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code and process was issued against the respondents. After the appearance of the respondents, they were directed to be released on bail and the case was transferred to the Court of J.M.F.C., Balasore for disposal in accordance with law. Two witnesses were examined before charge and then charge was framed against the respondents under sections 447, 427, 379, 323 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

5. The defence plea of the respondents was one of denial.

6. In order to establish the charge, the appellant examined four witnesses including himself as P.W.1. P.W.2 Laxman Mohanty and P.W.3 Narendra Khuntia are the independent witnesses to the occurrence and P.W.4 Dr. Jayanta Kumar Das medically examined the appellant and noticed two bruises which were opined to be simple in nature and he proved his report.

Apart from the oral evidence, the appellant in order to establish the ownership over the land in question proved Ext.1, the R.O.R. which indicated that the land stood recorded in the name of the sons of the appellant. He also proved the rent receipts vide Ext.2 to Ext.2/3. The injury report of the appellant has been marked as Ext.3.

7. The learned trial Court after analysing the evidence on record came to hold that the prosecution has failed to establish the charges and accordingly, acquitted the respondents of all the charges.

8. Since nobody appeared on behalf of the appellant to argue the appeal on 10.12.2020 and it is a thirty years old appeal, Mr. Rajeet Roy, Advocate was appointed as Amicus Curiae. He was supplied with the paper book and given time to prepare the case. He placed the evidence of the witnesses and also the impugned judgment. While assailing the impugned judgment and order of acquittal, he argued that the finding of the learned trial Court is based on conjectures and the evidence of P.Ws.2 and 3, who were natural witnesses have been disbelieved without any cogent reason. He further argued that the evidence of those two witnesses corroborates the version of the complainant and they stood the test of cross-examin