An appellate court must respect acquittals unless there's an unreasonable conclusion from evidence, reinforcing the presumption of innocence.

ORDER :

Savitri Ratho, J.

1. This CRLLP has been filed under Section 378 (4) of the Cr.P.C. praying for leave to appeal against the judgment dated 09.12.2005 passed in ICC Case No.16/2000/Trial No.175/02 acquitting the opposite party No.2 of the offence punishable under Sections 294 , 447,323, 324, 341, 506 of the Indian Penal Code (in short “the IPC”).

2. On 16.01.2007, notice on the question of admission had been issued on the opposite parties. Mr.D.Panda, learned counsel and associates have filed power for opposite party No.2-Gangadhar Dutta on 01.03.2007. But none appeared for opposite party No.2 when the matter was listed on 13.10.2023 and 28.11.2023. On 27.02.2024, Mr.S.Panda, learned counsel was present on behalf of Mr.D.Panda, learned counsel for the opposite party No.2 and had advanced his submissions. But no counsel has appeared on behalf of opposite party No.2 when the matter is taken up today.

PROSECUTION CASE

3. The prosecution allegations in brief is that on 17.12.1999 at about 12.30 p.m., while P.W.2-Bijaya Kumar Nandi, son of the complainant P.W.1-Naba Kumar Nandy was fencing their ancestral homestead at village, Kamarda, the opposite party No.2 forcibly entered inside their homestead land and abused him using obscene language saying “Sala Magia – Tote Bada Karibaku kie Anumati Dela”. When P.W. 2 raised hullah, P.W.1 and one Anjan Kumar Das rushed to the spot and saw opposite party No.2 deal a dauli blow on the left arm below the shoulder of P.W.2. He also slapped him on his cheek and threatened to kill him. P.W.1 lodged a written report in Kamarda police out post and intimated the S.P., Balasore and S.D.P.O., Jaleswar about the occurrence. As the police did not take any action, P.W.1 has filed the complaint.

DEFENCE PLEA

4. The defence plea was one of complete denial of the prosecution allegation and it is stated that false allegation have been made.

WITNESSES

5. In order to bring home the charge, the petitioner had examined himself as P.W.1. His son, the injured as P.W.2 and one Amal Kumar Mishra as P.W.3.

ISSUES FRAMED

6. The learned trial Court had framed the following six issues :

“(i) Whether on 17.12.99 at about 12.30 p.m. at village Kamarda the accused abused Bijaya Nandi in obscene words on a public place causing annoyance to others ?

(ii) Whether on the said date, time and place, the accused committed criminal trespass by entering upon the land of the complainant with intent to commit an offence ?

(iii) Whether on the said date, time and place the accused voluntarily caused hurt to Bijaya Nandi ?

(iv) Whether on the said date, time and place the accused hurt to Bijaya Nandi with deadly weapons ?

(v) Whether on the said date, time and place the accused wrongfully restrained to Bijaya Nandi ?

(vi) Whether on the said date, time and place the accused has committed the offence of criminal intimidation by giving threat to Bijaya Nandi to kill him with an intent to raise alarm ?”

TRIAL COURT DECISION

7. The learned trial Court after analyzing the evidence on record has held that as no witnesses have been examined to prove the offence under Section 294 of IPC where one of the ingredients is that annoyance must be caused to others, so the offence is not made out. As regards the offences under Section 447 of the IPC and Section-34 of the IPC, the learned trial Court held that since the land in question is a disputed land, the offence of criminal trespass and criminal restraint are not made out. The allegation against the opposite party No.2 for commission of offence under Sections 323 /324 of IPC was disbelieved by the learned trial Court as neither any injury report was exhibited nor any doctor was examined to prove that any injury has been caused to P.W.2.

SUBMISSIONS

8. Mr.Abhisek Pra