The prosecution must prove all elements of an offence beyond a reasonable doubt; inconsistencies and lack of corroboration in witness testimonies can lead to acquittal.

JUDGMENT :

SANKAR MISHRA, J.

1. The present case relates to an incident happened on 15.08.2001. One Mithila Meher, wife of Hari Meher lodged a report at Bangomunda Police Station with an allegation that on 15.08.2001 at about 6.00 A.M. while she was sleeping in her house, the Petitioner No.1-Jatiya Meher damaged her earthen pot by hurling abuses in obscene languages such as Dari Ghudaghei. The Petitioner No.2 also joined the Petitioner No.1 in abusing her. Both the accused persons have physically attacked her by lathi and caused injury to her. The said incident was witnessed by Arjun Meher (P.W.2), Charan Meher (P.W.4) and Ghana Tandi (P.W.7). She has also stated that this has happened because there had been past enmity amongst themselves. Therefore, Bangomunda P.S. Case No.38 of 2001 was registered and investigation was initiated against the Petitioners. After investigation, charge-sheet was filed against the Petitioners under Sections 341 , 323, 294 and 34 of I.P.C. The Petitioners were put to trial.

2. The prosecution in order to prove its case examined as many as eight witnesses. P.W.1 is the informant, P.W.2, P.W.4 and P.W.5 are the F.I.R. named witnesses, whereas P.W.3 is the husband of the informant who is a post occurrence witness and P.W.6 is the doctor who examined the informant.

3. The learned trial Court by evaluating the entire evidence on record came to the conclusion that the prosecution could not prove the case insofar the offences under Sections 341 , 294 and 34 of I.P.C. are concerned. However, opined that the prosecution could prove beyond all reasonable doubt regarding the commission of the offences under Sections 323 and 34 of I.P.C. by both the Petitioners. The learned trial Court accordingly convicted the Petitioners under and 34 of I.P.C. While recording the acquittal in favour of the Petitioners insofar as the offences under , 294 and 34 of I.P.C. are concerned, the learned J.M.F.C., Kantabanji vide its judgment dated 17.02.2010 has inter alia stated as under:-

"In the present case the evidence of the P.W.I (injured) is consistent with the contents of the F.I.R. and also with the statements given by her before police. Not a single contradiction has been brought out in the cross-examination to her earlier statement before police. Therefore, the injured informant (P.W.1) has categorically narrated the details of the incident happened at the spot. That apart, the eye witness also supported the evidence of the P. W.1 regarding assault given by the accused persons to P.W.1. The evidence of the P.W.1 also finds support from the evidence of the treating Doctor. Nothing substantial has been brought out in the cross-examination to disbelieve or discredit the evidence of the injured. Considering the above evidence on record come I to the conclusion that prosecution has well proved its case u/S. 323/34 I.P.C. against both the accused persons.

From the F.I.R. it appears that the occurrence started when accused Jatiya broken the earthen pot of the informant. Thereafter, accused Baibasuta came to the spot and abused the informant. At that time informant opposed the accused persons. There is no evidence on record that accused persons voluntarily obstructed the informant so as to prevent her from proceeding in any direction in which informant had a right to proceed. In absence of such evidence, it is held that the accused persons cannot be held liable for committing the offence of wrongful restrain. As such prosecution has failed to establish its case u/S.341/34 I.P.C. against the accused persons.

In view of my above discussion and finding I come to the conclusion that pros