Orissa High Court
Chintamani Sethi vs Raghunath Mohanty on 26 February, 2003
Equivalent citations: 2003CRILJ2866
Author: B.P. Das
Bench: B.P. Das
JUDGMENT B.P. Das, J.
1. This appeal calls in question the order dated 17-10-1987 passed by the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Karanjia in ICC No. 60/86-87 acquitting the accused-respondent of the charge under Section 448 of the Indian Penal Code, read with Section 7 of the Protection of Civil Rights Act of 1955.
2. Initially Sri K.C. Lenka, Sri D.K. Swain and Sri J.K. Mohanty, Advocates had filed vakalatnama for the appellant. As they did not appear on different dates, Mr. S.K. Mishra, Advocate was appointed by this Court as amicus curiae. Similarly, though Sri B. Dash, Sri M. Acharya and Sri P.P. Roy had filed vakalatnama on behalf of the respondent, as none of them appeared; notice was issued to the respondent. However, today there is no appearance on behalf of the respondent.
3. The fact leading to this appeal is that a complaint was filed by the present appellant alleging therein that on 22-8-1986 at about 8.00 A.M. the present respondent, who is a Sarapanch and also the President of Mahuldia LAMP, trespassed into the house of the complainant and asked him as to why he was helping his maid-servant Sumitra Ghasiani in filing cases against other. On the complainant denying such allegation, the accused abused him saying "Sala Dhoba, Lower Caste, untouchable; Sala your profession is to wash others' Clothes; because you are employed in a Government job, you are showing arrogance. I will not give up till you are driven out from this place."
4. The defence plea is one of complete denial of the occurrence. The accused also took the plea of alibi saying that on the date and hour of occurrence, he was at Mahuldia LAMP.
5. The prosecution had examined four witnesses including the present complainant-appellant and the defence had examined three witnesses. The case of the defence was that D.W.2 had complained against the wife of the appellant, who was working as a midwife in Satakosla Government Dispensary, before the present respondent alleging dereliction of her duty. The matter was taken up in the Panchayat meeting and it was resolved to move the higher authorities against the wife of the appellant. The resolution of the Panchayat was exhibited as Ext. C.
6. The trial Court on evaluation of the evidence on record disbelieved the case of the complainant. Moreover, taking into account the delay of two months in filing the complaint, it recorded an order of acquittal. The trial Court also disbelieved the case of the complainant that immediately after the occurrence, he had reported the matter at the Police Station on the ground that the complainant failed to prove the relevant entry made in the Station Diary of the concerned Police Station.
7. Learned counsel for the appellant strenuously argued that taking into consideration the materials available on record, the trial Court should have come to a conclusion that the complainant has proved his case beyond reasonable doubt. On perusal of Ext. C, I find that on 14-5-1986 a resolution was passed in the Panchayat to take action against the midwife of Champajhar on the allegation of one Bansidhar Nayak. By the said resolution, the present respondent, who was the Sarpanch, was authorised to move the higher authorities against the midwife of Champajhar.
8. On a reading of the entire evidence available on record and on perusal of Ext.C, I am of the view that the complaint made by the complainant is shrouded with doubts and suspicion, which the trial Court was rightly disbelieved, and I do not find any irregularity or illegality to have been committed by the learned S.D.J.M., Karanjia in holding the accused-respondent not guilty of the charges. This appeal is thus devoid of any merit.
9. The Criminal Appeal is accordingly dismissed and the order of the trial Court is confirmed.