Orissa High Court Refuses To Reverse 29 Yrs Old Acquittal Order In 'Civil Dispute' Painted As Theft Case

While dismissing the appeal, the Single Judge Bench of Justice Gourishankar Satapathy said:

“One of the important facts, which weighed in the mind of this court is that the order of acquittal of the accused persons was recorded by the learned trial Court around 29 years back and reversing such finding of acquittal after a long lapse of time, can never be said to be in the interest of justice for a matter relating to civil dispute between the parties.”

The appellant filed a complaint against the respondents alleging that they cut and took away paddy grown by him on his land. On receipt of complaint, the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate took cognizance of offence under Sections 379/34 of IPC and the respondents were put on trial. On conclusion of trial, the Judicial Magistrate First Class passed the impugned order acquitting the respondents, which was challenged by the appellant in this appeal.

It was argued on behalf of the appellant that the trial Court had acquitted the respondents solely on the ground that the ownership of the land was doubtful. However, the allegation established by the appellant was to the effect that the paddy grown by the appellant had been cut down and taken away by the respondents.

Therefore, it was contended that a clear case of 379/34 of IPC was made out against the respondents. But the trial Court had acquitted the respondents ignoring legally admissible evidence and the criminality of the appellant. Thus, it was urged to reverse the impugned finding.

The High Court underlined the settled legal position that finding in the order of acquittal shall not ordinarily be interfered with merely because an alternate view is possible and in case of acquittal, the presumption of innocence is re-enforced in favour of the accused persons. It further said,

“The appellate Court in case of appeal against acquittal shall not embark upon re-appreciation of evidence, unless there is clear miscarriage of justice and compelling reasons for doing so by the acquittal of the accused-respondents. Aforestated principle has not been settled arbitrarily or whimsically because it cannot be denied that the trial Court has the advantage of looking at the demeanour of the witnesses and observing their actual conduct in the witness box.”

Then, the Court embarked upon the facts of the case and observed that a bare reading of the complaint discloses some civil disputes between the appellant and respondents, but the trial Court was approached for redressal of grievance on the criminal side, that is for commission of theft.

Accordingly, the Court concluded that there is no error apparent in the judgment of the trial Court which needs interference at this belated stage. It was of the view that reversal of the finding will not be in the interest of justice, especially when dispute was civil in nature.

“…taking into consideration a well reasoned judgment of acquittal as recorded by the learned J.M.F.C., Bhadrak in this case, this Court does not find any rhyme and reason to interfere with the order of acquittal recorded around 29 years back to reverse the finding and convict the respondent-accused.”

Resultantly, the appeal was dismissed being devoid of merit.

Case Title: Ashok Kumar Das v. Kapileswar Samal & Ors.

Case No.: CRA No. 41 of 1995

Judgment Dated: 19^th January 2023

Coram: G. Satapathy, J.

Counsel for the Appellant: Mr. A. Pradhan, Advocate

Counsel for the Respondents: None

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ori) 14