In a criminal appeal under Section 378 CrPC against an acquittal in a criminal breach of trust case, the High Court rejected the appeal, finding no error in the trial court's appreciation of evidence which showed the dispute was civil in nature and lacked corroboration.
The appeal was dismissed; no order as to costs.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
CRA NO.373 of 1993
(In the matter of application under Section 378(4) of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973.).
Nandikash Mishra …. Appellant
-versus-
Gajendra Nath and Another …. Respondents
For Appellant : Mr. A. Routray, Advocate
For Respondents : Mr. J.K. Mishra, Advocate
CORAM:
JUSTICE G. SATAPATHY
DATE OF JUDGMENT:22.03.2023
G. Satapathy, J.
1. This is an appeal against acquittal as recorded on 30.06.1993 by learned Munsif-Cum-J.M.F.C., Sambalpur in 1.C.C. No.95 of 1986 (T.R. No.138 of 1987) acquitting the Respondents No.1 and 2 for offence U/Ss.406/411/109 of IPC.
Page 1 of 6
CRA No.373 of 1993
2. Facts in precise are Appellant being the Complainant instituted a complaint against the Respondents in 1.C.C. No.95 of 1986 in the Court of learned S.D.J.M., Sambalpur alleging therein that on 11.09.1986 Respondent No.1 by making false representation of ownership over Schedule ‘A’ land belonging to the Complainant as ancestral property transferred it to Respondents No.2 and 3 by executing a registered sale deed for a consideration of Rs.25,000/(Rupees Twenty Five Thousand) and, thereby, Respondent No.1 committed criminal breach of trust and Respondents No.2 and 3 being awared of such fact, had joined hands with Respondent No.1 by entering into conspiracy to commit the offence.
Although the Respondent No.3 had been described as an accused in the complaint, but he was discharged of the offence in the case by an order passed on 28.01.1988 by the learned J.M.F.C., Sambalpur
Page 2 of 6
CRA No.373 of 1993
whereas Respondent No.1 stood charged for offence U/S.406 of IPC and Respondent No.2 for offences U/Ss.406/109/411 of IPC on alteration of charge.
3 . In support of his case, the ComplainantAppellant examined three witnesses including himself as P.Ws. 1 to 3 and relied upon the documents under Ext.1
to 5 as against no evidence whatsoever by the Respondent Nos. 1 and 2. During the pendency of the appeal, Respondent No.1 against whom the main allegation of committing offence U/S.406 of IPC is alleged, expired and the appeal against him stands abated, but the discharge of Respondent No.3 being not challenged in any forum had already attained finality.
4. In the above circumstance, the only thing to be
examined here is the legality of the impugned order exonerating Respondent No.2, who had been charged for offences of abetting the commission of offence and dishonestly receiving the property.
CRA No.373 of 1993 Page 3 of 6
5 . Heard the learned counsel for the Appellant as
well as the Respondent No.2 in the appeal and perused the record.
6. After careful perusal of the impugned judgment, it appears that the learned trial Court after duly appreciating the evidence on record, had passed the judgment acquitting the Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and this Court does not find any error apparent in appreciation of the evidence so as to disturb the findings of the acquittal of the aforesaid Respondents. On going through the evidence on record and facts of the case, there appears hardly any dispute that the subject matter of the complaint was regarding purchase of a piece of land, which was civil dispute in nature. P.W.1 in his evidence had neither stated any role played by Respondent No.2 nor made it clear what was the act of Respondent No.2 as revealed from his evidence. Besides, P.W.1-cum-complainant in his evidence had admitted that
Page 4 of 6
CRA No.373 of 1993
he could not say the extent of Plot No.2099/1, which was the disputed land and when Respondent No.1 constructed a house over such plot. It was also admitted by him to have not filed any document to correlate the land under Ext.1 and the land under Ext.5 to be one and same, but Ext.5 was the unregistered deed of agreement. What is most important is that P.W.1 had admitted that he had not demarcated the disputed land to correlate with land under Ext.4 with Ext.1 and Ext.5, but the so called sale deed under Ext.4 was disputed. Learned trial Court by its finding had come to a conclusion that it cannot be said that Respondent No.1 had sold away any stolen property to Respondent No.2 under Ext.4 and such finding had never been validly challenged by the Appellant in this appeal. A careful assessment of the evidence, this Court does not find any evidence with regard to the kind of assistance provided by Respondent No.2 to Respondent
CRA No.373 of 1993 Page 5 of 6
No.1 either abetting or committing any offence of criminal breach of trust.
7. In view of the aforesaid facts and on
reappraisal of the evidence on record, nothing was found by this Court to infer any illegality with the impugned
judgment, which suffers from no perversity, rather the
same had been passed on sound consideration and appreciation of evidence on record.
8. In the result, the appeal fails and is dismissed on contest, but in the circumstance, there is no order as to costs.
(G. Satapathy)
Judge
Orissa High Court, Cuttack, Dated the 22nd day of March, 2023/Subhasmita
Page 6 of 6
CRA No.373 of 1993
2 issues framed by the court
Whether appellate court can interfere with the acquittal of Respondent No.2 for criminal breach of trust and dishonestly receiving property.
Whether there was sufficient evidence to show that the sale of disputed land was committed by Respondent No.1 and abetted by Respondent No.2.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Nandikash Mishra
Gajendra Nath
Second Respondent
G. Satapathy
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
