Present : IN THE COURT OF THE SUB-DIVISIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, BHUBANESWAR Sri Arun Kumar Sahoo, B.Sc. LLM, SDJM, Bhubaneswar G.R. Case No.- 1306/06 Trial No.-1633/06 Date of argument : 22.7.2007 Date of Judgment : 2.8.2007 State.. Prosecution Versus 1. Charan Pradhan, aged about 49years, W/O- Balabhadara Pradhan of Village- Brajasundarpur, Nuasahi, P.S., Ranput Dist-Nayagarh, A/P:LIG-118, Ananta Vihar, Pokhariput, P.S.-Airfield, Dist-Khurda 2. Smt. Kuna samal, aged about 33years, W/o-Alok Samal of Village- Samanta Sahi, Aul, P.S.-Aul, Dist-Kendrapada, At Present : Plot No.- 240/15E, Aerodrome Area, Lane-9, P.S.Airfield Dist- Khurda 3. Smt. Babi Jit, aged about 32 years, S/o-Alok Jit Village-Tulasi Chaura, Takatput, P.S.-Baripada Town, At/Present:Plot NO-216/A/55, Aerodrome Area, Lane-8, C/o-Rajendra Khatri, P.S.Airfield,Dist- Khurda 4. Smt. Parul Behera, aged about 31 years, w/o-amar Kumar Behera of Village-Station Bazar, Baripada, P.S.-Baripada Town, Dist- Mayurbhanja, At present: Plot No-1623, Lane-10, Aerodrome Area, P.S. Airfield, Dist-Khurda 5. Amar Kumar Behera, aged about 38years, S/o-Late Barihar Behera of Villge-station Bazar Baripada, P.S.-Baripada Town, At-Mayurbhanja, At Present : Plot No.-1623, Lane-10, Aerodrome area, P.S.-Airfield Dist-Khurda.. Accused Persons Offence U/S-388/389/294/506/419/120-B/34 I.P.C.
Counsel for the prosecution : A.P.P. Bhubaneswar Counsel for the defence : Sri C.R.Dash, Sri R.K. Khuntia and Sri B.P.Tripathy and others Advocates JUDGMENT 1. The above named accused persons stand charged for commission of offence U/S-388/389/294/506/419/120-B/34 of I.P.C. 2. The case of the prosecution as per the F.I.R. in short is that on 27.03.06 the accused persons in furtherance of their common intention of all put the informant in fear and exhorted money by giving threat and making her naked and also cheated him making a conspiracy by taking money and also post dated cheques with pretention by asking of help. The informant in good faith went to the accused persons after receiving a telephone call as he was in need of money and to get the same but the accused persons instead making a plan to put him in fear of filling a rape case against him for which he reported the matter before the I.I.C, Airfield P.S. followed by investigation and submission of charge sheet against the accused persons. Hence this case, during course of trial both the parties have filed a joint compromise petition for which the accused persons were acquitted from the charges leveled against them U/S-506 /419/34 of IPC and are facing trial U/S- 388/389/294/506/419/120-B/34 of I.P.C. 3. The plea of the defence is one of complete denial. 4. The points for determination in this case are as follows :- Whether on the alleged date, time and place the accused persons in furtherance of their common intention : i) Committed extortion by putting Surendra Kumar Prusty in fear of an accusation against him of having committed an offence punishable with death? ii) Putting the informant Surendra Kumar Prusty in fear and accusation of offence, in order to commit extortion? iii) Abused the informant in obscene words in or near any public place causing annoyance to him and others? iv) Committed criminal intimidation by threatening one Surendra Kumar Prusty with injury to his person with intent to cause alarm toe the said Surendra Kumar Prusty with dire consequence?
v) Pretending to be file a rape case cheated one Surendra Kumar Prusty? vi) Agreed with others accused persons to do an illegal act with them besides the agreement in pursuance of the said agreement to commit the offence punishable with death. 5. In order to prove the case prosecution has examined as may as eight witnesses in its favour and the rest four witnesses were declined by the learned App. On the other hand, no one was examined on behalf of the accused persons as the accuse statement was dispensed with out of the eight witnesses examined on behalf of the accused persons of whom P.W.8 is the informant, P.W.6 is the son of the informant, p.w. 4 and 5 are the brothers of the informant and the rest are the independent witnesses. 6. ON perusal of the evidence of the p.w. it is found that he knows the informant but does not know any of the accuse persons and also is having no knowledge about the alleged incident and was not even examined by the police. He further submitted that nothing was seized in his presence by the police but he proved his signature son the four seizure list as Ext. 1,2,3,4 which he did asper the instruction of police. In his cross-examination he has stated that nothing was written inht paper when he put his signatures. P.w.2 and 7 did not support the prosecution case in any manner by stating htat they have no knowledge about the case incident. P.w.3 stated to have no knowledge about thje occurrence and nothing was ever seized in his presence but he proved his signatures on the seized in his presence but he proved his signatures on the seizure list as Ext. 1/1, 2/1, 3/1 respectively and his cross-examination shows that he had put his signatures on the blank papers. P.w.4 who happens to be the brother of the informant has stated that the incident took place nearly one year ago but he has no knowledge about the detail of the incident but there was a quarrel between the party which he had heard form his brother. P.w.-5 stated that the incident has amicably settled between them. Similarly p.w.6 having no knowledge but has heard that the accused persons had assaulted his father and abused him. The informant in his evidence submitted that he knows all the accused persons. The incident took place on 27.3.06 which has been compromised hence he does not want to proceed with the case mater. He proved the FIR as Ext.5 and his signature on it as Ext. 5/1. In his cross-examination he has
categorically stated that he deposing voluntarily without being influenced by anyone. 7. In the circumstance, when the matter has been compromised and the informant is not interested to bring home the charge against the accused persons and moreover when there is no direct or circumstantial evidence to hold the accused of committing the alleged offence I am of the view that prosecution has filed to establish the case against the accused persons and accordingly the accused persons are acqwuitted U/S-248(1) Cr. P.C..They be set at liberty being released from their bail bonds. Enter the case as a mistake of fact. Typed to my dictation, corrected by me and pronounced the judgment in open court today given under my hand and seal this the 2 nd day of August, 2007. List of witnesses examined on behalf of the prosecution : P.w. 1 P.w. 2 P.w. 3 P.w.4 P.w. 5 P.w. 6 P.w. 7 P.w. 8 Pitamabar Mohapatra Brundaban Dalei Santosh Kumar Bhoi Arun Kumar Prusty Upendra Kumar Prusty Sudhansu Sekhar Prusty Bishnu Charan Das Surendra Kumar Prusty List of witnesses examined on behalf of the defence: Nil List of Exts. Marked on behalf of the prosecution: Ext. 1, 2, 3 & 4 : Signature of p.w.1 on the seizure list Ext. 1/1, 2/1, 3/1, & 4/1 : Signature of p.w.3 on the four seizure list. Ext. 5 : FIR Ext. 6 : Signature of p.w.8 on Ext.5 List of Exts. Marked on behalf of the defence : Nil
List of M.Os marked : Nil