S. DONGANNA AND ORS . Vs. STATE
LAWS(ORI)-1973-6-7
HIGH COURT OF ORISSA
Decided on June 25,1973

S. Donganna And Ors . Appellant
VERSUS
STATE Respondents

JUDGEMENT

B.K.Patra, J. - (1.) THE Petitioners were prosecuted on charges under Sections 143, 447, 294 and 426, Indian Penal Code in the Court of the Sub -Divisional Magistrate, Rayagada and convicted under Section 447, Indian Penal Code and each of them was sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 30/ - and in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for fifteen days.
(2.) AT about 7.30 p.m. on 4 -11 -1968, there was a quarrel between Petitioner No. 1 S. Donganna and one G. Neelakantham, the brother -in -law of the complainant p.w. 1. P.W. 1 went to the place and obviously intervened in the quarrel on behalf of his brother -in -law. Thereupon, the Petitioners were alleged to have chased him from the spot. Out of fear, p.w. 1 ran away into his house and bolted the door from inside. It is the prosecution case that the Petitioners in a body went inside the complainant 's house, knocked at the door and in the process damaged it and abused p.w. 1 in filthy language. P.W. 1 lodged information at the nearest out -post on 7 -11 -1968. After necessary investigation, the Petitioners and two others, who are said to have been acquitted by the trial Court, were placed on trial. The Petitioners denied having committed the offence. Their case is that previous to the alleged occurrence one Adiamma had filed a criminal case against p.w. 1 under Section 323, Indian Penal Code in which some of the present Petitioners figured as witnesses for Adiamma and the case ended in conviction of p.w. 1 and that consequently p.w. 1 has foisted this case against the Petitioners.
(3.) THE learned Magistrate after considering the evidence on record came to the conclusion that the prosecution has succeeded in establishing that on the night of occurrence when p.w. 1 intervened in the quarrel between his brother -in -law and Petitioner No. 1, e was chased by the Petitioners and when he out of fear ran away to his house and bolted his door from inside, all the Petitioners had trespassed into his house. He did not find sufficient evidence in support of the prosecution case that the Petitioners either abused p.w. 1 in filthy language or that they caused any damage to his door. He did not also find sufficient evidence to show that the Petitioners were members of an unlawful assembly. In the result, therefore, he convicted the Petitioners only on the charge under Section 447, Indian Penal Code.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.