The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK CRLLP No.108 of 2009 Sri Krushna Chandra Sahu ..... -versus- Sri Sanadi Pradhan and others ..... Petitioner Represented By Adv. – Ms. Barsharani Sahoo M/s. P.K.Nanda, B.D. Das, G. Sabar Opposite Parties Represented By Adv. –
Legal Reasoning
Mr. Rajesh Ku.mohapatra, Advocate for O.P. Nos.4 & 5 CORAM: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR MOHAPATRA
Decision
ORDER 22.10.2025 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual /Physical Mode). 2. Heard the learned counsel for the Petitioner as well as learned counsel for the Accused-Opposite Parties No.4 & 5. Perused the application as well as the prayer made therein. 3. By filing the present application under Section 378(4) of the Cr.P.C., the Petitioner seeks leave from this Court to prefer an appeal against the judgment of acquittal dated 20.08.2009 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Patrapur, Ganjam in I.C.C. No.5 of 2008, which corresponds to T.R. No.219 of 2008. Page 1 of 5. Order No. 11. 4. The present application has been filed at the instance of the Petitioner (Complainant-Victim) in a case which was registered as I.C.C. No.5 of 2008 for alleged commission of offences under Sections 294/323/448/506/34 of I.P.C. and wherein the Opposite Parties were acquitted vide order dated 20.08.2009 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Patrapur, Ganjam in T.R. No.219 of 2008, corresponding to I.C.C. No.5 of 2008. 5. Learned counsel for the Petitioner, at the outset, contended that although there are implicating materials to establish the charges against the present Opposite Parties, however, the trial court while delivering the judgment of acquittal has committed an error by ignoring such evidence. She further contended that the trial court is also guilty of relying upon extraneous evidence to give the benefit of doubt to the Accused-Opposite Parties. While assailing the impugned judgment of acquittal dated 20.08.2009, learned counsel for the Petitioner, drawing attention of this Court to the aforesaid judgment under Annexure-3 to the application, submitted that in paragraph-6 of the judgment, the trial court has discussed with regard to the commission of offence punishable under Section 294 of the I.P.C. He further stated that one of the witnesses has uttered the exact words used by the accused. However, the trial court has observed that since the specific abusive language used by the accused persons have not been stated, the offence under Section 294 of I.P.C. is not made out. It has also been observed that nowhere has it been specifically alleged by the prosecution that such abusive words have caused Page 2 of 5. annoyance to anybody. Thus, the prosecution has failed to prove the allegation under Section 294 of I.P.C. 6. Similarly, while analysing the commission of offence under Section 506 of I.P.C., the trial court has also referred to the evidence of P.W.1. In the said context, learned counsel for the Petitioner submitted that finding of the trial court that the mere act of threating does not constitute offence under Section 506 of I.P.C. is not supported by any principle of law. He further submitted that any act of intimidation has an effect of causing threat to the Complainant can very well be construed as an offence under Section 506 of I.P.C. However, the trial court has erred in law in coming to a concussion that there is no evidence on record that the accused by his conduct has caused any kind of criminal intimidation/threat. Hence, the finding that the ingredients of the offence under Section 506 of I.P.C. have not been satisfied, which, as per the learned counsel for the Petitioner is absolutely wrong, erroneous and illegal. 7. Similarly, with regard to the allegation under Section 323 of I.P.C. which has been discussed in detail in paragraph-8 of the judgment, learned counsel for the Petitioner contended that the Petitioner was not medically examined. Therefore, there was no injury report on record. In the aforesaid context, this Court would like to observe that since the case arises out of a compliant case, the onus was on the Petitioner-Complainant to get the same examined and produce such relevant medical record in the shape of evidence before the trial court. Having not done that the Page 3 of 5. Petitioner cannot take advantage of his own wrong in the present case. Trial court, on the basis of his finding that no injury, alleged to have been caused by the Petitioner, was caused, the case under Section 323 of I.P.C. is not made out. Accordingly, this Court does not call for any interference. 8. Learned counsel for the Opposite Parties No.4 and 5, on the other hand, supported the judgment of the trial court. He further contended that the judgment of acquittal is a well discussed judgment and that the trial court has discussed the oral as well as documentary evidence adduced during trial. In such view of the matter, learned counsel for the Opposite Party-accused contended that the impugned judgment does not call for any interference by this Court and that no leave should be granted to the Petitioner to prefer any further appeal as the same would neither serve the ends of justice nor would be in the larger interest of the parties since it would prolong the finalisation of the matter and cause injustice to the Opposite Parties. It was further emphasized that the occurrence had taken place in the year 2008 and the judgment of acquittal was pronounced in the year 2009, therefore, after expiry of one and half decades no leave to appeal should be granted to the Petitioner. 9. This Court, on careful analysis of the submissions made by the learned counsels appearing for both sides and on a close scrutiny of the impugned judgment of acquittal, is of the considered view that the trial court has not committed any illegality while acquitting the accused-Opposite Parties. The impugned judgment is a detailed one and that the same has taken Page 4 of 5. into consideration the evidence available on record. Moreover, in the meantime, more than one and half decades have been elapsed. Therefore, taking into consideration the gravity and seriousness of the allegation, this Court is not inclined to grant the leave prayed for on the aforesaid grounds. 10. Accordingly, the leave application stands dismissed. However, in the aforesaid facts and circumstances, there shall be no order as to costs. Debasis ( A.K. Mohapatra) Judge Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: DEBASIS AECH Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT Date: 27-Oct-2025 15:01:02 Page 5 of 5.