State of Rajasthan v. Talevar & Anr., AIR
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK G.A. No.28 of 1994 State of Odisha …. Appellant -versus- Muna @ Madhusudan Kar and others …. Respondents Advocates appeared in this case: For Appellant For Respondents : : Mrs. Saswata Pattnaik, Additional Government Advocate Mr. Kishore Kumar Mishra, Advocate (R/1) Mr. Lalit Kumar Maharana, Advocate (R/3) CORAM: THE CHIEF JUSTICE JUSTICE CHITTARANJAN DASH JUDGMENT 10.10.2022 Dr. S. Muralidhar, CJ. 1. The present appeal by the State of Odisha is directed against the judgment dated 16th October 1993of the II Additional Sessions Judge, Puri in Sessions Trial Case No.56/286 of 1991 acquitting the Respondents of the offence under Section 302/34 IPC for committing the murders of Kasinath Panda and Narayan Panda on 11th August 1990, at around 1.40 pm. G.A.No.28 of 1994 Page 1 of 20 2. It must be noted at the outset that initially this Court had by its judgment dated 20th May 2009 allowed the present appeal reversing the judgment of the trial Court and convicting each of the Respondents for the offence under Section 302/34 IPC and sentencing each of them to undergo imprisonment for life. Remand order of the Supreme Court 3. Against the said judgment, the Respondents preferred Criminal Appeal No.2175 of 2009 in the Supreme Court of India. By the order dated 21st May 2012, the Supreme Court set aside the judgment of this Court and inter aliaobserved as follows:
Legal Reasoning
“The High Court similarly narrated the facts and evidence of the witnesses upto paragraph No.12 of the judgment. In paragraph 13, in a very cryptic manner and without giving any reason the High Court reversed the findings recorded by the trial Court. The High Court did not come to the conclusion that any of the findings recorded by the trial court had been perverse being based on noevidence or was contrary to the evidence on record. On the motive part a finding has been reason whatsoever. recorded without giving any The law of interfering with the judgment of acquittal is well settled. It is to the effect that only in exceptional cases where there are compelling circumstances and the judgment in appeal is found to be perverse, the appellate court can interfere with the order of the acquittal. The appellate court should bear in mind the presumption of innocence of the accused and further that the trial court’s acquittal bolsters the presumption of innocence. Interference in a routine manner where the other view is possible should beavoided, unless G.A.No.28 of 1994 Page 2 of 20