The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK CRLLP No.109 of 2004 State of Orissa ..... Petitioner Mr. U.R. Jena, AGA -versus- Arjuna Das and others ..... Opposite Parties Represented By Adv. - M/s. Debi Prasad Dhal, Mr. S. K. Tripathy, Mr. A. Behera CORAM: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR MOHAPATRA
Decision
ORDER 14.10.2025 Order No. 08. 1. 2. This matter is taken up through Hybrid mode. Heard learned counsel for the State-Petitioner as well as learned counsel for the Opposite Parties-accused. Perused the application as well as the prayer made therein. 3. The present application has been filed under Section 378 (1) & (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 with a prayer for grant of leave to prefer an appeal against the judgment of acquittal dated 07.08.2004 passed by the learned Asst. Sessions Judge, Chatrapur, Ganjam in Sessions Case No.66 of 2002/ Sessions Case No.221 of 2002, arising out of G.R. No.158 of 2001, whereby the accused-Opposite Parties have been acquitted of charges under Sections 395, 364 & 364 (A) of IPC. Page 1 of 5. 4. The prosecution case in a nutshell is that an FIR was lodged at the instance of the Informant alleging therein that on 01.06.2001 at about 02.10 P.M. the Informant, namely Dandapani Sahu, the driver of Surendra Kumar Naik was driving an Ambassador car bearing registration No.ORG 7071 was going towards Ganjam town to bring the daughter of his employer, Surendra Kumar Naik, who was aged about 15 years at the time of occurrence and had gone to attend the tuition class. At that time near cashew factory at Telugunuagaon, the accused persons except accused Muna Das came to the spot by covering their faces with black clothes and stopped the vehicle forcibly and kidnapped the Victim, who is the daughter of the employer of the Informant. The Informant was taken out of the vehicle and was tied to a tree at a little distance. Thereafter, the accused persons fled away from the spot in the vehicle kidnapping the Victim. One hour thereafter, the driver, the Informant-P.W.-1, somehow freed himself and, along with the father of the Victim, went to the police station to lodge a report. Accordingly, the P.S. Case was registered and the investigation commenced. During trial, the prosecution examined a total 12 witnesses, out of which P.W.-1 is the Informant-driver and P.W.-7 is the Victim, who are the eye witnesses to the occurrence. Other witnesses examined are witnesses to the seizure etc. 5. Learned trial Court, on an analysis of the evidence on record, has disbelieved the version of P.Ws.-1 & 7. So far the P.W.-7 is concerned, her testimony has been disbelieved on the ground that she has made certain improvements in her evidence and accordingly her evidence has been completely discarded. Similarly the evidence of P.W.-1 has also been discarded and the learned trial Court has treated the case to be one based solely on circumstantial evidence. Page 2 of 5. Finally the learned trial Court has come to a conclusion that the prosecution has failed to prove its case and, accordingly, the accused persons have been acquitted of all charges. 6. Learned counsel for the Petitioner at this juncture contended that there are ample materials to establish the involvement of the Opposite Parties in the present crime. He further submitted that some of the accused persons have been identified by the Victim herself in the TI Parade as well as in the dock in the court room. Learned counsel for the State further contended that the learned trial Court has erroneously appreciated the evidence of P.Ws.-1 & 7, who are eye witnesses to the occurrence. By disbelieving the evidence of P.Ws.1 & 7 on vague and fringe ground, the learned trial Court has committed a gross error of law. He further contended that although the learned trial Court has disbelieved the version of P.Ws.1 & 7 and treated the case to be a case based on circumstantial evidence, however, the circumstances revolving around the alleged crime have not been properly discussed in the impugned judgment. On such ground, learned counsel for the State contended that there are ample material basing upon which the entire judgment of the learned trial Court can be reversed and the accused persons can very well be convicted in this case. Further, taking into consideration the gravity and seriousness of the allegation, learned State counsel contended that leave should be granted to the State to prefer an appeal against the judgment of the acquittal and the same would be in the larger interest of justice. 7. Learned counsel appearing for the accused-Opposite Parties on the other hand supported the judgment of the learned trial Court. He further contended that after a threadbare analysis of the entire evidence the learned trial Court has come to a conclusion that the Page 3 of 5. prosecution has failed to establish the allegations. Accordingly, it was contended that the learned trial Court has not committed any illegality in giving the benefit of doubt to the Opposite Parties and thereby acquitting them of all charges. He further submitted that there are two alleged eye witnesses to the occurrence, i.e., P.Ws.-1 & 7. The learned trial Court after a careful analysis of the evidence of P.Ws.1 & 7 has completely discarded their evidence. Therefore, the entire prosecution case was based on the circumstantial evidence. Since the prosecution failed to establish its case on the basis of the circumstantial evidence, the learned trial Court has rightly disbelieved the case of the prosecution and the accused-Opposite Parties have been given the benefit of doubt and they have been eventually acquitted. On such ground, learned counsel for the Opposite Parties contended that the learned trial Court has not committed any illegality, therefore, the leave application should be dismissed. 8. Having heard the learned counsels appearing for the respective parties, on a careful examination of the impugned judgment, further on a close scrutiny of the evidence on record, this Court is of the prima facie view that the allegation made in the FIR is serious in nature. The case of the prosecution involved kidnapping of a minor girl, who is aged about 15 years, in the broad day-light. Moreover, on a close scrutiny of the evidence led on behalf of the prosecution, this Court was shocked to learn that although the Victim-P.W. 7 has identified some of the witnesses and has stood by her version, the same has been completely discarded by the learned court below. Similarly the version of the P.W. 1-Informant, who happens to be driver of the Victim’s father and was present at the spot of occurrence and has seen the entire occurrence, has also been Page 4 of 5. disbelieved. This Court further observes that although the learned trial Court disbelieved the ocular testimony of the eye witnesses and has come to hold that the case of the prosecution is based on circumstantial evidence, however, such circumstantial evidence has not been properly discussed in the impugned judgment. 9. In view of the aforesaid analysis of the factual as well as legal position, this Court is of the considered view that there are several lacunas in the impugned judgment. Moreover, the manner in which the testimony of the eye witnesses has been discarded, requires re- examination. Furthermore, considering the gravity and seriousness of the allegation and the nature of the crime, this Court is inclined to grant leave to the State to prefer an appeal. 10. Accordingly, the leave application is allowed. Let the Government Appeal be filed within four weeks from today. S.K. Rout ( Aditya Kumar Mohapatra ) Judge Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SANTANU KUMAR ROUT Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 19-Oct-2025 12:46:42 Page 5 of 5.