The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK CRLA No.529 of 2024 (An appeal U/S. 14(A) of the SC & ST (PoA) Act, 1989 r/w Sec. 372 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 against the order dated 07.05.2024 passed by Shri Rajesh Dash, Addl. Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge, Sundergarh in Special G.R. Case No.151/151 of 2021- 2022 arising out of Talsara P.S. Case No.178 of 2021) Sushama Kujur …. Appellant State of Orissa and others …. Respondents -versus- For Appellants : Mr. S.Choudhury, Advocate For Respondent : Mr. T.K. Praharaj, Standing Counsel CORAM: JUSTICE G. SATAPATHY DATE OF HEARING & JUDGMENT:28.08.2024(ORAL) G. Satapathy, J. 1. This is an appeal U/S. 14(A) of the Scheduled Caste & Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 as amended by Act 1 of 2016 (in short the “Act”) r/w Sec. 372 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (In short the “Code”) by the Appellant challenging the order of acquittal of CRLA No.529 of 2024 Page 1 of 7 Respondent No.4 in Special G.R. Case No.151/151 of 2021-2022. 2. In the aforesaid case, the learned Additional Sessions Judge by passing the impugned judgment on 07.05.2024 has acquitted Respondent No.4 of the charge for commission of offences punishable U/Ss. 493/417/323/506 of IPC r/w Sec. 3(1)(r)(s)(2)(v) of the SC & ST(PoA) Act. 3. The prosecution case in precise is that Respondent No.4 who was an accused in the aforesaid case used to come to the house of the victim to take electric meter reading and generate bills, but during the said period, Respondent No.4 developed intimacy with the victim by taking her phone number and in the process, by giving false assurance to marry the victim, had managed and continued to cohabit with her for five years. It is also alleged that the Respondent No.4 was also used to assault the victim when she disconnected telephone calls and when their relationship being made public, the husband of the victim assaulted her and CRLA No.529 of 2024 Page 2 of 7 thereafter, she snapped ties with the Respondent No.4 by asking him not to talk with her. Once her husband returned from Bombay and assaulted her because of her relationship with Respondent No.4, but one day, her husband was found murdered and she was suspected in the murder of her husband and was sent to jail. After being released on bail, the
Legal Reasoning
victim lodged an FIR resulting in the present case in which Respondent No.4 had faced the trial with charge for commission of offences punishable U/Ss. 493/417/323/506 of IPC r/w Sec. 3(1)(r)(s)(2)(v) of the Act. 4. In support of its case, the prosecution examined altogether eighteen witnesses under PWs.1 to 18 and proved seventeen documents under Ext.P-1 to Ext.P-17 as against no evidence whatsoever by the defence. The plea of the accused-Respondent No.4 in the course of trial was denial simplicitor and false implication. 5. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties upon perusal of record, the learned trial Court CRLA No.529 of 2024 Page 3 of 7 by the impugned judgment acquitted the Respondent No.4 of the charge for aforesaid offences. Being aggrieved with the order of acquittal, the victim has preferred this appeal. 6. In assailing the impugned judgment of
Legal Reasoning
acquittal, Mr. Sankaracharya Choudhury, learned counsel for the appellant submits that although there are twenty six charge-sheeted witnesses, but the learned trial Court had only examined eighteen witnesses leaving the Medical Officer who is a material witness and thereby, grave prejudice has been caused to the victim. He further submits that had all the materials been brought on record and appreciated, the Respondent No.4 might have been convicted for the offences and, therefore, the present appeal may kindly be admitted by issuing notice to the Respondent No.4. 7. On the contrary, Mr. T.K. Praharaj, learned Standing Counsel, by taking this Court through the evidence of the victim submits that there is no infirmity in the impugned judgment since the victim CRLA No.529 of 2024 Page 4 of 7 has not supported the charge against the Respondent No.4 and thereby, the learned trial Court has constraint to hold the accused not guilty to the charge leveled against him. 8. After hearing the learned counsel for the appellant and the State upon perusal of record, this Court considers it imperative to examine the evidence of the victim at the inception, since the Respondent No.4 was charged for commission of offence punishable U/Ss. 493/417/323/506 of IPC r/w Sec. 3(1)(r)(s)(2)(v) of the Act, but the evidence of the victim clearly transpires that she was a married lady and there is no chance of her, believing Respondent No.4 to be her husband and on the supposition of her being the legally wedded wife of Respondent No.4, she submitted to Respondent No.4. Thus, the charge for offence U/S.493 of IPC is bound to fail on the aforesaid evidence. 9. Similarly, the victim has also brought allegation against Respondent No.4 cheating her by cohabiting on the false assurance of marriage, but CRLA No.529 of 2024 Page 5 of 7 when the victim herself is a married lady and during subsistence of such marriage, how she could establish physical relationship with the Respondent No.4 on the assurance of marriage and thereby, charge U/S. 417 of IPC is also bound to fail. Moreover, the evidence of the victim does not inspire confidence and the learned trial Court has not only examined the victim, but also examined another seventeen witnesses and appreciated their evidence while recording acquittal of the present Respondent No.4. Law is also fairly well settled that in case of acquittal, the presumption of innocence which is fundamental in nature in criminal prosecution is reinforced and unless there is compelling circumstance to interfere with the judgment of acquittal, the Appellate Court should go slow in interfering such judgment of the trial Court. 10. In the aforesaid backdrop and situation, especially when the learned trial Court has taken into consideration all the material evidence including that of the victim in proper prospective, this Court does CRLA No.529 of 2024 Page 6 of 7 not find any substance in the submission of the Appellant to admit the present appeal. Hence, this Court considers it unnecessary to admit the present appeal. 11. In the result, the appeal being devoid on merit stands dismissed. (G. Satapathy) Judge Orissa High Court, Cuttack, Dated the 28thday of August, 2024/Priyajit Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: PRIYAJIT SAHOO Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA Date: 29-Aug-2024 14:15:22 CRLA No.529 of 2024 Page 7 of 7