The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK CRLA NOs.1012 & 925 of 2022 (An appeal U/S.374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 against the judgment passed by Ms. Purnima Jena, Additional Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge, Sonepur in Spl. G.R. Case No.03/01 of 2013-16 arising out of Binka P.S. Case No.89 dated 28.08.2013). Aji @ Ajay Amat (In CRLA No.1012 of 2022) -versus- State of Odisha Pranabandhu @ Muna Mishra (In CRLA No.925 of 2022) -versus- State of Odisha For Appellants … … … … Appellant Respondent Appellant Respondent : Mr. M. Mishra, Advocate along with Mr. B. Mishra, Advocate (In CRLA No.1012 of 2022) Mr. H.K. Malik, Amicus Curiae (In CRLA No.925 of 2022) For Respondent : Mr. K.K. Gaya, ASC CORAM: JUSTICE G. SATAPATHY F DATE OF HEARING &JUDGMENT:21.08.2024(ORAL) G. Satapathy, J. 1. Since these two appeals arise out of one conviction in the same case record, both the appeals CRLA Nos.1012 & 925 of 2022 Page 1 of 26 are heard together and disposed of by way of this common judgment. 2. These are appeals under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short “the Code”) by the convicts challenging their conviction and sentence passed in Special G.R. Case No.03/01 of 2023-16. 2.1. In the above case, the learned Additional Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge, Sonepur by the judgment dated 12.10.2022 convicted the appellants for commission of offence punishable Under Section 20(b)(ii)(C) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (in short “the NDPS Act”) and sentenced each them to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment (RI) for ten years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh), in default whereof, to undergo RI for further period of one year. 3. Facts in precise are that on 28.08.2013 at about 7.00 AM in the morning, on receipt reliable information regarding transportation of Contraband Ganja in an Indigo Car bearing Regd. No.OR-31-1090 CRLA Nos.1012 & 925 of 2022 Page 2 of 26 from Sonepur side to Binka side, PW16-Tarabati Pradhan, the then IIC, Binka PS entered such fact in the Station Diary and thereafter, commanded the ASI- PW17 Pradeep Kumar Pattanaik and staff to verify the genuineness of such information and, accordingly, PW17 and staff went to Nuabazar Chowk of Binka Town and found one Indigo ECS Car bearing Regd. No.OR-31- 1090 coming towards Bargarh side from Sonepur side through Binka road. On seeing the same, PW17 and staff stopped the Car, but two occupants of the Car fled away from the spot and they could only manage to catch hold of two others, who are the convicts in this case, namely Aji @ Ajay Amat and Pranabandhu @ Muna Mishra sitting in the driver seat and back seat of the Car. Since smell of Contraband Ganja was coming out of the vehicle, PW17 intimated PW16 over phone by detaining the convicts with Indigo Car. At about 9 AM, PW16 and staff came to the spot and then, PW16 recovered two jerry sacks from the dickey of the Car and one jerry sack from the rear seat of the Car and, thereafter, the said jerry sacks were opened and CRLA Nos.1012 & 925 of 2022 Page 3 of 26 Contraband Ganja were found in small packets numbering 38, 44 and 25 respectively from the three jerry sacks. PW16 accordingly procured weighman and got the Contraband Ganja recovered from the aforesaid 107 small packets weighed which came to 37Kgs 970Grams, 43Kgs 400Grams and 25Kgs 260Grams respectively from the three polythene sacks, all total 106Kgs 630Grams of Contraband Ganja. On recovery of the aforesaid quantity of Contraband Ganja, PW16 collected two samples, each weighing 25Grams from each jerry sacks, all total six numbers of sample packets at the spot and marked them as A1, A2, B1, B2, C1 and C2 respectively. Further, PW16 seized the aforesaid quantity of small packets of Contraband Ganja and arrested the accused-convicts, and produced the accused-convicts and Contraband articles before the Special Court, Sonepur by drawing and lodging an
Legal Reasoning
FIR. She also prayed for dispatching the samples to Regional Forensic Science Laboratory, Sambalpur for chemical examination and, accordingly, the samples collected at the spot were dispatched to RFSL, CRLA Nos.1012 & 925 of 2022 Page 4 of 26 Sambalpur for chemical examination. The accused- convicts were remanded to custody by the learned Special Court, Sonepur. Subsequently, the investigation was handed over to PW18, who completed the other formalities of the investigation and submitted charge- sheet against the convicts and one Susanta Pradhan(showing him as an absconder) resulting in trial in the present case, when they pleaded not guilty to the charge for offences punishable Under Section 20(b)(ii)(C) of NDPS Act, but co-accused Susanta Pradhan was acquitted of the charge. 4. In support of its case, the prosecution examined altogether 18 (eighteen) witnesses vide PWs.1 to 18; proved 30 (thirty) documents under Exts.1 to 30 and identified 3 (three) material objects under MOI-III as against no evidence whatsoever by the defence. The plea of the convicts in the course of trial was denial simplicitor and false implication. Of the witnesses examined in this case, the material witnesses are PWs.16 and 17, who are raiding and seizing officer, PW18 is the IO, whereas PWs.1, 3, 7, 8, 10, 11, 13, 14 CRLA Nos.1012 & 925 of 2022 Page 5 of 26 and 15 are the police officers and associated with search, seizure and detection, PW12 is the Tahasildar, Sonepur who acted as a Magistrate at the time of search and seizure, PW2 is the owner of the Car, PW4 is the weighman and PWs.5 and 9 are the independent seizure witnesses. 5. After appreciating the evidence on record upon hearing the parties, the learned trial Court by mainly relying upon the evidence of official witnesses and PWs.16 and 17 found the appellants guilty of the offence and, accordingly, convicted them for commission of offence punishable Under Section 20(b)(ii)(C) of the NDPS Act as well as sentenced them to the punishment indicated in the first paragraph. Being aggrieved with the judgment of conviction and sentence, the appellants have preferred these two appeals. 6. In the course of hearing of these two
Legal Reasoning
appeals, Mr. Manoranjan Mishra, learned counsel being assisted by Mr. Biswabhusan Mishra, learned counsel for the appellant-Aji @ Ajay Amat in CRLA No.1012 of CRLA Nos.1012 & 925 of 2022 Page 6 of 26 2022 submits that there is blatant violation of mandatory compliance of Sections 42 and 52-A(2) of NDPS Act and, thereby, the conviction of the appellant- Aji @ Ajay Amat is unsustainable on that score. It is further submitted that the oral evidence available on record do not justify the conviction the appellant-Aji @ Ajay Amat and, therefore, the conviction of the appellant-Aji @ Ajay Amat needs to be rectified by setting aside the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentenced against him. 6.1. Similarly, Mr. Harekrushna Malik, learned Amicus Curiae, who is being appointed in absence of any counsel appearing for the appellant-Pranabandhu @ Muna Mishra in CRLA No.925 of 2022 also reiterates the submission as advanced by learned counsel for the appellant-Aji @ Ajay Amat. Learned Amicus Curiae also submits that not only the oral evidence is clearly not being able to establish the guilt of the appellant, but also the mandatory provisions of NDPS Act has not been complied with and, therefore, the conviction of the appellant-Pranabandhu @ Muna Mishra is CRLA Nos.1012 & 925 of 2022 Page 7 of 26 unsustainable. Accordingly, it is prayed on behalf of the appellants to allow these two appeals and acquit them of the charge by setting aside the impugned of conviction and order of sentence passed against them. 6.2. On the contrary, Mr. K.K. Gaya, learned ASC, however, taking this Court through the evidence of PWs.16 and 17 submits that not only there is due compliance of Section 42 of NDPS Act, but also the compliance of Section 52-A of NDPS Act has been done and the oral evidence clearly implicate the appellants for the offence and thereby, the conviction of the appellants does not call for any interference. Further, Mr.Gaya reiterates that the evidence of PWs. 8, 13, 14 & 16 clearly indicate that the reliable information received by PW16 was entered into the Station Diary and a copy thereof was sent to the higher officials and the relevant document having been proved in evidence under Ext.28 without any cross-examination by the defence, the prosecution case cannot be disbelieved on account of non-compliance of Sec. 42 of NDPS Act. In CRLA Nos.1012 & 925 of 2022 Page 8 of 26 summing up his argument, Mr. Gaya prays to dismiss the appeals. 7. At this stage, it needs to be stated here that the appellant Pranabandhu @ Muna Mishra having been detained in custody since 29.08.2013 might have served out his sentence. On the other hand, the convict Aji @ Ajay Amat has already been in custody for three years & four months and twelve days prior to his conviction and just little more than two years after his conviction and all total, he must have suffered imprisonment for little more than five years & four months, out of his substantive sentence of ten years. In view of the aforesaid custody period of the appellants, these two appeals are taken up today for hearing by engaging an Amicus Curiae for convict Aji @ Ajay Amat who already has served out more than half of his sentence. 8. In order to address the rival submissions as to the adequate compliance of mandatory provisions of NDPS Act, this Court now proceeds to re-evaluate the evidence to find out as to whether the mandatory CRLA Nos.1012 & 925 of 2022 Page 9 of 26 provisions of Sections 42 and 52-A of NDPS Act have been complied with or not. In addressing such issue, this Court considers it appropriate to proceed to re- appreciate the evidence of PW16, who is the IIC and stated to have received the secret information before directing PW17 to proceed to detect the case. The relevant part of the testimony of PW16 transpires that she received the information from reliable source that Ganja is being transported in an Indigo Car bearing Regd. No.OR-31-1090 from Sonepur side to Binka and she directed PW17 to proceed to the spot and, accordingly, PW17 detected the case. The evidence of PW16 further transpires that she received information from PW17 that they have detained an Indigo Car with two occupants and huge quantity of Contraband Ganja inside the Car dickey as well as in the middle seat of the Car, at Nuabazar Chowk in front of Hota Pesticides shop at Binka. The evidence of PW16 accordingly transpires that she thereafter send the Station Diary Entry, which she had made in the morning hours on receipt of information, to SDPO, Sonepur so also to SP, CRLA Nos.1012 & 925 of 2022 Page 10 of 26 Sonepur vide Office of Binka PS Letter No.1185 dated 28.08.2013 and 1186 dated 28.08.2013 respectively. However, the testimony of PW16 never discloses about any Station Diary Entry number with regard to making an entry in the Station Diary soon after receipt of the secret information nor her evidence discloses about due prove of the extract copy of the said Station Diary Entry. No doubt, PW16 has made a feeble attempt to exhibit all the Station Diary Entries seized under Ext.11, but the Station Diary Entry containing secret information has not been proved in accordance with law since marking a document in evidence as Exhibit would not dispense with its prove which is otherwise required to be proved in accordance with law and in this case, neither it has been testified by PW16 that she had made such entry in any of the Exhibits nor does her testimony reveals about her making such Station Diary Entry in any of the Exhibits. 9. It is no doubt very clear that Section 42(2) of NDPS Act makes it mandatory that where an officer takes down any information in writing under Section CRLA Nos.1012 & 925 of 2022 Page 11 of 26 42(1) of NDPS Act or records ground for his belief under the proviso thereto, he shall within 72 hours send a copy thereof to his immediate official superior. No doubt, the prosecution has led evidence to suggest that PW16 has sent letter to the SDPO and SP, Sonepur, but it has not precisely proved as to whether such information as referred to in Section 42(2) of NDPS Act has in fact been sent to SDPO or SP, Sonepur, who are immediate official superiors of PW16 since neither the letters vide No.1185 & 1186 dated 28.08.2013 by which PW16 stated to have informed the SP and SDPO, Sonepur have been produced before the Court nor has any evidence been led by the prosecution to indicate about sending a copy of such SD entry to either SDPO or SP, Sonepur which is requirement of law U/S. 42(2) of NDPS Act. Further, compliance of the provisions of Sec.42 of NDPS Act is not an empty formality, but a mandatory requirement of law, since more is the punishment, strict is the proof. In this case, since the provision of Section 42 of NDPS Act is not only mandatory, but also compulsory, if the search and CRLA Nos.1012 & 925 of 2022 Page 12 of 26 seizure is required to be done in accordance with Section 42 of NDPS Act. The evidence on record clearly discloses that the Contraband Ganja was allegedly kept concealed in the vehicle which is an conveyance and prior to detection of the case, PW16 had received secret information about transportation of Contraband Ganja in the said Car and, thereby, the mandatory requirement in this case for the prosecution was to prove the compliance of Section 42 of NDPS Act by clear, cogent and reliable evidence. In order to consider due proof of Section 42 of NDPS Act, the prosecution is obliged to prove the Station Diary Entry precisely and sending a copy thereof within the stipulated time of 72 hours to the official superiors by examining the mode of sending of copy of such secret information. 10. Besides, the FIR was lodged by PW16 subsequent to the detection of the case and PW16 claims to have entered the secret information in Station Diary prior to directing PW17 to proceed to the spot, but the FIR does not contain any reference about the said Station Diary Entry vide No. 650 dated 28.08.2013 CRLA Nos.1012 & 925 of 2022 Page 13 of 26 which was stated to be entered by PW16 before detection of the case, notwithstanding to the fact that there is a column in the FIR for SD reference. It is of course a circumstance to disbelieve the compliance of Section 42 of NDPS Act, especially when the same officer who had made SD entry has lodged the FIR, which does not contain such Station Diary reference in the relevant column prescribed in the FIR. Further, no evidence has been tendered to prove the Station Diary Entry number and the time when such Station Diary Entry was made. Had PW16 made an entry in Station Diary, she would have proved such fact in her evidence, but her testimony is silent about her entering the fact in Station Diary, no matter she testified in the Court that immediate after detection, she send the Station Diary Entry which she had made in the morning hours on receipt of information to SDPO and SP, Sonepur, but law is very clear that if at all had she made any entry, she would have sent the copy thereof to her immediate official superiors without waiting for detection of the case as she was having ample time to send the CRLA Nos.1012 & 925 of 2022 Page 14 of 26 information to official superiors before detection of the case. In the circumstance and evidence on record, more particularly the evidence of PW16, it appears to the Court that the compliance of Section 42 of NDPS Act has not been duly established by the prosecution. In this regard, this Court gainfully refers to the decision in Karnail Singh Vrs. State of Haryana; (2009) 8 SCC 539, wherein a constitutional Bench of five Judges of Apex Court has held that once there is a clear violation of Section 42 of NDPS Act, the conviction would be vitiated. 11. Apropos the subject, compliance of Sec. 42 is not an empty formality and the legislature has incorporated the provision of Sec. 42 of the NDPS Act to check the interested and overzealous prosecution of innocent person accused of offence under the NDPS Act and the requirement of compliance of aforesaid provision is in essence intended to prevent false accusation against innocent person. However, there is no straight jacket formula to prove the compliance of Sections 42(1) and (2) of the NDPS Act, but looking at CRLA Nos.1012 & 925 of 2022 Page 15 of 26 the standard of proof in criminal prosecution and the provision of Sec. 3 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 as to how a fact is considered to be proved, the prosecution is obliged to establish that the empowered Officer on receipt of secret information has reduced it into writing in the concerned register or diary and prove such writings through the concerned Officer either by producing such original register or diary, but in case such register/diary is not available or could not be produced due to some valid reason(s), then by producing a certified copy or an authenticated extract copy of such entry, which is of course to be established that such extract copy is duly authenticated by the Officer making such entry. Similarly, for compliance of Sec. 42(2) of the NDPS Act, it is to be established that the copy of such entry was in fact sent to the immediate Official superior of the empowered Officer, but mere saying/deposing in evidence about sending a copy thereof is not sufficient to demonstrate compliance of Sec. 42(2) of the NDPS Act and it must be more than that. No inflexible guidelines can be CRLA Nos.1012 & 925 of 2022 Page 16 of 26 prescribed for prove of compliance of Sec. 42(2) of the NDPS Act, but the mode of sending copy of secret information; such as dispatch register, postal receipts, e-mail copy would be considered a few for sending the copy of it and additionally, prove of receipt/ delivery of it by or to official superior would lend assurance for prove of sending of the copy since sending a copy thereof as referred to in Sec.42(2) of the NDPS Act is obviously meant for the knowledge of superior Officers and the legislature has never intended for mere sending copy of such information without the same being received by the superior Officer or delivery of it to him. The aforesaid provision is enacted to prevent misuse of the NDPS Act and thereby, sending a copy thereof to immediate Official superior is obviously meant to check the arbitrary use of power under the NDPS Act by the empowered Officer. In this case, the testimony of PW16 transpires about sending of letter to SDPO & SP, Sonepur in support of proof of compliance of Sec. 42(2) of the NDPS Act, but even if the letters does not constitute sending of copy thereof as referred CRLA Nos.1012 & 925 of 2022 Page 17 of 26 to Sec. 42(2) of the NDPS Act, however, none has been examined to say that he carried the aforesaid letters to SDPO & SP, Sonepur nor was anybody examined from the Office of SDPO & SP to establish the receipt of such copy by SDPO & SP, Sonepur. Further, no document is produced during trial to show receipt of copy of information as referred to Sec. 42(2) of the NDPS Act. In a case of this nature, where the personal liberty of a person is at a stake, which can be curtailed on successful compliance of Sec. 42(2) of the NDPS Act, the prosecution is required to bring all documents on record and examine all the witness connected without compliance of Sec. 42 of the NDPS Act and prove the compliance precisely, however, the prosecution cannot afford to leave any document or witness, which would create a genuine suspicion in proving the compliance of Sec. 42 of the NDPS Act. 12. On coming back to examine the compliance of Section 52-A(2) of NDPS Act, it appears that the representative sample(s) in question is/are required to be taken in the presence of Magistrate, but a brief CRLA Nos.1012 & 925 of 2022 Page 18 of 26 reference to the evidence of PW16 makes it very clear that she drew two samples each weighing 25 grams from each of the three polythene sacks; all total six sample packets at the spot and marked them as A1, A2, B1, B2, C1 and C2 by sealing it with her personal brass seal impression. It is, therefore, a clear violation of Section 52-A(2) of NDPS Act, which prescribes that where any Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substance has been seized, it is required to be forwarded to the officer-in-charge of the nearest police station or to the officer empowered under Section 53 of NDPS Act and, thereafter, the officer referred to in Sub-Section(1) of Section 52-A of NDPS Act shall prepare an inventory of such Narcotic Drugs or Psychotropic Substance containing such details relating to their description, quality, quantity, mode of packing, marks, numbers and such other identifying particulars of the Narcotic Drugs or Psychotropic Substance or the packing in which they are packed, country of origin and other particulars as the officer referred to in Sub-Section(1) of Section 52-A of NDPS Act may consider relevant to CRLA Nos.1012 & 925 of 2022 Page 19 of 26 identify the Narcotic Drugs or Psychotropic Substance in any proceeding under this Act and make an application, to any Magistrate for the purpose of (a) certifying the correctness of the inventory so prepared; or (b) taking, in the presence of such Magistrate, photographs of such drugs or substances or conveyances and certifying such photographs as true; or (c) allowing to draw representatives samples of such drugs or substances, in the presence of such Magistrate and certifying the correctness of any list of sample so drawn. 13. In this case, there is absolutely no evidence to indicate that the inventory of the seized Contraband Ganja was duly certified by any Magistrate nor was the representative sample of seized Contraband Ganja being taken in presence of Magistrate nor the correctness of any list of samples was certified, which would have constituted such documents as a primary evidence for the purpose of trial in respect of offence under NDPS Act. The scheme of Section 52-A of NDPS Act makes it very clear that CRLA Nos.1012 & 925 of 2022 Page 20 of 26 once Contraband Ganja is seized, the representative sample thereof is required to be drawn in presence of Magistrate, otherwise the seized Contraband Ganja and samples drawn thereof could not be a valid piece of primary evidence in the trial. Once the Court is deprived of getting primary evidence of a fact, the inevitable conclusion is that such fact is considered to be not proved or established beyond all reasonable doubt. In this aforesaid situation and admitted evidence on record, this Court does not find due compliance of Sec. 52-A(2) of the NDPS Act. 14. For non-compliance of Section 52-A(2) of NDPS Act, this Court gainfully refers to the decision in Simarnjit Singh Vrs. State of Punjab; (2023) SCC OnLine SC 906, wherein the Apex Court after extensively quoting paragraphs-15 to 17 of the decision in Union of India Vrs. Mohanlal and another; (2016) 3 SCC 379 has allowed the appeal by setting aside the conviction of the appellant therein for offence punishable under Section 15 of NDPS Act. For better CRLA Nos.1012 & 925 of 2022 Page 21 of 26 appreciation, paragraphs-15 to 17 of the decision in Mohanlal and another (supra) are extracted below: is manifest "15. It from Section 52- A(2)include (supra) that upon seizure of the contraband the same has to be forwarded either to the officer- in-charge of the nearest police station or to the officer empowered under Section 53 who shall prepare an inventory as stipulated in the said provision and make an application to the Magistrate for purposes of (a) certifying the correctness of the inventory, (b) certifying photographs of such drugs or substances taken before the Magistrate as to draw representative samples in the presence of the Magistrate and certifying the correctness of the list of samples so drawn. true, and (c) to forwarded 16. Sub-section (3) of Section 52-A requires that the Magistrate shall as soon as may be allow the application. This implies that no sooner the seizure is effected and the the officer-in- contraband charge of the police station or the officer empowered, the officer concerned is in law duty-bound to approach the Magistrate for the purposes mentioned above including grant of permission to draw representative samples in his presence, which samples will then be enlisted and the correctness of the list of samples so drawn certified by the Magistrate. In other words, the process of drawing of samples has to be in the presence and under the supervision of the Magistrate and the entire exercise has to be certified by him to be correct. 17. The question of drawing of samples at the time of seizure which, more often than not, takes place in the absence of the Magistrate does not in the above scheme of things arise. This is so especially when CRLA Nos.1012 & 925 of 2022 Page 22 of 26 certified by according to Section 52-A(4) of the Act, samples drawn and the Magistrate in compliance with sub- sections (2) and (3) of Section 52-A above constitute primary evidence for the purpose of the trial. Suffice it to say that there is no provision in the Act that mandates taking of samples at the time of seizure. That is perhaps why none of the States claim to be taking samples at the time of seizure." 15. On coming back to re-appreciate the oral evidence of prosecution witnesses, it appears that Hav. PW1-Mohendra Bariha has testified in the Court that while they were performing patrol duty in a police jeep, an Indigo Car came in high speed from Sonepur side and on suspicion, ASI-PW17 (P.K. Pattanaik) detained the said vehicle and noted the Registration No.OR-31- 1090, but PW3 , who is another constable has stated in his evidence that on the relevant date, PW17, constable-Umakanta Naik (PW14) and (PW1) were performing patrol duty in a police jeep at bus stand area of Binka and during course of patrolling, PW16 got reliable information that Ganja was being transported in an Indigo Car and at about 7 PM, the said vehicle arrived at Binka Bus Stand. Further, PW14 has testified in the Court that while they were performing patrol CRLA Nos.1012 & 925 of 2022 Page 23 of 26 duty at bus stand area of Binka, they noticed one Indigo Car bearing Regd No.OR-31-1090 coming with a high speed from Sonepur side and they detained the Car. On the other hand, the testimony of PW16 suggests that she got reliable information and commanded PW17 to proceed to verify such information. So in the circumstance, there appears little inconsistency between the oral evidence of these witnesses with regard to receipt of secret information and conducting raid. Further, PW9 said in this evidence that when he was at the shop, the vehicle was detained in front of the shop and on being asked by PW16, he put his signature in number of paper. PW5 is a seizure witness, but in cross examination he has admitted to have not seen the accused persons at the spot, although he has seen the seizure. Further, PW5 has also stated in his examination-in-chief that all the Contraband article packets were taken to a shop and there the same were weighed and he put his signature at police station in all the seizure lists. The above oral evidence may be indicative of some discrepancies in the CRLA Nos.1012 & 925 of 2022 Page 24 of 26 prosecution evidence, but when these discrepancies of the oral evidence is taken into consideration on the backdrop of non-compliance of mandatory provisions of Sections 42 and 52-A of NDPS Act, a clear picture would come out to suggest that the prosecution has not been able to prove its case against the convicts beyond all reasonable doubt. This Court is, accordingly, constrained to extend the benefit of doubts to the appellants. 16. For the reason stated hereinabove and discussion made therein in the preceding paragraphs, there being inadequate compliance of Section 42(2) and total non-compliance of 52-A of NDPS Act, it can be well said that the prosecution has failed to establish the guilt of the convicts-accused beyond all reasonable doubt. This Court, however, places on record word of appreciation for the assistance rendered by learned Amicus Curiae Mr. Harekrushna Malik. 17. In the result, both the appeals stand allowed on contest, but in the circumstance, there is no order as to costs. Consequently, the judgment of CRLA Nos.1012 & 925 of 2022 Page 25 of 26 conviction and order of sentence passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge, Sonepur in Special G.R. Case No.03/01 of 2023-16 are hereby set-aside. Accordingly, the appellants-convicts are acquitted of the charge and they be set at liberty forthwith, if they are still found detained in the jail custody and their detention is otherwise not required in any other case. (G. Satapathy) Judge Orissa High Court, Cuttack, Dated the 21st day of August, 2024/Subhasmita Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SUBHASMITA SASMAL Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa Date: 28-Aug-2024 10:38:47 CRLA Nos.1012 & 925 of 2022 Page 26 of 26