Dismissed

State v. Rajendra

Orissa HC9 Dec 2020GA/78/1997

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The State appealed against the acquittal of respondents charged with murder and conspiracy under the IPC. The Division Bench held that the strict principles governing appeals against acquittal were not met as no compelling reasons appeared to set aside the Trial Court's finding of innocence. The appeal was dismissed, and bail bonds were cancelled.

What did the court decide?

The appeal filed by the State of Orissa is dismissed. Bail bonds of the respondents are cancelled.

State Vs Rajendra — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Orissa HC (2020)

¶1

G.A. No.78 of 1997

¶2

09.12.2020 This matter is taken up through Video Conferencing mode because of COVID-19 pandemic.

¶3

This matter is taken up through Video Conferencing mode because of COVID-19 pandemic.

¶4

Heard Mr. D. P. Dhal, learned Senior Advocate for Respondents No.1 to 4 and Mr. A. K. Nanda, learned Additional Standing Counsel for the State.

¶5

In this appeal the State of Orissa has assailed the acquittal recorded by the learned Sessions Judge, Balasore-Bhadrak on 21.01.1997, acquitting the respondents from the charge under sections 302/34 IPC and read with section 120-B of the IPC in S.T. Case No.145 of 1996.

¶6

As per the said judgment, appellant no.1 – Sanatan Sahani has been convicted for the offence under section 302/34 of IPC read with section 120-B of the IPC and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life. A separate appeal had been filed by the appellant-Sanatan Sahani which is registered as Criminal Appeal No.22 of 1997. This Court as per the judgment dated 19.07.2006 passed in Criminal Appeal No.22 of 1997 has acquitted the said appellant-Sanatan Sahani for the offence under section 302 of the IPC and convicted him under section 304 Part-I of the IPC and he has been sentenced to the period already undergone by him.

¶7

Prasant

¶8

The judgment passed by the Division Bench presided by the then Hon’ble Chief Justice of this Court in

¶9

¶10

the aforesaid criminal appeal may be read along with this judgment. So, we consider that it is not necessary to reiterate the factual aspects of the case.

¶11

The fact remains that the learned Sessions Judge, Balasore-Bhadrak has come to the conclusion that the prosecution has proved this case beyond reasonable doubt against the main accused Sanatan Sahani who is not a party to the appeal.

¶12

Mr. A. K. Nanda, learned Additional Government Advocate submits that in this case though there is direct implication of the Respondents by some of the prosecution witnesses, the learned Sessions Judge, Balasore-Bhadrak has erroneously acquitted them from the aforesaid offences.

¶13

We have carefully examined the analysis undertaken by the learned Sessions Judge at Paragraph-17 of the impugned judgment. In the said paragraph it has been reflected that the omissions made by P.Ws.1, 2 and 6 regarding the part played by the accused persons except accused Sanatan Sahani assumes great importance in view of the hostility and strained relationship subsisting between the deceased group at one hand and the accused persons on the other. The learned Sessions Judge further held that due to want of definiteness of the statement of these witnesses, their statements have been considered to be a second thought and product of imagination. The weapon of offence and user of those weapons against the deceased by the accused persons other than accused

¶14

¶15

Sananatan Sahani remains shrouded in mystery for which the credibility of these witnesses was impeached.

¶16

It is a well settled principle of law that in a appeal against acquittal the following has to be kept in mind by theappellate court:-

¶17

The presumption of innocence of the accused gets strengthened acquittal by the learned Trial Judge.

¶18

In a appeal against acquittal the appellate court in order to secure a reversal of the finding must say that the learned Trial Judge has ignored the materials available on record and has come to a conclusion that is challenged in the appeal.

¶19

The appellant must show that the finding recorded by the learned Trial Judge in a criminal case is against the settled principle of law which requires interference by the appellate court.

¶20

The appellant can only succeed in a appeal against the acquittal if he shows that the findings recorded by the learned Trial Judge on the materials available on record is so perverse on the face of it that the said finding has to be set-aside.

¶21

If the two views are possible and one view has been taken by the learned Trial Court in favour of the appellant then it is not open for the Appellate Court without any cogent, compelling and justifiable reasons, to set-aside the said findings.

¶22

The findings recorded by the learned Trial Judge have to be given adequate weightage by the Appellate

¶23

¶24

Court as the learned Trial Judge has the opportunity of observing the demeanor of the witnesses who are examined in the Court.

¶25

Thus, only when there are very substantial and compelling reasons, the order of acquittal should be set aside by the learned Appellant Court.

¶26

Having heard learned counsels we find no such compelling and substantial reasons of the findings of acquittal by the learned Sessions Judge. Hence, finding no merits in the appeal we dismiss the same.

¶27

Warrant had been issued against the respondents and they have been granted bail by the learned Sessions Judge. Hence, their bail bonds be cancelled.

¶28

LCRs be sent back forthwith.

¶29

As period of COVID-19 is continuing, learned counsel for the appellant/petitioner may utilize the soft copy of this order available in the High Court’s website or print out thereof at par with certified copies in the manner prescribed, vide Court’s Notice No.4587 dated 25.03.2020.

¶30

…………………..……

¶31

S.K. Mishra, J

¶32

…………………..…… Savitri Ratho, J.

¶33

State v. Rajendra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State v. Rajendra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

State Vs Narada

Sartika Balua Vs State

Raghunath Burudi Vs the State

Buta @ Bidyadhar Vs State

Sabara Mallik Vs State

Saheb Munda Vs State