Disposed

Chita Soren v. Lambodhar Mohanta

Orissa HC15 Nov 2023CRLLP/165/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This high court order dismissed a petition for leave to appeal under Section 378(4) Cr.P.C. against an acquittal for theft. The court noted the petition abated due to the deaths of two opposite parties, leaving only one respondent. Finding the appeal case unfit due to the trial court's disbelieve of prosecution witnesses and delay in complaint, the petition was disposed of without granting leave.

What did the court decide?

Leave to appeal under S.378(4) Cr.P.C. rejected; petition disposed of.

Chita Soren Vs Lambodhar Mohanta — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Orissa HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK CRLLP No. 165 of 2007

¶2

Chita Soren …. Petitioner

¶3

Mr. G.N. Parida, Advocate on behalf of Mr. S. Mishra, Advocate

¶4

-versus-

¶5

Lambodar Mohanta & Others

¶6

Opp. Parties

¶7

Mr. H.K. Mohanta along with Mr. Niranjan Lenka, Advocate

¶8

CORAM:

¶9

Order No.

¶10

JUSTICE M.S. SAHOO
ORDER

¶11

ORDER
15.11.2023
Hybrid Mode

¶12

1. Learned counsel for the opposite parties submits that as per the instruction received opposite parties 1 and 2 have passed away in the meantime.

¶13

The petition abates as far as opposite parties no.1 and 2 are concerned and it is confined to the opposite party no.3.

¶14

The application for leave to appeal U/s.378(4) of Cr.P.C. has been filed challenging the judgment dated 09.05.2007 passed by the learned JMSC, Baripada, Mayurbhanj in I.C.C. Case No.12/2005 corresponding to Trl. Case No.187/2006 acquitting the opposite parties of the offence U/s.379/34 of IPC.

¶15

¶16

Apparently, 16 years have passed since the judgment was passed acquitting the opposite parties out of the opposite parties, only opposite party no.3 survives.

¶17

// 2 //

¶18

On going through the judgment rendered by the learned court below the allegation indicated is that the opposite parties took away the goats of the complainant without his knowledge and consent.

¶19

Learned court has disbelieved the statement of P.W.1 and 2 as far as the case of the prosecution is concerned. Learned court has noticed, though several covillagers were present during the alleged occurrence, no one has been produced as witnesses by the complainant. Further the learned court has noticed the fact that it was not disclosed in the complaint where the goats were taken and after the alleged commission of theft what happened to the goats.

¶20

Learned trial court has also taken note of the fact that there is delay in filing the complaint and the delay has not been explained by the complainant.

¶21

Learned counsel for the petitioner-complainant also submits that he has no up-to-date instruction in the matter.

¶22

Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the opposite parties, in considered opinion of this Court, the case is not fit for grant of leave to appeal.

¶23

Accordingly, the petition stands disposed of.

¶24

(M.S. Sahoo)

¶25

Judge

¶26

Signature Not Verified

¶27

Digitally Signed Signed by: RADHARANI JENA Designation: Personal Assistant Reason: Authentication Location: ohc Date: 24-Nov-2023 15:33:28

¶28

Page 2 of 2

Chita Soren v. Lambodhar Mohanta

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chita Soren v. Lambodhar Mohanta

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

Balmiki Nayak Vs Sasmita Nayak

Kedar Charan Swain Vs State

Durga Prasad Agarwal Vs State

Biranchi Narayan Das Vs Akshaya@Raju Behera

Satya Narayan Jena Vs Panchanan Jena

Reyaz Md.Latif Vs State