Dismissed

State v. Khema Ch.Parida

Orissa HC3 Jul 2023CRLLP/65/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court considered a State's special leave appeal against the acquittal of 19 individuals in a criminal trial involving murder and explosives. Reviewing the evidence, the Court found the trial judgment well-reasoned due to the lack of evidence linking the acquitted parties to the specific injuries or deaths. Leave to appeal was declined.

What did the court decide?

Leave to appeal against the acquittal of 19 Opposite Parties is declined and the petition is dismissed.

State Vs Khema Ch.Parida — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Orissa HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

¶2

CRLLP No. 65 of 2008

¶3

State of Orissa

…. Petitioner

Mr. G.N. Rout, ASC

-versus-

Khema Chanda Parida and Others

¶8

…. Opposite Parties

¶9

CORAM:

¶10

THE CHIEF JUSTICE JUSTICE G. SATAPATHY

ORDER

Order No.

03.07.2023

1. The State seeks leave to appeal against the judgment dated 2^nd February, 2008 of the Second Additional Sessions Judge, Puri in S.T. No.3/365 of 98/97 insofar as the 19 Opposite Parties have been acquitted of the offences under Sections 148/302/307/326/149 of IPC read with Section 25 of Arms Act and 9(b) of Indian Explosives Act.

¶15

The case of the prosecution is that the 19 Opposite Parties along with two others namely Dwijabar @ Duryodhan Parida and Akhaya Kumar Parida caused the death of two persons namely Suresh Pradhan and Ananga Pradhan by means of firing from their armed weapons and by throwing bombs.

¶16

This Court has with the assistance of the learned counsel for the Petitioner examined the evidence and the impugned judgment of the learned trial Court in that light. While the trial Court found the evidence against two of the accused namely Dwijabar and Akhaya to be convincing and the eye witness testimonies of PWs.2 to 5 establishing that they had fired with their guns on the deceased, the

¶17

Page 1 of 2

¶18

prosecution was unable to link the overt acts of attributing to the remaining accused i.e. the present 19 Opposite Parties with the injuries suffered by some of the eye witnesses, by either of the deceased. Significantly, as far as deceased Ananga Pradhan is concerned, while he was shown to have died out of blast injuries. There was nothing in the testimonies of PWs.2 to 5 to point to any of the present Opposite Parties cause the death.

¶19

The judgment of the learned trial Court is a detailed one, which has carefully analyzed the entire evidence. The trial Court has made a clear distinction between the two accused convicted and the evidence as far as the present Opposite Parties are concerned, which did not bring home their guilt vis-à-vis the charges framed against

¶20

them.

¶21

The Court is of the view that the impugned judgment of the trial Court is a well-reasoned one and does not call for interference. Accordingly, the Court declines the State leave to appeal against the impugned judgment vis-à-vis the Opposite Parties herein. The petition is accordingly dismissed.

¶22

(Dr. S. Muralidhar) Chief Justice

¶23

(G. Satapathy) Judge

¶24

Signature Not Verified

¶25

Digitally Signed Signed by: PRIYAJIT SAHOO Designation: Jr.Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA Priyajit Date: 04-Jul-2023 10:46:37

¶26

Page 2 of 2

State v. Khema Ch.Parida

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State v. Khema Ch.Parida

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

Tikepila@Pravakar Vs State

Kuna Munda Vs State

State Vs Krushna Ch.Upadhaya

State Vs Ganga Polai

State Vs Jayapal Purty

State of Orissa Vs Bijaya Kumar Pradhan