Dismissed¶28

Snehalata v. Saroj

Orissa HC1 Jul 2024CRA/120/1990

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

CRA No.120 of 1990; High Court of Orissa at Cuttack; D. Dash, J.; decided 01.07.2024; acquittal appeal by complainant under Section 378 CrPC, 1973 against acquittal dated 20.09.1989 by S.D.J.M., Bargarh in ICC No.78 of 1982/Tr. No.376 of 1982; accused acquitted under sections 494/109 IPC; test of perversity and wholly faulty appreciation of evidence; two views possible — no reversal; no interference with acquittal; appeal dismissed; respondents unrepresented at hearing.

What did the court decide?

A judgment of acquittal is not to be lightly interfered with save and except when it is based on wholly faulty appreciation of evidence amounting to perversity; when two views were possible, the Appellate Court should not reverse the acquittal merely because the other view was possible and is taken by it. ¶21

Snehalata Vs Saroj — Orissa HC (2024) — LawSathi Research

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

¶2

CRA No.120 of 1990

¶3

In the matter of an Appeal under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and from the judgment of acquittal dated 20^th September, 1989 passed by the learned S.D.J.M., Bargarh in ICC No.78 of 1982/Tr. No.376 of 1982

¶4

¶5

Snehalata Biswal

¶6

…. Appellant

¶7

…. Saroj Kumar Biswal & Others Respondents

¶8

Appeared in this case by Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual/Physical Mode):

¶9

For Appellant - M/s. S.K. Padhi, J.M. Das & Miss D. Mohapatra (Advocates)

¶10

For Respondents - Mr.P.K. Mohanty, Additional Standing Counsel Mr. G.H. Panda & R.N. Panda, Advocate for Respondents

¶11

CORAM

¶12

MR. JUSTICE D.DASH

¶13

Date of Hearing : 21.06.2024 : Date of Judgment : 01.07.2024

¶14

D.Dash,J. The Appellant-Complainant, by filing this Appeal, has

¶15

called in question the judgment of acquittal passed by the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate (S.D.J.M.), Bargarh in I.C.C. Case No.78 of 82/Tr. No.376/82. The Respondents having faced the trial for commission of offence under sections 494/109 of the

¶16

Page 1 of 3

¶17

CRA No.120 of 1990

¶18

Indian Penal Code,1860 (for short, ‘the IPC’) have been acquitted by order dated 20.09.1989.

¶19

Therefore, the Complainant has preferred this Appeal which has been admitted by order dated 07.05.1990.

¶20

2 . Mr. J.M. Das, learned counsel for the Appellant submitted that the finding of the Trial Court that the prosecution has failed to establish the charge against the accused persons beyond reasonable doubt through clear, cogent and acceptable evidence is the outcome of perverse appreciation of evidence on record.

¶21

3 . As per the settled position of law the judgment of acquittal is not to be lightly interfered with save and except when it is held that the said outcome is based on wholly faulty appreciation of evidence so as to be turned as perverse. When two views were possible, the Appellate Court should not reverse the judgment of acquittal merely because the view other than the one taken by the Trial Court was possible and that it takes.

¶22

4 . None appeared on behalf of the Respondents when the matter was called.

¶23

Learned counsel Additional Standing Counsel assisted the Court in the hearing. Inviting the attention of the Court to the depositions of the witnesses, he submitted that this Court is now called upon to decide that on the face of the settled position of law whether the impugned judgment is perverse and suffers

¶24

Page 2 of 3

¶25

CRA No.120 of 1990

¶26

from any legal infirmity or non-consideration/ misappreciation of evidence justifying its reversal.

¶27

5 . Keeping in view the submissions made, this Court having carefully read the impugned judgment and on going through the evidence let in by the prosecution finds no such reason to interfere with the order of acquittal as the Trial Court is found to have examined the evidence in great detail and assigning very good reasons has ruled in favour of the failure of the prosecution to establish the charge.

¶28

6. In that view of the matter, the Appeal stands dismissed.

¶29

Sd/- (D. Dash), Judge

¶30

True Copy P.A.

¶31

Himansu

¶32

Signature Not Verified

¶33

Digitally Signed Signed by: HIMANSU SEKHAR DASH Reason: Authentication Location: OHC Date: 09-Jul-2024 15:42:09