Dismissed¶27

Bhabani Sankar Choudhury v. Nilachal Panda

Orissa HC3 Jul 2024CRA/296/1991

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Acquittal appeal dismissed; Section 378 CrPC appeal against acquittal; sections 447/427/506 IPC; acquittal not to be lightly interfered with; perverse appreciation of evidence; two views possible - appellate court should not reverse; Munsif-Magistrate First Class Aska; ICC Case No.41 of 1987/Tr. No.149/89; Bhabani Sankar Choudhury v Nilanchala Panda; High Court of Orissa; Justice D. Dash; decided 03.07.2024.

What did the court decide?

As per the settled position of law stated by the Court, a judgment of acquittal is not to be lightly interfered with save and except when it is held to be based on wholly faulty appreciation of evidence so as to be perverse. ¶20

Bhabani Sankar Choudhury Vs Nilachal Panda — Orissa HC (2024) — LawSathi Research

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

¶2

CRA No.296 of 1991

¶3

In the matter of an Appeal under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and from the judgment of acquittal dated 23^rd March, 1990 passed by the learned Munsif-Magistrate 1^st Class, Aska in ICC Case No.41 of 1987/Tr. No.149/89.

¶4

¶5

…. Bhabani Sankar Choudhury Appellant

¶6

-versus-

¶7

Nilanchala Panda …. Respondent

¶8

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

¶9

For Appellant - Mr. S.D. Das, Sr. Advocate

¶10

For Respondent - Mr.D.P. Dhal, Advocate for Respondent

¶11

CORAM

¶12

MR. JUSTICE D.DASH

¶13

Date of Hearing : 01.07.2024 : Date of Judgment : 03.07.2024

¶14

D.Dash,J. The Appellant-Complainant, by filing this Appeal, has called in question the judgment of acquittal dated 23.03.1990 passed by the learned Munsif-Magistrate First Class, Aska in I.C.C. Case No.41 of 1987/Tr. No.149/89. The Respondent having faced the trial for commission of offence

¶15

Page 1 of 3

¶16

CRA No.296 of 1991

¶17

under sections 447/427/506 of the Indian Penal Code,1860 (for short, ‘the IPC’), he has been acquitted.

¶18

Therefore, the Complainant has preferred this Appeal which has been admitted by order dated 16.12.1991.

¶19

2 . Mr. S.D.Das, learned Senior 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.

¶20

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.

¶21

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

¶22

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

¶23

Page 2 of 3

¶24

CRA No.296 of 1991

¶25

law whether the impugned judgment is perverse and suffers from any legal infirmity or non-consideration/ misappreciation of evidence justifying its reversal.

¶26

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.

¶27

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

¶28

Sd/- (D. Dash), Judge

True Copy

P.A.

Himansu

Signature Not Verified