Dismissed¶28

State v. Sudarsan Sahu

Orissa HC18 Sept 2025CRLLP/78/2005

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

CRLLP No.78 of 2005; High Court of Orissa at Cuttack; Justice Aditya Kumar Mohapatra; Section 378(1)(3) Cr.P.C.; leave to appeal against acquittal; Section 498-A IPC; cruelty to wife; S.D.J.M. Berhampur; G.R. Case No.856 of 1990; T.R. No.369 of 1991; acquittal dated 09.11.2004; 90 days delay; limitation not condoned; dismissal on merits and limitation; State of Orissa v. Sudarsan Sahu; U.R. Jena AGA.

What did the court decide?

On careful analysis of the impugned judgment, the learned trial court had taken note of the evidence on record and concluded that the prosecution failed to establish its case beyond all reasonable doubt; the trial court elaborately discussed the prosecution evidence in paras 7 and 8 of its judgment and committed no illegality ¶23

State Vs Sudarsan Sahu — Orissa HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶28

Issue for consideration

Whether leave should be granted to the State-Petitioner to prefer an appeal against the judgment of acquittal dated 09.11.2004 passed by the learned S.D.J.M., Berhampur +1 more

¶22

Court's answer

¶23

Ratio / Principle

The grounds emphasised by learned counsel for the State cannot be the sole grounds on which the entire fate of a case would be changed

¶23

Key takeaways

Granting liberty to prefer the appeal at this belated stage, i.e., after expiry of almost two decades, would not serve the larger interest of justiceratio¶23
Since the 90-day delay in filing was never condoned despite notice on the limitation petition, the application is liable to be dismissed both on merits and on the ground of limitationratio¶27

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Criminal Law — Leave to appeal under Section 378(1)(3) Cr.P.C. — State of Orissa sought leave to appeal against acquittal dated 09.11.2004 by S.D.J.M., Berhampur in G.R. Case No.856 of 1990 (T.R. No.369 of 1991), a Section 498-A IPC case concerning alleged torture of the wife over property relinquishment — Application filed with 90 days' delay; notice issued on limitation petition but delay not condoned — Held: trial court had taken note of the evidence and found prosecution failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt, discussing evidence elaborately in paras 7 and 8; grounds urged by the State were not sole grounds to change the fate of the case; no illegality in the acquittal; grant of leave after almost two decades would not serve the larger interest of justice — Application dismissed both on merits and on the ground of limitation.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK CRLLP No.78 of 2005

¶2

State of Orissa ..... Petitioner

¶3

Represented By Adv. – U.R. Jena, A.G.A.

¶4

-versus-

¶5

Sudarsan Sahu

¶6

..... Opp. Party

¶7

Represented By Adv. -

¶8

CORAM:

¶9

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR MOHAPATRA

ORDER

18.09.2025

Order No.

1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual /Physical Mode).

¶14

Heard Mr.U.R.Jena, learned Addl. Govt. Advocate for the State-Petitioner. Perused the application as well as the prayer made therein.

¶15

The present application has been filed under Section 378(1)(3) of the Cr.P.C. with a prayer to grant leave to the Petitioner to prefer an appeal against the judgment of acquittal dated 09.11.2004 passed by the learned S.D.J.M., Berhampur in G.R. Case No.856 of 1990 which corresponds to T.R. No.369 of 1991.

¶16

The prosecution case, in short, is that the P.W. No.4-wife married the accused-Opposite Party and at the time of the marriage, the father of the P.W. No.4 executed a will in favour of the P.W. No.4 and her husband bequeathing the agricultural land

¶17

Page 1 of 4.

¶18

to the extent of five Bharans and a residential plot. After the death of the father of the P.W. No.4, the accused demanded P.W. No.4 to relinquish the property in his favour. Since the P.W. No.4 did not agree to the proposal, the accused started assaulting the P.W. No.4 physically and mentally. As the P.W. No.4 could not tolerate such torture and harassment, she left her matrimonial house and went to her parental house. Accordingly, an F.I.R. was lodged making allegation of commission of an offence punishable under Section 498-A of the IPC.

¶19

On the basis of the F.I.R., investigation was launched and conclusion of such investigation, a charge sheet was filed against the accused-Opposite Party. Thereafter, the accused was made to face trial. In the trial, several witnesses were examined from the prosecution side. Upon conclusion of the trial, the learned trial court, by a detailed order, acquitted the accused on the ground that the P.W. Nos.2, 3 and 6 are not eye-witnesses to the ill-treatment meted out to the P.W. No.4-victim. It has also been observed by the learned trial court that there are other discrepancies in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses which makes the entire prosecution case unbelievable.

¶20

Learned counsel for the State-Petitioner at this stage referred to the grounds taken in the application and specific emphasis was laid on ground nos.B and C. So far as the Ground No.B is concerned, learned counsel for the State contended that in a case of this nature where the occurrence takes place inside the house one-thirdly comes across any witness. He further contended that the learned trial court should have relied upon the testimony of the P.W. No.4, as she has narrated the events that have taken

¶21

Page 2 of 4.

¶22

place while she was at her matrimonial house. Furthermore, such statement of the P.W.4 gets corroboration from the evidence of the doctor, as the victim had sustained injuries. So far as the Ground No.C is concerned, learned counsel for the State contended that the learned trial court has dismissed the prosecution case on the ground that the victim was unable to tell the date on which she has sustained the burn injuries. On such ground, learned counsel for the State contended that the findings arrived at by the learned trial court are untenable. Therefore, the impugned judgment of acquittal is unsustainable in law. Accordingly, it was prayed that leave be granted to the state to prefer an appeal against the impugned judgment of acquittal.

¶23

On a careful analysis of the impugned judgment, this Court finds that the learned trial court had taken note of the evidences available on record and on such basis the Court below has come to a conclusion that the prosecution has failed to establish its case beyond all reasonable doubt. Moreover, the grounds upon which the learned counsel for the State laid emphasis cannot be the sole grounds basing upon which the entire fate of a case would be changed. Also, the learned trial court has elaborately discussed the evidence laid from the prosecution side in para-7 and 8 of the judgment. On a close scrutiny of the aforesaid judgment, this Court is of the view that the learned trial court has not committed any illegality. As such, this Court is of the view that granting liberty at this belated stage, i.e., after expiry of almost two decades, would not serve the larger interest of justice.

¶24

On perusal of the order sheet it appears that the present application was filed with a delay of 90 days. Although notice was

¶25

Page 3 of 4.

¶26

Anil

¶27

issued on the limitation petition, however, it appears that such delay has not been condoned as of now. In view of the aforesaid position, this Court is of the view that the present application is liable to be dismissed both on merits as well as on the ground of limitation.

¶28

9. Accordingly, the CRLLP stands dismissed.

¶29

( A.K. Mohapatra ) Judge

¶30

Signature Not Verified Page 4 of 4.

¶31

Digitally Signed Signed by: ANIL KUMAR SAHOO Designation: Junior Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa Date: 19-Sep-2025 19:21:28

State v. Sudarsan Sahu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State v. Sudarsan Sahu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Prakruti Mishra Vs State of Odisha

Mohan Patel Vs Girija Sankar Adhikari

Jogendra Behera Vs State of Odisha

State Vs Narasingha Adhikari

State of Orissa Vs Binak Chhatria

State of Orissa Vs Maheswar Behera