Orissa High Court
State Of Orissa vs Tikan Sahoo on 11 September, 2025
Author: Aditya Kumar Mohapatra
Bench: Aditya Kumar Mohapatra
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
CRLLP No.69 of 2005
State Of Orissa ..... Appellant
Represented By Adv. -
A.G.A.
-versus-
Tikan Sahoo ..... Respondent
Represented By Adv. -
M/s. Dipti Rekha Nanda
G.bhoi B.b.mohapatra
P.k.tripathy
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR
MOHAPATRA
ORDER
11.09.2025 Order No.
04. CRLLP 69 of 2005 & M.C.36 of 2006
1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual /Physical Mode).
2. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner-State as well as the learned counsel for the Opposite Party-accused. Perused the Leave Petition.
3. The Present Leave Petition has been filed under section 378(1)(b) of Cr.P.C. at the instance of the State challenging the judgment of acquittal passed in Crl.Appeal No.03 of 2004 dated 03.09.20024 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Talcher thereby reversing the judgment of the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Talcher dated 04.02.2024 passed in S.T.Case No.7/02/126(A) 1998 Page 1 of 4.
4. Learned counsel for the Petitioner-State at the outset contended that although the Opposite Parties are convicted by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Talcher in the original trial for commission of a crime punishable under sections 147,148,307, 336,341, 324/149 of the Indian Penal Code and they were sentenced to undergo imprisonment for a maximum period of three years and to pay a fine as has been sentenced by the trial court. However, in appeal the judgment of conviction of the learned trial court was reversed by the Appellate court on an appeal preferred by the Opposite Parties-accused persons. Learned counsel for the Petitioner-State further contended that being aggrieved by such order of acquittal passed by the learned Appellate court, the State-Petitioner preferred an appeal under the provisions as has been mentioned herein above.
5. Learned counsel for the Petitioner-State in course of his argument referred to the grounds taken in the Leave Petition. While arguing in favour of the grant of leave to prefer appeal, learned counsel for the Petitioner-State led emphasis to the fact that the injured has sustained grievous injury and that such fact is backed by materials on record. However, such evidence has been brushed aside by the learned lower appellate court and the accused persons were given the benefit of acquittal. Further he contended that there are ample materials to hold the accused persons guilty as has been done by the trial court. He further submitted that for no good reason the Appellate court has reversed the judgment of the learned lower Appellate court.
Page 2 of 4.6. On perusal of the judgment of the learned lower Appellate court, dated 03.09.2024 this Court observes that the learned Appellate court has thoroughly scanned the evidence by a reasoned and speaking order and, by taking note of several judgments has come to a conclusion that the prosecution has failed to prove the charge beyond all reasonable doubt. Learned Appellate court also found the discrepancies in the medical evidence available in the evidence with regard to injury sustained by the injured persons. Moreover, learned appellate court after thorough examination of the materials on record as well as the evidence crystallised the discrepancies in the evidence in its judgment at page 20. Finally, he has come to a conclusion that the trial court has failed to take note of the aforesaid discrepancies in the prosecution evidence. Accordingly, he has held that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubt. Accordingly, the accused persons were acquitted by setting aside the judgment of conviction passed by the learned trial court.
7. On perusal of the record of the present Petition, it appears that the present application was presented with a delay of 146 days. Although an application for condonation of delay accompanied with the Leave Petition, however the same was never considered till today. Therefore, it appears that the delay has not been condoned as of now.
8. Taking into consideration the aforesaid fact, this Court is of the view that the delay in presenting the Petition cannot be condoned after two decades from the date of Page 3 of 4. petition being presented before this Court. Moreover, on merits also this Court found that there are no other grounds on which the leave can be granted to prefer appeal.
9. Accordingly, the CRLLP is disposed of.
( A.K. Mohapatra) Judge RKS Signature Not Verified Page 4 of 4. Digitally Signed Signed by: RAMESH KUMAR SINGH Designation: AR-CUM-Senior Secretary Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa Date: 12-Sep-2025 15:29:23