Banalata Sethi vs State Of Odisha
2021 Latest Caselaw 4793 Ori

            IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

                              CRLA No. 17 of 2021


                 Banalata Sethi                    ....       Appellant
                                               Mr. P.C. Jena, Advocate
                                          -versus-
                 1. State of Odisha
                 2. Gulu @ Sarbeswar
                    Samantray                 .... Respondents
                            Mr. D.K. Pani, Addl. Standing Counsel

                                        CORAM:

                                JUSTICE S.K. SAHOO

                                   ORDER

Order No. 08.04.2021

04. 1. This matter is taken up by video conferencing mode.

2. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the State.

3. In this appeal, the appellant Banalata Sethi has challenged the impugned judgment and order of acquittal dated 23.12.2020 passed by the learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Khurda in T.R. Case No.21 of 2014 in acquitting the respondents no. 2 namely, Gulu @ Sarbeswar Samantray of the charges under sections 341/323/294/354/506 of the Indian Penal Code and section 3(1)(x)(xi) of S.C./S.T. (P.A.) Act.

4. The prosecution case is that one Prananath Sethi (P.W.2), a co-villager of the respondent no.2, is a member of Scheduled Caste being a washer man (dhoba). The respondent no.2 belongs to General Caste. On 08.12.2011 at about 1.45 p.m., // 2 //

P.W.2 was present in his house situated in village Brahmapada Patana At that time, the respondent no.2 arrived at his house and knocked at his door. When his wife (appellant) opened the door, the respondent no.2 abused P.W.2 in the name of his caste. When the appellant protested, the respondent dragged her to the road holding her hair tuft, dragged her saree and insulted her in the name of her caste. At that time, P.W.2 intervened but the respondent no.2 gave him fist blows and slaps and pushed him. However, some local witnesses intervened and rescued them from the clutches of the respondent no.2. It is alleged that while leaving the place, the respondent no.2 threatened to kill them when he would get an opportunity. Due to such conduct of the respondent no.2, the appellant and her family members felt humiliated.

The appellant lodged an F.I.R. at Khurdha police station against the respondent no.2 on 18.12.2011 and accordingly, Khurdha P.S. Case No.83 of 2011 was registered and on completion of investigation, charge sheet was submitted.

5. In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined as many as eleven witnesses. P.W.1 Banalata Sethi (appellant) is the informant in the case, P.W.2 Prananath Sethi is the husband of P.W.1, P.W.4 Susama Sethi and P.W.7 Pratima Sethi are the daughters of P.W.1 and P.W.5 Soubhyagya Ranjan Sethi is the son of P.W.1, P.W.3 Sudarsan Bhujabala and P.W.6 Kuni Sethi are the independent witnesses to the occurrence, P.W.8 is the Tahasildar of Tangi who submitted report regarding the caste particulars of P.W.1 as well as the respondent no.2 and P.W.9 is the Investigating Officer in the case.

6. The prosecution exhibited five documents. Ext.1 is the F.I.R., Ext.2 is the caste identification report, Ext.3 is the

// 3 //

formal F.I.R., Ext.4 is the spot map and Ext.5 is the caste certificate of the appellant.

7. The defence has examined one witness i.e. D.W.1 Hrushikesh Pradhan.

8. The learned trial Court after analyzing the evidence on record has been pleased to hold that there was prior hostility between the parties and there is inordinate delay of ten days in lodging of the F.I.R. which has not been explained by the prosecution. Learned trial Court further held that there is no independent corroboration to the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2 and only related and interested witnesses have supported the case of the prosecution and the prosecution deliberately withheld the natural witnesses and examined some witnesses whose presence at the scene of the occurrence at the relevant time is doubtful. Therefore, the learned trial Court opined that it is a fit case where benefit of doubt should be extended in favour of the accused.

9. Mr. P.C. Jena, learned counsel for the appellant contended that the impugned judgment suffers from perversity and the evidence of witnesses have been discarded on flimsy ground and therefore, should be set aside.

10. After going through the impugned judgment and the evidence adduced by the witnesses, it cannot be said that there is any illegality or infirmity in the impugned judgment. The learned trial Court assessed the evidence on record minutely and came to a finding that the ingredients of the offences under sections 341/323/294/354/506 of the Indian Penal Code and section 3(1)(x)(xi) of S.C./S.T. (P.A.) Act are not attracted.

10. It is the settled principle of law that in case of appeal against the order of acquittal, if two views are reasonably possible, the appellate Court should not interfere with the

// 4 //

conclusions arrived at by the trial Court. The appellate Court should not disturb it even if it were possible to reach a different conclusion on the basis of the materials on the record because the trial Judge has the advantage of seeing and hearing the witnesses and the initial presumption of innocence in favour of the accused is not weakened by his acquittal. The appellate Court, therefore, should be slow in disturbing the finding of fact of the trial Court and if two views are reasonably possible on the evidence on the record, it is not expected to interfere simply because it feels that it would have taken a different view if the case had been tried by it. (Ref:- Babu -Vrs.- State of Uttar Pradesh reported in A.I.R. 1983 Supreme Court

308).

11. Keeping in view the principle laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and after going through the impugned judgment and materials available on record, I find there is no illegality or impropriety in the impugned judgment. It cannot be said that the view taken by the learned trial Court is perverse one.

12. In view of the foregoing discussions, I am not inclined to admit this appeal.

13. Accordingly, the CRLA stands dismissed.

14. As the restrictions due to the COVID-19 situation are continuing, learned counsel for the parties may utilize a soft copy of this order available in the High Court's website or print out thereof at par with certified copy in the manner prescribed, vide Court's Notice No.4587, dated 25th March, 2020.

                                                     ( S.K. Sahoo)
RKM                                                       Judge



 // 5 //