Orissa High Court
CRLA/544/2018 on 13 January, 2021
CRLA No.544 of 2018
I.A. No.280 of 2020
06. 13.01.2021 This matter is taken up through Video
Conferencing mode.
Heard Mr.Tripathy, learned counsel for the
appellant/petitioner and Mrs. Saswata Pattnaik, learned
Addl. Government Advocate.
The aforesaid application under Section 389 of
Cr.P.C. has been filed by the appellant/petitioner-Trinath
Jena for suspension of sentence and grant of bail upon
appeal.
The appellant/petitioner has been convicted for
commission of offences under section 302/201 of I.P.C. and
sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life under Section
302 of I.P.C. and to undergo R.I. for three years and to pay a
fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default of payment of fine to undergo
R.I. for six months more for the offence under Section 201 of
I.P.C. by virtue of the judgment and order dated 05.07.2018
passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Angul in C.T. (S) Case
No.129 of 2010.
On perusal of the impugned judgment at
paragraph-14, it is seen that the learned Sessions Judge,
Angul has relied upon five circumstances to come to the
conclusion that the prosecution has proved its case beyond
Bichi reasonable doubt, i.e., extra judicial confession of the
accused to P.W.13, last seen theory, discovery of weapon of
offence under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, conduct
and motive of the accused and other circumstantial
evidence.
//2//
Extra judicial confession has not been proved in
this case as P.W.10 has turned hostile to the prosecution.
The last seen theory is not attracted in this case as it is
admitted case of the prosecution that about five days prior to
discovery of dead body of the deceased, they were seen
together. The discovery of weapon of offence has become
suspect in this case as there is no blood stain on it. P.W.10
has stated that the weapon was found at the time of
discovery of dead body from the well which according to him
was drained by use of a pump.
As the circumstances as described above prima
facie not established by the prosecution, there is a very good
possibility of the appeal being allowed at this stage.
It is also stated by the learned counsel for the
appellant/petitioner that the appellant/petitioner was on
bail in course of trial. It is not the prosecution case that the
appellant/petitioner has mis-used the liberty granted to him
in any manner.
Keeping in view the submissions of the counsel
for the appellant/petitioner and the materials available
against the appellant/petitioner, we are inclined to grant bail
to the appellant/petitioner upon appeal.
Accordingly, the application for bail is allowed
and sentence imposed by the learned Sessions Judge, Angul
is hereby suspended.
Let the appellant/petitioner-Trinath Jena be
released on bail on such terms and conditions as deemed
just and proper by the learned Sessions Judge, Angul in the
//3//
aforesaid case.
The I.A. is accordingly disposed of.
As restrictions are continuing due to COVID-19
pandemic, learned counsel for the appellant/petitioner may
utilize the soft copy of this order available in the High Court's
official website or print out thereof at par with certified copies
in the manner prescribed, vide Court's Notice No.4587 dated
25.03.2020.
..............................
S.K.Mishra, J.
.............................
Savitri Ratho, J.
//4//
