Orissa High Court
CRLREV/199/2021 on 24 June, 2021
CRLREV No.199 of 2021
CRLREV No.199 of 2021
&
I.A. Nos.267 & 268 of 2021
02. 24.06.2021 This matter is taken up through Video Conferencing Mode.
The Petitioners by filing this Revision have assailed the judgment
dated 23.04.2021 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-
cum-Special Judge (Vigilance), Keonjhar in Criminal Appeal No.13/38 of
2020/2017.
By the said Judgement, the Appellate Court has partly allowed the
Appeal. The order of conviction passed by the Trial Court as against
these Petitioners for commission of offence under sections 307/34, I.P.C.
having been set aside, the Petitioners have been found guilty for
commission of offence under sections 342/325/34, I.P.C. and
accordingly they have been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment
for a period of three years and fine of Rs.500/- in default to undergo
rigorous imprisonment for two months for the offence under sections
325/34, I.P.C. and insofar as the conviction for commission of offence
under section 342/34, I.P.C. is concerned, the Petitioners have been
sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months.
It has been stipulated that the said substantive sentences would run
concurrently.
Learned counsel for the Petitioners submits that the appreciation
of evidence on record as has been made by the Trial Court as well as
the Appellate Court is not at all just and proper and the findings rendered
upon the same suffers from the vice of perversity. He further submits that
the Appellate Court has failed in its duty in discussing the evidence in
respect of each of the Petitioners as to their role in the incident so as to
record the finding of guilt against them. He further submits that these
Petitioners were all along on bail during trial as also during pendency of
the Appeal and have never misused the liberty so granted to them.
In view of all the above, when according to him, there are very
good grounds for success of this Revision; he urges for admission of
this Revision as also grant of bail to the Petitioners by suspending he
execution of custodial sentence as also stay the realization of fine
pending this Revision.
Learned counsel for the State opposes the move. According to
him, a careful reading being given to the judgment of the Lower
Appellate Court, it can be seen that there is elaborate discussion of
evidence and, therefore, within the ambit and scope of the Revision,
according to him, there stands no justification to interfere with the same
on the ground of perverse appreciation of evidence. He, however, does
not dispute the fact that the Petitioners were all along on bail during the
trial and appeal.
Considering the submissions made and on going through the
judgments passed by the courts below, the Revision stands admitted
pending this Revision, the execution of sentence imposed by the
Appellate Court against the Petitioners shall remain suspended and
accordingly the Petitioners be released on bail on such terms and
conditions as the Trial Court deems just and proper.
The realization of fine pending disposal of the Revision shall also
remains stayed.
The I.As. are accordingly disposed of.
The CRLREV be listed after four weeks and the LCR be called for
in the meantime.
As the restrictions due to resurgence of COVID-19 situation are
continuing, learned counsel for the parties may utilize a printout of the
order available in the High Court's website, at par with certified copy,
subject to attestation by the concerned advocate, in the manner
prescribed, vide Court's Notice No.4587, dated 25th March, 2020 as
modified by Court's Notice No.4798 dated 15th April, 2021.
.. . ..
H D. Dash, J.
H
H
It is the settled position of law that in a revision against an order of
acquittal, the scope of interference is only when the findings are seem to
be the outcome of perverse appreciation of evidence and it is not
permissible to interfere with the findings of the courts below merely
because another view is possibly to be taken without going to say that
the view taken by the courts below are wholly unreasonable and
completely contrary to the evidence on record.
