Silu @ Pradeep Kumar Acharya vs State Of Odisha
2021 Latest Caselaw 11618 Ori

                IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

                                 CRLA No.566 of 2018

             Silu @ Pradeep Kumar Acharya       ....             Appellant
                                         Mr. Devasish Panda, Advocate
                                on behalf of Mr. C.R. Pattnaik, Advocate
                                          -versus-
             State of Odisha                        ....          Respondent
                                                  Ms. Saswata Pattnaik, AGA

                         CORAM:
                         THE CHIEF JUSTICE
                         JUSTICE A. K. MOHAPATRA

                                         ORDER

12.11.2021 Order No.

13. I.A. No.1867 of 2019

1. This is the second bail application filed by the present Appellant, who stands convicted and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life for the offence punishable under Sections 366/364/376(1)/302, I.P.C. read with Section 6(J)(ii) of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, by the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 3rd May, 2018 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge, Balasore in Special Case No.83 of 2015.

2. Earlier, on 13th March, 2019, this Court had dismissed the first bail application i.e. I.A. No.1377 of 2018 filed by the present Appellant.

3. This Court heard Mr. Devasish Panda, learned counsel appearing for the Appellant-Petitioner and Ms. Saswata Pattnaik, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State.

4. Mr. Panda submitted that the Appellant has already completed over six years of imprisonment and that, this being a case of circumstantial evidence, the links in the chain of circumstances are weak as far as the present Appellant-Petitioner is concerned. He submitted that the conviction was based solely on a DNA Test, which was taken eight years after the alleged incident took place and therefore not reliable. There were no injuries on the body of the victim and she could not be said to be a minor, in as much as she was almost 17 years old at the time of her death. He pointed out that shortly before the conviction by the trial Court, the Appellant had been granted bail and did not violate the terms of the bail order.

5. Ms. Pattnaik, learned AGA on the other hand pointed out that the DNA Test confirmed the paternity of the present Appellant- Petitioner of the male foetus found in the dead body of the deceased (victim). This was one of the clinching pieces of evidence. The 'last seen' evidence, the recoveries, the wearing apparels of the deceased, the blood samples and other pieces of evidence also supported the prosecution case.

6. Having examined the judgment of the trial court and the evidence on record, this Court is not persuaded that the Appellant- Petitioner has made out a case for being be enlarged on bail at this stage. The Court would not like to discuss the evidence in detail or say anything more on merits at this stage.

7. Consequently, the application for bail is rejected and the I.A. is dismissed.

CRLA No.566 of 2018

8. If the paper books have not yet been prepared, they should be prepared by the Registry and supplied to the learned counsel for the parties as soon as possible.

(Dr. S. Muralidhar) Chief Justice

(A. K. Mohapatra) Judge

S.K.Parida