Rosalin Swain vs State Of Odisha
2023 Latest Caselaw 3019 Ori

            IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

                          CRLA No.909 of 2022

              Rosalin Swain                        ....       Appellant

                                  Mr. Sambeet Pattnayak
                                  Advocate

                                        -versus-
              1. State of Odisha
              2. Nandu @ Nirakar Swain
              3. Rinky @ Anima Swain
              4. Triphala Swain                    ....   Respondents

                                  Mr. Rajesh Tripathy
                                  Addl.Standing Counsel
                                  (for Respondent No.1)
                                CORAM:
                            JUSTICE S.K. SAHOO
                                    ORDER

Order No. 10.04.2022

03. This matter is taken up through Hybrid arrangement (video conferencing/physical mode).

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

In this appeal under the proviso to section 372 of Cr.P.C, the appellant Rosalin Swain, the victim has challenged the impugned judgment and order of acquittal dated 10.08.2022 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Nimapara in S.T. Case No.08 of 2021 in acquitting the respondents nos.3 and 4, namely, Rinky @ Anima Swain and Triphala Swain who are alleged by the 2nd wife of the husband of the // 2 //

appellant and mother-in-law of the appellant respectively of all the charges and the respondent no.2 of the charges under sections 294/307/506/354 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and convicting the respondent no.2 only under section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing him to undergo R.I. for one and half years and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/-, i.d. to undergo R.I. for fifteen days.

Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the acquittal of the respondents nos.2 to 4 for the offence under section 307 of the Indian Penal Code was not justified inasmuch as the appellant being examined as P.W.13 has not only supported the prosecution case but also stated how she sustained burn injuries on account of the overt act committed by the respondents nos.2 to 4. He further submitted that the doctor (P.W.15) who examined the appellant noticed burn injuries on right axillary, right breast, left breast and left middle finger and though he opined that the injuries are simple in nature but stated that it has been caused by thermal burn. Learned counsel for the appellant further submitted that the learned trial Court has not assessed the prosecution evidence in proper perspective and further argued that he has obtained instruction that the husband after being convicted under section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code, has

// 3 //

not preferred any criminal appeal before this Court.

Perused the impugned judgment.

On hearing the learned counsel for the appellant as well as the learned counsel for the State and going through the impugned judgment, I find that the learned trial Court has discussed the evidence in detail and also the nature of evidence available on record for each of the charges and came to the conclusion that it is difficult to place reliance on the testimony of P.W.13 that the accused persons poured kerosene on her and set fire to her and besides, there is no mark on the neck of the informant found by the doctor and therefore, no liability can be drawn against the accused persons under section 307 of the Indian Penal Code beyond all reasonable doubt.

Similarly so far as under sections 506 and 354 of the Indian Penal Code are concerned, the learned trial Court has disbelieved the prosecution case and came to hold that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove its case under sections 498- A/294/307/506/354 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code against the respondents nos.3 and 4 beyond all reasonable doubt and further held that the prosecution failed to prove its case under section 294/307/506/354 of the Indian Penal Code against respondent no.2. However, held that the prosecution

// 4 //

successfully established the charge under section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code against the respondent no.2 and accordingly found him guilty of such charge.

Law is well settled as held in case of Babu

-Vrs.- State of Uttar Pradesh reported in A.I.R. 1983 Supreme Court 308 that in appeal against acquittal, if two views are possible, the appellate Court should not interfere with the conclusions arrived at by the trial Court unless the conclusions are not possible. If the finding reached by the trial Judge cannot be said to be unreasonable, the appellate Court should not disturb it even if it were possible to reach a different conclusion on the basis of the material 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.

In case of Ghurey Lal -Vrs.- State of Uttar Pradesh reported in (2008) 10 Supreme Court Cases 450, it is held as follows:-

<75....The trial court has the advantage

// 5 //

of watching the demeanour of the witnesses who have given evidence, therefore, the appellate court should be slow to interfere with the decisions of the trial court. An acquittal by the trial court should not be interfered with unless it is totally perverse or wholly unsustainable.= In case of Bannareddy -Vrs.- State of Karnataka reported in (2018) 5 Supreme Court Cases 790, it is held as follows:-

<10....It is well settled principle of law that the High Court should not interfere in the well reasoned order of the trial court which has been arrived at after proper appreciation of the evidence.

The High Court should give due regard to the findings and the conclusions reached by the trial court unless strong and compelling reasons exist in the evidence itself which can dislodge the findings itself.= Thus, an order of acquittal should not be disturbed in appeal under section 378 of Cr.P.C.

unless it is perverse or unreasonable. There must exist very strong and compelling reasons in order to interfere with the same. Findings of fact recorded by a Court can be held to be perverse, if the same have been arrived at by ignoring or excluding relevant materials on record or by taking into consideration irrelevant/inadmissible materials or if they are against the weight of evidence or if they suffer from

// 6 //

the vice of irrationality.

In view of the available material on record and the settled principle of law, it cannot be said that there is any illegality or perversity in the impugned judgment or that the learned trial Court has overlooked material evidence on record or taken into account any inadmissible evidence. Therefore, I find no scope for interference in the impugned judgment and as such the appeal stands dismissed.

The CRLA is accordingly dismissed.

( S.K. Sahoo) Judge

P