Orissa High Court
Jaikrushna Sahoo @ Jaya vs State Of Orissa on 25 April, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
CRLA No.471 of 2015
Jaikrushna Sahoo @ Jaya ......... Appellant
Mr. A.K. Mohanty-B, Advocate
-Versus-
State of Orissa ......... Respondent
Ms. Saswata Patnaik,
Addl. Government Advocate
CORAM:
JUSTICE S. TALAPATRA
JUSTICE SAVITRI RATHO
I.A. No.581 of 2023
ORDER
25.04.2023
Order No.
09. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Mode.
2. Heard Mr. A.K. Mohanty, learned counsel appearing for the
appellant and Ms. Saswata Patnaik, learned Addl. Government
Advocate appearing for the State.
3. This is an application under Section 389 of the Cr.P.C. for
granting bail by way of suspension of the sentence, which was
awarded to the convict-applicant, pursuant to the judgment dated
30.01.2015 delivered in Criminal Trial No.131/13/62 of 2013/12 by
the Addl. Sessions Judge, Bhubaneswar.
4. According to Mr. Mohanty, learned counsel, if the evidence
which has been substantially relied by the trial judge is revisited, it
will be apparent that the inference drawn from the evidence is
unsustainable, even if there is strong suspicion against the convict-
applicant. Suspicion, however strong it may be, it is not enough to
convict someone unless there is evidence, beyond unreasonable doubt,
to infer that the accused has committed the said offence.
5. Per contra, Ms. Saswata Patnaik, learned Addl. Government
Advocate has submitted that the chain of circumstantial evidence has
been well-established, completely excluding the hypothesis of
innocence of the convict-applicant.
6. In this regard, he has made specific reference to P.Ws. 3, 4 &
6. According to her, it is a case of force-drowning. The deceased was
of 13 months of age. It cannot be even believed by any prudent person
that the deceased crawled and fell into the well from where his dead
body was recovered.
7. Ms. Patnaik, learned Addl. Government Advocate has
contended that the judgment of conviction cannot be faulted with.
8. We have perused the evidence particularly the cross-
examination of P.W.4, the wife of the convict-applicant whose
testimony was substantially relied by the trial court. She has in the
cross-examination stated that it is her suspicion that the convict-
applicant, but none had committed that crime, as in the preceding
night, he had quarrel with her.
9. Be that as it may, after examining the nature of the
circumstantial evidence, we are inclined to grant bail as the convict-
applicant has suffered rigorous imprisonment for more than 11 years.
10. Accordingly, we order that the sentence, as stated above, is
suspended till the disposal of the appeal.
11. We direct the Additional Sessions Judge, Bhubaneswar to
accept the bail bond with conditions as would be suitable in the
present case and release the convict-applicant on bail, subject to the
further conditions that this Court imposes and those are as follows:
(I) The appellant shall not leave his village namely Saliasahi,
Mangalnagar, P.S.- Nayapalli without informing the IIC,
Nayapalli Police Station, Bhubaneswar and
(II) Further, the appellant shall appear before this Court, if for
any reason, his personal appearance is required.
12. The breach of the above two conditions may entail the
cancellation of bail at any point of time.
13. In terms of the above, this application stands allowed.
14. A copy of this order be sent to the Addl. Sessions Judge,
Bhubaneswar.
(S. Talapatra)
Judge
(Savitri Ratho)
Judge
CRLA No.471 of 2015
10. 1. LCRs have been received.
2. Registry is directed to prepare the Paper Book. On
completion, the copies be served as per rules.
3. List the appeal on 11.08.2023 for hearing.
(S. Talapatra)
Judge
(Savitri Ratho)
Judge
Subhasis
