State Of Odisha vs Manu Pradhan And Another
2023 Latest Caselaw 7173 Ori

                                                IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
                                                                  CRLLP No.128 of 2014

                                          State of Odisha                             ...              Petitioner
                                                                                          Mr. G.N. Rout, A.S.C.
                                                                         -versus-
                                          Manu Pradhan and another                    ...       Opposite Parties
                                                                                     Mr. A.K. Sahoo, Advocate
                                          CORAM:
                                          THE CHIEF JUSTICE
                                          JUSTICE G. SATAPATHY
                                                                         ORDER

Order No. 03.07.2023

03. Misc. Case No.108 of 2014

1. For the reasons stated, the application is allowed. Accordingly, the delay in filing the CRLLP is condoned.

CRLLP No.128 of 2014

2. The State seeks leave to appeal against the judgment dated 5th May 2014 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Deogarh in S.T. Case No.65 of 2010 acquitting Opposite Party Nos.1 and 2 of the offences under Sections 376(2)(g)/354/506/34 of IPC and Section 3(i)(x) of SC and ST (P.A.) Act.

3. It may noted at the outset that as far as the provisions under the SC and ST (P.A.) Act is concerned, no evidence was laid by the prosecution to prove the caste of the victim girl by summoning the Tahasildars of Kaniha and Reamal from whom the I.O. had made a requisitions for caste particulars.

Digitally Signed Signed by: SUBASH KUMAR GUIN Designation: Personal Assistant Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 04-Jul-2023 14:21:32

4. Secondly, although the victim was projected as a minor girl between 14 and 16 years of age, the School register was not examined to ascertain her exact date of birth.

5. Most importantly, the Doctor, viz., Dr. Kamal Lochan Behera (P.W.5) who examined the victim at District Headquarters Hospital, Deogarh returned the opinion that there was no sign of forcible rape and no external injuries whatsoever. Consequently, the medical evidence did not corroborate the narration of the victim.

6. She is supposed to have been rescued by one Dhaneswar Pradhan (P.W.7) and one Teacher Krushna Chandra Behera (P.W.6). However, neither have supported her statement. They were not been examined by the Police under Section 161 Cr.P.C.

7. The further case of the victim was that she was threatened by Opposite Party No.2 with a knife that he would kill her. However, in her statement made to the Police during the investigation under Section 161 Cr.P.C., she did not say so. Further, no knife had been seized by the I.O.

8. With there being numerous loopholes in the investigation, the trial court had to come to the inevitable conclusion that the prosecution had miserably failed to prove the case against the Opposite Parties for the offences with which they were charged.

9. Having carefully examined the impugned judgment of the trial court in light of the evidence on record with the assistance of the learned counsel for the State, this Court is unable to come to a

Digitally Signed Signed by: SUBASH KUMAR GUIN Designation: Personal Assistant Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 04-Jul-2023 14:21:32 conclusion different from that reached by the trial court. No case has been made out for grant of leave to appeal. The CRLLP is accordingly dismissed.

(Dr. S. Muralidhar) Chief Justice

(G. Satapathy) Judge S.K. Guin

Digitally Signed Signed by: SUBASH KUMAR GUIN Designation: Personal Assistant Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 04-Jul-2023 14:21:32