State Of Orissa vs Babul Lohar And Another
2023 Latest Caselaw 7046 Ori

                     IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

                                      CRLLP No. 67 of 2005

             State of Orissa                             ....           Petitioner
                                                     Mr. Rajesh Tripathy
                                             Additional Standing Counsel
                                     -versus-
             Babul Lohar and another               .... Opposite Parties


                         CORAM:
                         THE CHIEF JUSTICE
                         JUSTICE G. SATAPATHY

                                          ORDER

Order No. 21.06.2023 Misc. Case No.37 of 2006 & CRLLP No.67 of 2005

05. 1. There is a delay of 65 days in preferring the leave petition by the State which is directed against the judgment dated 20th November, 2004 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Sundargarh in S.T. No.58 of 2003 acquitting the present Opposite Parties of the offence under Section 302 read with Section 34 of IPC. The charge against the Opposite Parties was that they intentionally caused the murder of the deceased Chandrakanta Jena in furtherance of their common intention.

2. On the application for condonation of delay, this Court had directed notice to issue on 7th July, 2008, i.e., nearly 15 years ago. The notice has been returned unserved and in respect of Opposite Party No.1, the remark is 'Addressee not known, hence returned to sender'. In these fifteen years, no attempt has been made by the State to seek fresh issuance of notice to the Opposite Parties.

3. The incident is of the year 2002 which is more than two decades ago. Nevertheless, the Court has examined the matter on merits as well and finds that this is a case of circumstantial evidence. Reliance, inter alia, has been placed by the prosecution on the statement made by the accused while in custody which led to recovery of the incriminating weapons allegedly used in commission of the offence.

4. The trial Court has, on carefully analyzing the entire evidence, come to the conclusion that it does not inspire confidence, particularly, in view of the independent witnesses to the recoveries turning hostile.

5. Having heard learned counsel for the State and having examined the evidence, the Court is unable to come to a conclusion different from that reached by the trial Court.

6. Consequently, there is no merit in the present petition and it is dismissed as such.

(Dr. S. Muralidhar) Chief Justice

(G. Satapathy) Judge S. Behera

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed

Designation: Jr. Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 22-Jun-2023 11:44:28