Orissa High Court
Sabita Padhi vs State Of Odisha & Others on 1 July, 2024
Author: D.Dash
Bench: D.Dash
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
CRA No.63 of 1992
In the matter of an Appeal under Section 378 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973 and from the judgment of acquittal
dated 22nd August, 1991 passed by the learned J.M.F.C., Bhadrak
in ICC No.400 of 1989 (Trial No.45 of 1990).
----
Sabita Padhi .... Appellant
-versus-
State of Odisha & Others .... Respondents
Appeared in this case by Hybrid Arrangement
(Virtual/Physical Mode):
For Appellant - M/s. S. Mohapatra, Sr. Advocate
P.C. Das & G. Mohanty
(Advocate)
For Respondents - Mr.P.K. Mohanty,
Additional Standing Counsel
Mr. A.K. Sahoo, Advocate for R.2.
CORAM
MR. JUSTICE D.DASH
Date of Hearing : 20.06.2024 : Date of Judgment : 01.07.2024
D.Dash,J. The Appellant, by filing this Appeal, has called in question
the judgment of acquittal passed by the learned Judicial
Magistrate First Class (J.M.F.C.), Bhadrak in I.C.C. Case
No.400/89 (Trial No.45 of 1990). The Respondents having faced
the trial for commission of offence under section 498(A) read with
section 34 of the Indian Penal Code ,1860 (for short, 'the IPC')
have been acquitted by order dated 22nd August, 1991.
Therefore, the Complainant has preferred this Appeal
which has been admitted by order dated 08.07.1992. None is
present on behalf of the Appellant when the matter is called.
2. Heard Mr. A.K. Sahoo, learned counsel for the Respondent
No.2. He submitted that there is absolutely no infirmity in the
finding of the Trial Court that the prosecution has failed to
establish the charge against the accused persons beyond
reasonable doubt through clear, cogent and acceptable evidence.
He further submitted that as per the settled position of law the
judgment of acquittal is not to be lightly interfered with save and
except that when it is held that the said outcome is based on
wholly faulty appreciation of evidence so as to be termed as
perverse. He further submitted that when two views were
possible, the Appellate Court should not reverse the judgment of
acquittal merely because the view other than the one taken by the
Trial Court was possible in its opinion. According to him, on the
face of the settled position of law since the impugned judgment is
neither perverse nor suffers from any legal infirmity or non-
consideration/ misappreciation of evidence on record, reversal of
the same is not called upon.
3. Learned Additional Government Advocate, inviting the
attention of the Court to the depositions of the witnesses, assisted
this Court in the matter of hearing.
4. Keeping in view the submissions made, the impugned
judgment being carefully read and the evidence let in by the
prosecution being perused, this Court finds that the Trial Court
has examined the evidence in great detail and assigning very
good reasons has ruled in favour of the failure of the prosecution
to establish the charge and there arises no such glaring infirmity
therein. Therefore, this Court is of the considered opinion that
there surfaces no such justifiable reason to interfere with the
order of acquittal of the accused.
5. In that view of the matter, the Appeal stands dismissed.
The judgment of acquittal dated 22.08.1991 passed by the learned
J.M.F.C., Bhadrak is hereby confirmed.
(D. Dash),
Judge
Himansu
Signed by: HIMANSU SEKHAR DASH
Reason: Authentication
Location: OHC
Date: 09-Jul-2024 15:42:09
