Orissa High Court
Swadhin Dash vs State Of Odisha .... Opp. Party on 10 March, 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
CRLMC No.4328 of 2024
Swadhin Dash .... Petitioner
Mr.Saubhagya
Ketan Nayak,
Advocate
-versus-
State of Odisha .... Opp. Party
Mr.S.J.Mohanty,
ASC
CORAM:
JUSTICE SIBO SANKAR MISHRA
Order ORDER
No. 10.03.2025
01.
1.
In the present case, the petitioner is seeking
quashing of the entire criminal prosecution initiated
against him in connection with Kabisuryanagar P.S.
Case No.112 of 1997 corresponding to G.R. Case
No.201/1997-B pending in the Court of the learned
Additional District & Sessions Judge, Kodala, Ganjam
in Sessions Trial No.112 of 2022.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
there are six accused persons in the present case. Out
of six, two accused persons namely, Arabinda Behera
and Govinda Behera had faced the trial in Sessions
Case No.38 of 2000.Vide judgment dated 31.03.2005,
the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Chatrapur has
recorded an acquittal in their favour. The learned trial
Court, while acquitting them, has return the following
finding:
"5. In considering the Medical Officer's opinion
about the injury Nos.1 to 4, being simple in nature
and in further considering the informant, being X-
Rayed, in the M.K.C.G. Medical College & Hospital,
Berhampur, after being referred there, of about 10 to
15 days after the alleged occurrence; the false
implication of the accused persons, in the alleged
occurrence, through previous enmical disposition
against the informant, coincides, with this material
discrepancy, in the prosecution evidence. In
considering the abnormal delay, in X-Raying the
informant, over the alleged injuries, on his person,
for which, he was being referred to the M.K.C.G.
Medical College & Hospital, Berhampur, cannot,
safely be said that, the said injuries, on the person
of the informant, took place, on the same day, along
with injury NOs.1 to 4, on his person, as per the
evidence, of the P.W.4. This being the major
discrepancy in the prosecution evidence, further
corroboration of the prosecution evidence from the
mouths of P.Ws. 5 and 8 failed to give any weight to
the same, to warrant any conviction against the
accused persons, for the alleged offences against
them u/s 307 IPC."
3. In so far as the other two accused persons
namely, Swarajya Das and Balakrishna Nayak are
concerned, they have also faced the trial in S.T. Case
No.35 of 2003.The learned Assistant Sessions Judge,
Chatrapur vide its judgment dated 10.03.2009 has
convicted the said two accused persons despite the
fact that there is no iota of evidence against them.
Those two accused persons had taken up the matter
to the appellate Court by filing Criminal Appeal No.30
of 2009. The learned Sessions Judge, Ganjam-
Gajapati, Berhampur vide its judgment dated
04.12.2009 has reversed the judgment of conviction
and sentence passed by the learned Assistant
Sessions Judge, Chatrapur and has recorded that the
learned Assistant Sessions Judge, has completely
gone wrong by convicting the accused persons without
their being any evidence. The learned Sessions Court
has also recorded the dissatisfaction over the
judgment rendered by the learned Assistant Sessions
Judge, Chatrapur.
4. Be that at it may, the net result of both the
proceedings is that out of six accused persons, four of
them have already been acquitted. The present
petitioner has been an absconder. Subsequently, he
surrendered before the trial Court and has been
admitted to bail.
5. The charge has not yet been framed in the in
the case of the petitioner. At this stage, the petitioner
has approached this Court seeking quashing of the
entire criminal prosecution initiated against him on
the basis of the findings of the two Courts vis-a vis the
accused who have faced the trial as mentioned above.
6. It is well settled principle of law that the evidence
adduced by the prosecution qua the accused who
faced the trial will not inure to the benefit of the
absconding accused, who has avoided the due process
of law. The offences are serious in nature. Therefore, I
am not inclined to entertain the present application at
this stage. However, regard being had to the peculiar
facts of the present case that the incident had taken
place in the year 1997, I am of the considered view
that the learned trial Court i.e. the learned Additional
District & Sessions Judge, Kodala, Gamjam should do
well to see that the trial of the present case i.e.
Sessions Trial No.112 of 2022 is concluded as
expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of
six months.
7. With the aforementioned observation, the CRLMC
is disposed of.
(S.S. Mishra)
Judge
Subhasis
Designation: Personal Assistant
Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack.
Date: 10-Mar-2025 19:59:05
