Orissa High Court
Lingaraj Mohanty vs Krushna Chandra Behera @ ... Opposite ... on 27 March, 2025
Author: G. Satapathy
Bench: G. Satapathy
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
CRLLP No.25 of 2025
Lingaraj Mohanty ... Petitioner
Ms. S.Mishra, Advocate
-versus-
Krushna Chandra Behera @ ... Opposite Party
Tula
CORAM:
JUSTICE G. SATAPATHY
ORDER(ORAL)
27.03.2025
Order No.
01. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid
Arrangement (Virtual/Physical Mode).
2. This special leave to appeal U/S. 419(4) of
BNSS by the petitioner seeks to challenge the
impugned judgment dated 06.01.2025 passed by the
learned JMFC-III(Cog. Taking), Cuttack in GR Case No.
163 of 2024 acquitting the accused-OP of the charge
for commission of offence U/Ss. 294/506 of IPC.
3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and
perused the record including the impugned judgment.
4. Since the petitioner challenges the acquittal of
the OP in this case, this Court on careful scrutiny of the
impugned judgment finds that the learned trial Court
has appreciated the evidence on record on proper
perspective and returned with correct finding, since the
learned trial Court while recording the acquittal of the
OP has observed the following in the impugned
judgment:-
"xx xx xx PW1, informant of this
case has deposed that he was not present
during the occurrence on the spot but he
had lodged the FIR on the basis of the
complaint made by the cook of Bayababa
Ashram namely, Chandra Sekhar Panda xx
xxx xx.
PW2 the victim in this case has
deposed that he has no complain against the
accused person and he does not want to
proceed further in this case and while
deposing so, he has admitted that he had
made a complaint before the Trustee of
Kalpataru Sachidananda Trust which has
already been marked vide Ext.P-1/PW1.
Whereas, PW3 has deposed that he
does not recall the exact date of occurrence,
but it was in the year 2024 at about 4.30-
5.00 PM while he was present in his room in
the Ashram, at that time, Krushna Chandra
Behera abused Chandra Sekhar Panda, the
cook of the Ashram and thereafter Chandra
Sekhar Panda intimated about the incident
to Trustee. During cross-examination, he
has deposed that he has no direct
knowledge about the incident and that he
was not examined by the Investigating
Officer regarding the case incident. He has
also deposed that he has knowledge
regarding any specific act occurred during
the incident. Overall analysis of the evidence
as made hereinabove suggests that the
allegations against the accused person could
not be established beyond all reasonable
doubts."
5. The above discussion of evidence itself
discloses that the learned trial Court has rightly
appreciated the evidence on record. Even otherwise,
this special leave to appeal by the petitioner is not
maintainable inasmuch as neither the petitioner is the
victim nor has he any locus to file any leave to appeal
petition, in term of Sec. 413 of BNSS which confers
power on the victim to present an appeal against the
order of acquittal, but it does not confer any power on
the informant to prefer an appeal. Moreover, Sec.
419(4) prescribes procedure to prefer an appeal against
acquittal in any case instituted upon complaint,
however, the present impugned judgment has been
rendered in a case instituted upon police report and,
therefore, no such leave petition can be entertained by
this Court.
6. In the aforesaid circumstance and provisions of
law, the special leave to appeal by the petitioner merits
no consideration even on facts and law and is
accordingly dismissed.
(G. Satapathy)
Judge
kishore
Signed by: KISHORE KUMAR SAHOO
Location: High Court of Orissa
Date: 28-Mar-2025 18:06:46
