Orissa High Court
State Of Orissa vs Rama Bhati And Another ..... Opp. ... on 6 November, 2025
Author: Aditya Kumar Mohapatra
Bench: Aditya Kumar Mohapatra
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
CRLLP No.44 of 2009
State of Orissa ..... Petitioner
Represented By Adv. -
Mr. U.C. Jena, ASC
-versus-
Rama Bhati and another ..... Opp. Parties
Represented By Adv. -
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR MOHAPATRA
ORDER
07.11.2025
Order No.
I.A. No.30 of 2010 and CRLLP No.44 of 2009
04. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement
(Virtual /Physical Mode).
2. Heard learned counsel for the State-Petitioner. None
appears for the Opp. Parties-accused despite valid service
of notice.
3. The present I.A. has been filed with a prayer for
condonation of delay.
4. On perusal of record it appears that the Stamp
Reporter has pointed out that there is a delay of 93 days in
the present in the present leave application before this
Court. Perused the application for condonation of delay
and the grounds taken therein.
5. Taking into consideration the delay as well as the
ground shown, this Court is inclined to condone the delay.
Accordingly, the delay of 93 days in the present leave
application is condoned subject to Petitioner depositing
paying a cost of Rs.500 to the Advocate's Welfare Fund of
the Orissa High Court Bar Association.
6. Misc. Case No.30 of 2010 stands allowed.
7. Heard learned counsel for the State-Petitioner.
Perused the leave application and the documents annexed
thereto. None appears for the opposite party-accused.
Further, it appears that the notice was duly served on the
opposite party-accused.
8. The prosecution has filed the leave application under
Section 378(1) and 378(3) of the Cr.P.C. with a prayer for
grant of leave to prefer an appeal against the judgment of
acquittal dated 22.09.2008 passed in G.R. Case No.711 of
2006 which corresponds to T.R. No.117 of 2007 of the
learned S.D.J.M., Bolangir. The above noted G.R. Case
arises out of a complaint case which was lodged on
02.11.2006 at the instance of the informant alleging
robbery of his motor bike (Hero Honda bearing registration
No.OD-03C1408) and an amount of Rs.27,000/- by the
accused, while the complainant was returning to his
residence and in the FIR it has been alleged that the
accused fled away with the vehicle of the informant as a
result of which the informant fell down on the road.
Thereafter, the accused persons showing 'Bhujali' to the
informant snatched away the valuables along with the
motor bike from the informant. Accordingly, the FIR was
registered and the investigation of the case started. The
Petitioner along with other co-accused persons faced trial
for commission of an offence punishable under Sections
394/414 of the IPC. Eventually, by judgment dated
22.09.2008, the opposite party-accused has been acquitted.
Being aggrieved by such order of acquittal the State has
preferred this leave petition seeking leave to prefer an
appeal under Section 378 of the Cr.P.C.
9. Learned counsel for the Petitioner-State at the
juncture contended that there are ample materials on record
which would clearly indicate the involvement of the
accused persons in the present crime.
10. In course of his argument, learned counsel for the
Petitioner contended not only was the Opposite Party-
accused was identified in the T.I. parade, but also there are
ocular evidence clearly indicating the involvement in the
accused in the present crime. He further submitted that the
learned trial Court has failed to appreciate the
incriminating and clinching materials against the accused-
Opposite Party.
11. Although notice was issued. None appears for the
accused-Opposite Party.
12. This Court, on a careful analysis of the impugned
judgment of acquittal dated 22.09.2008, found many
glaring errors and latches on the part of the learned trial
Judge. The impugned judgment further reveals that many
clinching evidences have been completely ignored by the
trial Court while extending the benefit of acquittal to the
accused. A close reading of the impugned judgment also
reveals that there are witnesses who have supported the
case of the prosecution. However, such evidence has not
been properly appreciated by the learned trial Court while
delivering the impugned judgment. Although it is true that
one of the victims did not support the case of the
prosecution. However, the other co-victim has supported
the case of the prosecution and the same gets corroboration
from the evidence of the P.W.7 recorded during trial. This
Court further found that although certain latches have been
pointed out by the learned counsel for the State, at the end
the same are not material. It appears that many of the
witnesses have turned hostile. Particularly, the seizure
witness has not supported the seizure. The principal victim
in this case has also not supported the prosecution case.
The co-victim who has supported the case of the
prosecution was unable to depose as to whether the bag
which was snatched away contains cash or not.
13. Learned trial Court during trial has elaborately
discussed the evidence of the I.O., as the same assume
significance in the background of the present case since
most of the witnesses have turned hostile. On a careful
analysis of the evidence of the I.O. the learned trial Court
has referred to the particular evidence of the I.O. where he
has admitted in the cross-examination that no T.I. parade
was conducted in respect to the accused persons. Thus the
identification of the accused persons remains speculative
and the same has not been purposely established. In fact,
that was the main plank of challenge by the learned
counsel for the defence in their argument before the
learned trial Court. Even the P.W.7, who is the informant
and one of the victim, has failed to identify the accused
persons as he has stated in the deposition that he not see
the face of the accused persons and could not identify if the
accused were present on the dock. Thus, the learned trial
Court has come to a conclusion that the prosecution has
failed to establish a case against the accused persons
beyond reasonable doubt. On a careful analysis of the
impugned judgment, this Court finds no illegality in such
conclusion drawn by the learned trial Court.
14. In view of the aforesaid analysis, this Court is of the
view that the impugned judgment of acquittal does not call
for any interference by this Court at this stage.
15. Accordingly, the CRLLP is dismissed.
( A.K. Mohapatra)
Judge
Sisir
Designation: Personal Assistant
