Orissa High Court
State Of Orissa vs Gariba Mahananda ..... Opposite Party on 11 September, 2025
Author: Aditya Kumar Mohapatra
Bench: Aditya Kumar Mohapatra
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
CRLLP No.15 of 2005
State of Orissa ..... Petitioner
Represented By Adv. -
Mr. U.C. Jena, ASC
-versus-
Gariba Mahananda ..... Opposite Party
Represented By Adv. -
Mr. Basudev Pujari
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR MOHAPATRA
ORDER
11.09.2025
Order No.
08. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement
(Virtual/ Physical Mode).
2. Heard the learned counsel for the Petitioner. Perused the
application and the impugned judgment dated 15.10.2003.
3. The State-Petitioner has preferred this petition under Section
378(1) & (3) of the Cr.P.C. seeking leave to prefer an appeal
against the judgment dated 15.10.2003 passed by the learned
Assistant Sessions Judge, Sonepur in Sessions Case
No.32(S)/19-A of 2001.
4. The prosecution case, in short, is that an F.I.R. was lodged,
inter alia, alleging that in the eventing of 6th April, 1998, while
P.W.5-Rasananda Bhoi was returning home, the present Petitioner
along with other accused persons obstructed the P.W.5-Rasananda
Bhoi (Injured) on the way. Thereafter, P.W.5-Rasananda Bhoi
was assaulted by a group of persons including the present
Petitioner. As a result of the aforesaid assault, the P.W.-5-
Rasananda Bhoi has sustained multiple injuries, as a result of
which, he was shifted to the V.S.S. Medical College and Hospital,
Burla for treatment. On the basis of the complaint lodged by the
Informant, namely, Pabitra Kumar Bhoi, an F.I.R. was registered
at Biramaharajpur Police Station and, accordingly, the
investigation was taken up by the I.O. Finally, a charge sheet was
filed under Section 341/34 and 307/34 of the I.P.C. The accused
persons including the present Opposite Party have faced the trial
for the aforesaid charges.
5. On perusal of the impugned judgment, it is observed that the
trial court has conducted trial and examined 9 witnesses from the
side of the prosecution. By virtue of a detailed judgment, the trial
court acquitted the accused persons including the Opposite Party
with the finding that the evidence tendered by the prosecution is
very fragile and no adverse remark can be drawn against the
accused persons. Accordingly, it was held that the prosecution has
failed to establish the charges brought against the accused persons
beyond reasonable doubts. Hence, the Opposite Party was found
not guilty of offences punishable under Section 341/34 and 307/34
of I.P.C. and he was acquitted therefrom.
6. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment, the State-
Petitioner has preferred the present application seeking leave to
prefer an appeal. Although initially the application was filed with
delay, however, it appears that the delay has been condoned. This
Court is shocked to observe that although the occurrence is of the
year 1998, however the judgment of acquittal was passed way
back in the year 2003 and the leave application was filed in the
year 2005. However, the same is being listed for admission after
two decades. It appears that no effective steps were taken by the
State counsel for early listing of the matter.
7. On perusal of the leave petition, it is observed that six
grounds have been taken while seeking leave to prefer an appeal
against the impugned judgment. Going through the grounds taken
therein seeking leave from this Court to prefer an appeal, this
Court is of the view that the same does not inspire confidence of
this Court to grant leave to prefer an appeal. Moreover, since two
decades have elapsed in the meantime, it would not be fair to the
Opposite Party who has been acquitted since long and it would not
be in the interest of justice to grant leave to prefer an appeal at the
belated stage.
8. In such view of the matter, this Court is not inclined to grant
leave to the State-Petitioner to prefer an appeal.
9. Accordingly, the CRLLP stands dismissed.
( A.K. Mohapatra )
Judge
Debasis
