Orissa High Court
State Of Orissa vs Narendra Pradhan on 19 September, 2025
Author: Aditya Kumar Mohapatra
Bench: Aditya Kumar Mohapatra
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
CRLLP No.51 of 2006
State Of Orissa ..... Appellant
Represented By Adv. -
A.s.c.
-versus-
Narendra Pradhan ..... Respondent
Represented By Adv. -
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR
MOHAPATRA
ORDER
19.09.2025
Order No.
05. MISC.CASE NO.10 OF 2011
1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement
(Virtual /Physical Mode).
2. The abovenoted misc.case has been filed with a prayer for
condonation of delay in preferring the present leave petition. On
perusal of the Stamp Report, it appears that there exists a delay
of 53 days in presenting the leave petition before this Court. On
perusal of the application as well as upon consideration of the
submission of the State-Petitioner, this Court is of the view that
there is sufficient ground to condone the delay in preferring the
appeal.
3. Heard learned counsel for the State-Petitioner. None
appears on behalf of the Respondent-accused despite valid
service of notice. Leave application is pending since 2006. The
Opposite Party-accused has been charged under section 376 of
the Indian Penal Code. By virtue of the impugned judgment he
has been acquitted from the charge under section 376 of the
Indian Penal code.
4. Learned counsel for the State-Petitioner referred to the
grounds narrated in the leave Petition. In course of his argument
learned counsel for the Petitioner emphasised on the grounds
(e), (f), (g) & (h). On perusal of the ground, this Court observes
that the grounds taken are good grounds in preferring the appeal
against the judgment of acquittal.
5. Taking into consideration the submissions of the learned
counsel for the Petitioner-State as well as the grounds taken by
the State in the leave application, this Court is of the view that
there are good grounds to prefer appeal against the judgment of
acquittal. This Court examined the ground (e) wherein the State
has raised a contention that the trial court has ignored the
testimony of the prosecutrix and on the basis of the fact that the
medical evidence does not corroborate the case of the
prosecution, the accused has been given the benefit of doubt.
While doing so, learned trial court lost sight of the fact that the
victim has been examined after 23 days of the occurrence.
Therefore, it was not expected that the medical report is
corroborated to the testimony of the prosecutrix. Moreover, it was
argued by the learned counsel for the State-Petitioner that in
view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court that the sole
testimony of the prosecutrix is good enough in a case of rape,
learned court has committed an illegality in acquitting the
accused.
6. Having heard learned counsel for the Petitioner-State and
on perusal of the application as well as on close scrutiny of the
impugned judgment, this Court is of the view that there are good
grounds upon which the judgment of the trial court can be
assailed and there is possibility of succeeding in the appeal. In
such view of the matter this Court is inclined to allow this
application. Accordingly, leave is granted.
7. Accordingly, the State-Petitioner is directed to file an
appeal against the order of acquittal within four week weeks from
today.
8. The CRLLP is disposed of.
( A.K. Mohapatra )
Judge
RKS
Location: High Court of Orissa
