Dillip Kumar Das vs State Of Odisha on 20 April, 2026

Author: V. Narasingh

Bench: V. Narasingh

       IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

                     CRREV No.329 of 2002

 (In the matter of an application under Section 401 of read
 with Section 397 of Cr.P.C.)

Dillip Kumar Das                ....            Petitioner



                           -versus-

1.

State of Odisha

2.Duryodhan Mohanta .... Opposite Parties

For Petitioner : Mr. B. Karna, Amicus Curiae For Opposite Party: Mr. P.K. Ray, AGA

CORAM: JUSTICE V. NARASINGH

DATE OF FINAL HEARING : 06.02.2026

DATE OF JUDGMENT : 20.04.2026

V. Narasingh,J. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for state.

1. This Criminal Revision has been filed assailing the judgment dated 01.03.2002 passed by the learned Addl. District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Baripada in

Criminal Appeal No.66/47 of 2001-97, affirming the order of conviction qua the petitioner dated 20.08.1997 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior division)-cum-J.M.F.C., Karanjia in G.R. Case No.82 of 1989 under Sections. 279/337/ 338/304-A of I.P.C. and imposing a sentence of R.I. for 2 years and to pay a fine of Rs.2000/-, in default to undergo R.I. for 2 months under section 304-A of I.P.C.

2. The case of the prosecution is that on 01.04.1989 at about 2:45 A.M., the accused- Petitioner was driving a jeep bearing registration No. ORJ-1392 from Karanjia to Champua carrying six passengers. While negotiating a 'U'-shaped turn at Kerkera crossing at high speed, the vehicle capsized, causing injuries to the occupants, and one passenger, Binod Kumar Pal, later succumbed to his injuries in the hospital. On receiving information, the informant reached the spot, arranged medical aid, and reported the matter at Karanjia Police Station and upon completion of investigation, charge sheet was submitted under Sections 279/337/338/304-A IPC.

3. To drive home the charge, the prosecution examined nine witnesses, of whom, P.Ws. 5 and 8 are the occupants of the vehicle. P.Ws.1, 3, 6 and 7 are post occurrence witnesses. Out of whom P.W.1 is the informant, P.W.2 is the seizure witnesses, P.W.4 is the Doctor and P.W.9 is the Investigating Officer.

The most material witnesses are P.Ws 5 and 8 the occupants of the vehicle. Several documents were exhibited.

No evidence was adduced on behalf of the accused-Petitioner except denying to the allegation that the accident took place because of rush and negligent driving.

4. On going through the materials and evidence on record, the learned Trial Court by judgment dated 20.08.1997, convicted the Petitioner under the aforementioned sections secs. 279/337/338/304-A I.P.C. and directed him to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for two years for commission of offence under Section 304-A, that being the gravest offence and to pay a fine of Rs.2000/- and, in default, to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for further period of two months. No separate sentences

were awarded under Section 279/337/338 of IPC. Learned Trial Court also rejected the prayer to grant the benefit of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as P.O. Act) to the Petitioner.

Being aggrieved by the same, an appeal was preferred and the learned Addl. District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Baripada, in Criminal Appeal No.66/47 of 2001-97, by the judgment dated 01.03.2002 affirmed the conviction and sentence imposed, which is assailed in this criminal revision.

5. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the Petitioner that the appreciation of evidence by the Courts below is ex facie perverse and hence, the matter merits interference in exercise of the revisional jurisdiction of this Court and the Petitioner is entitled to be acquitted.

6. Learned counsel for the State opposes such prayer more so in view of the contours of revisional jurisdiction of this Court.

7. To test the veracity of the submission of the learned counsel for the Petitioner that the appreciation of the evidence is ex facie

perverse, this Court independently perused the evidence P.Ws.5 and 8.

8. It is not in dispute that the Petitioner was the driver of the ill-fated vehicle involved in the accident i.e. ORJ-1392 and P.Ws. 5 and 8 are the occupants of the vehicle.

9. This Court is conscious of the fact that it does not possess co-extensive powers of appreciation of evidence as that of an Appellate Court while exercising revisional jurisdiction. In this context, a respectful reference may be made to the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Mahabir v. State of Haryana, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 184, wherein it has been reiterated that the revisional jurisdiction is supervisory in nature and does not permit re- appreciation of evidence as an appellate court.

10. Hence, the submission of the learned counsel for the Petitioner that the approach of the learned Trial Court as well as the Appellate Court is ex facie perverse warranting interference and that there is no scope to take a view other than to acquit the Petitioner of the charges on the basis of evidence on record has

to be tested on the anvil of law laid down as above in the case of Mahabir (supra).

11. Analyzing the evidence on record on the touchstone of the aforesaid principle, it is seen that there is no whisper from the two occupants on which the prosecution relied, i.e., P.Ws.-5 and 8, that there was any rash and negligent act on the part of the driver-Petitioner which caused the accident, rather it is borne out from their evidence that the vehicle was being driven carefully, but unfortunately such evidence was lost sight of and mechanically relying on Exhibit-11, the report of M.V.I., the order of conviction was recorded and the Appellate Court has mechanically accepted such version and in fact went on to affirm the conviction and imposition of sentence.

The relevant excerpts from the examination-in- chief and cross-examination of P.Ws. 5 and 8 are extracted hereunder:

"Deposition of Witness No.5 for the Prosecution.

Examination-in-chief ........I know the accused. On 01/04/89 at about 2.30 A.M in

night accident took place. I my self, Susil Sahu of Champua, One Naik of Chandu sahi proceeded from Karanjia towards Keonjhar in a jeep No. ORJ1392 driven by accused Dillip Das, but at the turning of Kerkera Chhak, suddenly it capsized and toppled. All of us sustained injuries. My head lacerated and chest pained. I lost my sense and was brought to Karanjia Hospital. Occupant Binod Pala, who was sitting near me in that jeep expired. Accused also sustained injuries.

Cross-examination Vehicle was driven in speed. It was moving in slow (illegible). It was on Keonjhar Karanjia main road. Road was not so wide at the spot.

XXX XXX XXX"

Deposition of Witness No.8 for the Prosecution.

Examination-in-Chief .........There was a jeep accident 01.04.1989 night at about 3 A.M. at village Kerkera. On that day night, I reached Karanjia bus stand in Bahalda-Rajdhani Bus. I was waiting to board vehicle to go to

my village. While I was in the bus stand the jeep arrived. 1 boarded the jeep. I was sitting on the left side rear seat of the jeep. Where the jeep reached near a curve in village kerkera, it met with an accident.

The jeep overturned. I was thrown out of the jeep due to the accident. I received injuries on my face below the right eye. My left leg was fractured. There were seven persons in the jeep including the driver when the accident occurred. After sometime, Rourkella-Baripada bus arrived at the spot and it stopped. We were removed to Karanjia Hospital in that bus. I was treated in the Govt. Hospital at karanjia.

Cross-examination The road was narrow where the accident occurred. The jeep capsized while negotiating the curve. I cannot say if there was any mechanical defect in the jeep at or before the accident."

12. In the considered view of this Court, the appreciation of evidence is ex facie perverse in the case at hand and maintaining the order of conviction amounts to miscarriage of justice.

13. Accordingly, the CRLREV is allowed and The conviction and sentence as imposed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division)-cum- J.M.F.C., Karanjia under Sections 279/337/ 338/304-A I.P.C. and sentencing the Petitioner to undergo R.I. for 2 years and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/-, in default to undergo R.I. for 2 months more under Section 304-A of I.P.C., and as affirmed by the learned Addl. District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Baripada are hereby set aside.

14. The bail bond(s) stand cancelled and the sureties are discharged.

(V. NARASINGH) Judge Orissa High Court, Cuttack Dated the 20th April, 2026/ Soumya

Signed by: SOUMYA RANJAN SAMAL

Location: High Court of Orissa Date: 01-May-2026 18:00:07