Tukuna @ Pinku @ Bishnu vs State Of Odisha & Anr
2026 Latest Caselaw 299 Ori

Orissa High Court

Tukuna @ Pinku @ Bishnu vs State Of Odisha & Anr on 13 January, 2026

Author: Sanjeeb K Panigrahi

Bench: Sanjeeb K Panigrahi

Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: GITANJALI NAYAK
Reason: Authentication
Location: OHC
Date: 15-Jan-2026 17:49:07


                       IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
                                      CRLA No.39 of 2026
                   Tukuna @ Pinku @ Bishnu .....                    Appellant (s)
                   Charan Behera                       Mr. Amulya Ratna Panda,
                                                                        Advocate
                                             -versus-
                   State of Odisha & Anr.      .....                 Respondent(s)
                                                      Mrs. Sarita Moharana, ASC
                                            CORAM:
                     THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE SANJEEB K PANIGRAHI
                                           ORDER

13.01.2026 Order No.

1. This matter is taken up through hybrid

arrangement.

2. Heard.

3. Admit.

4. Call for the digitized copy of the Trial Court Record.

5. List this matter on 05.03.2026 for final hearing.

6. Heard.

7. There shall be stay realization of fine till disposal of

this appeal.

8. The I.A is accordingly disposed of.

9. The Appellant, by filing this Application under

Section 389(1) of the Cr.P.C. has prayed for suspension of

execution of sentence imposed upon him for the conviction

recorded under section 363, 366, 323, 506, 376(3), 376(2)(n)

of I.P.C. and read with Section 4(2) & 6(1) of POCSO Act,

by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-cum-Special

Court under POCSO Act, Phulbani in C.T Case No.61 of

2023, pending disposal of this Appeal.

10. Heard learned Counsel for the Appellant and

learned Counsel for the State.

11. Taking into account the submissions made and on

going through the impugned judgment of conviction as

well as the role of this Appellant as it reveals from the

evidence of the prosecution witnesses; this Court is not

inclined to accept the prayer as advanced in the

application.

12. The I.A is accordingly dismissed.

(Dr. Sanjeeb K Panigrahi) Judge

Gitanjali