Research › Search › Judgment

Orissa High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 77 (ORI)

Pandu Dalai v. State of Orissa

2008-01-25

S.C.PARIJA

body2008
JUDGMENT S. C. PARIJA, J. — This application under Sec. 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioner challenging the order dated 29.7.2000 passed by the learned S.D.J.M., Bhanjanagar in G.R.Case No. 417 of 1994 (A) under Sections 241/294/323/337/506/34 I.P.C. read with Section 3 (1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. 2. The main contention of the petitioner is that the two other accused persons similarly situated having faced the trial and having been acquitted on the finding inter alia that the parties have entered into compromise and there is no evidence to support the case of the prosecution and in this split up case against the present petitioner, no further evidence implicating him is likely to come, no useful purpose would be served in allowing the present split up case against the petitioner to proceed any further. 3. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 18.10.1994 while the informant was purchasing egg at the shop of one Gandhia in village Nuagam, accused persons abused him in obscene language saying “HADI MAGIA” and then they dealt lathi blows on his head causing bleeding injuries. It is also alleged that when the villagers tried to intervene the accused persons pelted stones at them causing injuries to many. The matter was reported in Bhanja¬nagar Police Station and investigation was conducted. 4. During the course of trial, the accused persons entered into a compromise with the informant and were acquitted of the charges under Secs. 341, 323, 337/506/34 I.P.C. But the trial continued for the offence under Secs. 294/34 I.P.C. and 3(1)(x) of S.C. and S.T. (P.A.) Act as the offences are not compoundable and charge-sheet was submitted under Secs. 294/341/323/337/506/34 I.P.C. and under Sec. 3(1)(x) of the S.C. & S.T. (P.A.) Act. As the present petitioner remained as an absconder, the case against him was split up and the trial was taken up in respect of two other accused. 5. In the trial, three witnesses were examined by the prosecution. P.W.1 being the informant and P.Ws. 2 and 3 being the alleged eye witnesses to the occurrence. The informant in his evidence stated that he does not remember about the incident, as the same took place about 10 (ten) years back. He also denied to have lodged any report to the Police authorities. So there was absolutely no evidence. P.W.1 being the informant and P.Ws. 2 and 3 being the alleged eye witnesses to the occurrence. The informant in his evidence stated that he does not remember about the incident, as the same took place about 10 (ten) years back. He also denied to have lodged any report to the Police authorities. So there was absolutely no evidence. Accordingly, the trial Court held that there is absolutely no evidence on record to prove any of the ingredients with regard to the offence alleged against the accused persons and when the ingredients have not been proved, the charges failed. Accordingly, the accused persons were found not guilty and were acquitted under the provisions of Section 248(1) Cr.P.C. 6. The petitioner contends that when the two accused persons standing in the same footing have already been acquitted by the learned Special Judge on the finding that offences alleged against them have not been proved, no useful purpose would be served in continuing the proceeding against the petitioner in the split up case. The petitioner in this regard relies on a decision of this Court in the case of Santosh Kumar Maity v. State of Orissa reported in 2006 (II) OLR 308 , wherein this Court came to the conclusion that the principal accused having already faced trial and having been acquitted, the continuance of criminal proceeding against the petitioner after lapse of six years would undoubtedly amount to abuse of the process of law inasmuch as there is bleak chance of conviction and there is every likelihood that the case will end in acquittal. 7. Petitioner also relies on another decision of this Court in the case of Upendra Sahoo @ Upendra Kumar Sahoo v. State of Orissa reported in (2006) 35 OCR 171, wherein this Court took the similar view and quashed the criminal proceeding. In the instant case, as the other accused persons have already been acquitted by the judgment of the trial Court dated 8.12.1999 with the specific finding that there is absolutely no evidence on record to prove the charges against the accused persons and the other two accused persons having been found not guilty and acquitted, I feel that continuance of the criminal proceeding against the present petitioner after lapse of more than eight years would be an abuse of process of law, especially when there is bleak possibility of conviction. 8. 8. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this Court feels that no useful purpose will be served by allowing continuance of the criminal proceeding against the petitioner and ends of justice would be better served if the proceeding in the split up G.R.Case No. 417 of 1994 (A) pending in the Court of S.D.J.M., Bhanjanagar is quashed. Accordingly, this application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is allowed and the proceeding in G.R.Case No. 417 of 1994 (A) pending in the Court of S.D.J.M., Bhanjanagar is hereby quashed. The CRL.M.C. is accordingly allowed. Crl. M.C. allowed.