Research › Search › Judgment

Orissa High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 158 (ORI)

Surya Narayan Boxi v. State of Orissa

2014-03-06

S.C.PARIJA

body2014
ORDER : Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. This application under Section 482 Cr. P.C. has been filed for quashing of the criminal proceeding initiated against the petitioner in G.R. Case No. 176 of 2001, arising out of Mohana P.S. Case No. 58 of 2001, pending in the Court of the learned J.M.F.C., R. Udaygiri for the offences under Sections 395/397/333 IPC and the order of cognizance passed therein. The brief facts of the case is that the informant, who is a Forest Guard in Chandragiri Section in the district of Gajapati, lodged a written report before the IIC, Mohana Police Station, which was registered as Mohana P.S. Case No. 58 of 2001, under Sections 395/397/333 IPC alleging therein that on 22.11.2001 at about 9 a.m. while the informant along with other Forest Guards were performing their duties inside Chandragiri Forest Section, they heard the sound of cutting of trees inside the said forest. Accordingly, they reached the spot and found six persons cutting down the trees and when the informant' tried to obstruct them, all the accused persons abused the informant and other forest officials and assaulted them by means of deadly weapons. Due to such assault the informant became senseless. The accused persons snatched away the guns from the informant and other forest guards forcibly and fled away from the spot towards other areas of the reserved forest. The police after investigation, submitted charge sheet against the six accused persons including the present petitioner under Sections 395/397/333 IPC and the learned Magistrate took cognizance of the offences and directed issue of NBW against the accused persons. It is the case of the petitioner that two of the co-accused persons, namely, Pradeep Boxy and Susanta Boxy faced trial in Sessions Case No. 50 of 2009 and the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gajapati, vide judgment dated 01.3.2011, has acquitted the two accused persons holding that there is not an iota of evidence against the two accused persons to implicate them in the alleged offences under Sections 395/397/333 IPC. The relevant findings of the learned trial Court is extracted below:- "But one thing is strange in the investigation made by the police officer that through out the entire investigation he could not able to arrest any of the accused persons and so admittedly there was no T.I. Parade of the suspects by the injured witnesses during the entire investigation. In order to verify as to whether sincere attempt was made by the police officer to arrest the accused persons or not, I have gone through the case diary and found that he had not collected any statements of the witnesses in order to get the names of the accused persons but surprisingly enough all at sudden on dated 13.08.2002 after about nine months of the occurrence he got the names and address of the accused persons from the Forest Range Officer. The Forest Range Officer, who has been examined in this case as P.W.4 has not deposed such fact in the Court. So taking as a whole the aforesaid deficit in the investigation it is seen that right from the beginning till submission of charge sheet no sincere attempt was made to apprehend the culprits of this case and hastily a charge sheet was submitted against some absconding accused persons only to satisfy the authorities that investigation was completed and charge sheet was submitted. So as a whole it is seen that there is not an iota of evidence against the present two accused persons to implicate them in the alleged offences under Sections 395/397/333 IPC." Learned counsel for the accused-petitioner has relied upon the judgment of this Court in Premananda Sahu vs. State of Orissa, (2013) 54 OCR 544 & 2012 (II) OLR 961 in support of his contention that as the two co-accused persons, who had faced trial, have been acquitted, in absence of any clear, cogent and credible evidence and as there is no prospect of the case ending in conviction as against the present accused-petitioner, no useful purpose would be served by allowing continuance of the criminal proceeding against the petitioner, especially when the chances of his ultimate conviction are bleak. Considering the submissions made and keeping in view the findings of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Paralakhemundi, Gajapati, in Sessions Case No. 50 of 2009, I feel, no useful purpose would be served by allowing continuance of the criminal proceeding initiated against the present petitioner, especially when the chances of his ultimate conviction are bleak. Accordingly, the criminal proceeding initiated against the present petitioners in G.R. Case No. 176 of 2001, arising out of Mohana P.S. Case No. 58 of 2001, pending in the Court of the learned J.M.F.C., R. Udaygiri and all consequential proceedings are hereby quashed. CRLMC is accordingly disposed of. Issue urgent certified copy as per rules. CRLMC disposed of.