Research › Search › Judgment

Orissa High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 422 (ORI)

Nina @ Niranjan Mohapatra v. State of Odisha

2014-07-15

S.C.PARIJA

body2014
ORDER 15.7.2014 - Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C., has been filed praying for quashing of the criminal proceeding initiated against the present petitioner in G.R.Case No.1069 of 2012 (A), arising out of Darghabazar P.S.Case No. 65, dated 28.7.2012, under Section 302/364/323/294/120-B(I)/506 IPC, pending in the Court of learned S.D.J.M. (S), Cuttack and the order of cognizance passed therein. The brief facts of the prosecution case is that on 28.7.2012, at about 11 PM, one Ganesh Sahoo lodged a written report before the I.I.C., Dargha Bazar Police Station, Cuttack, which was registered as Darghabazar P.S.Case No. 65 of 2012, under Sections 302/279/120-B/323/294/34 IPC, alleging therein that on the same day while the deceased Ramesh Sahoo was proceeding with his fast food trolley, at that time the accused Lokanath Mohapatra was coming in his TATA ACE vehicle and dashed the fast food trolley of the deceased Ramesh Sahoo. Thereafter the accused Lokanath Mohapatra got down from the vehicle and assaulted the deceased Ramesh Sahoo and when the informant, who is the brother of the deceased intervened, the accused Lokanath also assaulted him. It was alleged that after some time the accused Babuni Singh along with the present petitioner took the deceased Ramesh with him to the Dharmasala lane, in order to resolve the dispute. It was further alleged that when the deceased along with others arrived at near the spot, the accused Lokanath Mohapatra concealed himself and according to his pre-plan, attacked the deceased by means of sharp edged weapon, causing bleeding injuries on his body. It was further alleged that thereafter the deceased was shifted to City Hospital and subsequently he was declared dead. Basing upon such report, the IIC, Dargha Bazar Police Station registered the case and started investigation. After completion of the investigation, the police submitted chargesheet against the accused persons, including the present petitioner, under Sections 302/364/323/294/120-B(I)/506, IPC, cognizance of which has been taken by the learned Magistrate vide order dated 25.11.2012. It is the case of the accused-petitioner that two other accused persons, namely, Amarjeet Singh and Loka @ Lokanath Mahapatra, who faced trial in the Court of learned 2nd Addl. Sessions Judge, Cuttack, in S.T.Case No. 36 of 2013, have already been acquitted of all charges, as the prosecution failed to prove the same beyond all reasonable doubts. It is the case of the accused-petitioner that two other accused persons, namely, Amarjeet Singh and Loka @ Lokanath Mahapatra, who faced trial in the Court of learned 2nd Addl. Sessions Judge, Cuttack, in S.T.Case No. 36 of 2013, have already been acquitted of all charges, as the prosecution failed to prove the same beyond all reasonable doubts. It is accordingly submitted that as the principal accused persons, namely, Amarjeet Singh and Loka @ Lokanath Mahapatra have already been acquitted of all charges vide judgment dated 04.03.2014, passed by the learned 2nd Addl. Sessions Judge, Cuttack, in S.T.Case No. 36 of 2013, no useful purpose would be served by allowing continuance of criminal proceeding against the present petitioner, especially when the chances of his ultimate conviction are bleak. In this regard, learned counsel for the present petitioner has relied upon a decision of this Court in Sri Premananda Sahu v. State of Orissa, CLT (2013) Supp. Crl. 172 : 2012 (II) OLR 961 . On a perusal of the judgment dated 04.03.2014, passed by the learned 2nd Addl. Sessions Judge, Cuttack, in S.T. Case No. 36 of 2013, it is seen that though the prosecution examined 30 witnesses, none of the independent witnesses have supported the case of the prosecution. Even the informant (P.W.1) has not supported the case of the prosecution, though he admitted to have lodged the FIR. In his cross-examination, P.W.1 has stated that contents of the FIR was not read over and explained to him and so he cannot say about the contents thereof. He has gone to the extent of saying that he does not know the accused persons standing on the dock. P.W.2 has also not supported the case of the prosecution. Further, P.Ws. 3 to 21, P.W. 25, P.W.27 and P.W.29 have denied to have any knowledge with regard to the incident. P.Ws. 9 and 21, who are witnesses to recovery of the weapon of offence under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, have also not supported the case of the prosecution. They have been declared hostile by the prosecution and have been cross-examined at length, but nothing substantial could be elicited from them, in support of the case of the prosecution. P.Ws. 9 and 21, who are witnesses to recovery of the weapon of offence under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, have also not supported the case of the prosecution. They have been declared hostile by the prosecution and have been cross-examined at length, but nothing substantial could be elicited from them, in support of the case of the prosecution. P.W.30, who is the Investigating Officer, had stated regarding recording of the statement of the accused leading to discovery of the weapon of offence under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, which was not available on record. Further, the Investigating Officer (P.W.30) has not identified the weapon of offence and has not taken any steps to mark the same as Material Object. Accordingly, learned Trial Court has come to find that in absence of any positive evidence with regard to the weapon of offence, no reliance can be placed on theory of leading to discovery put-forth by the prosecution. On the basis of the evidence available on record, learned Trial Court has come to find that the prosecution has failed to prove the charges made against the accused persons beyond all reasonable doubts and in absence of any cogent and reliable evidence on record, the accused persons cannot be held guilty and therefore, they are entitled to an order of acquittal. Learned counsel for the State fairly submits that there is no other independent material against the present petitioner in support of the charges made against him. Considering the submissions made and keeping in view the fact that the other two accused persons, who faced trial, have already been acquitted of all charges in S.T.Case No. 36 of 2013, I feel the continuance of the criminal proceeding against the present petitioner would be an abuse of the process of Court, especially when the chances of his ultimate conviction are bleak. Accordingly, the criminal proceeding initiated against the present petitioner in G.R.Case No.1069 of 2012 (A), arising out of Darghabazar P.S.Case No.65, dated 28.7.2012, under Sections 302/364/323/294/120-B(I)/506 IPC, pending in the Court of learned S.D.J.M. (S), Cuttack, and all consequential criminal proceedings are hereby quashed. CRLMC is accordingly disposed of. Issue urgent certified copy as per rules. CRLMC disposed of.