ORIGINAL JURISDICTION - Orissa High Court

166
8. Applying the principle to the case in hand, it is the duty of the Court
not to discuss the evidence but to see that if the order passed by the
learned Adhoc Additional Sessions Judge requires interference of this
Court. In this case, the statement of P.W.5 Laxman Pradhan, the injured
himself, who has sustained six injuries out of which three are grievous in
nature, has been brushed aside by the learned trial court rather
perfunctorily. It is seen that the learned trial court has taken into
consideration the non-mentioning of the name of P.W.4 Shyam Pahanda in
the FIR and has held that the presence of the said witness at the spot is
ruled out. At the same time, he has taken into consideration the evidence of
P.W.4 Shyam Pahanda to discredit the evidence of the injured P.W.5
Laxman Pradhan. The evidence of the witnesses has not been discussed
and appreciated in their proper perspective against the accepted canons of
appreciation of evidence and the testimony of most of the witnesses have
not been properly discussed in the judgment consisting of proper reasoning
and lack of judicial approach. The propriety has been entirely ignored and
as pointed out earlier at one stage, the lower court looking into the evidence
held that the presence of P.W.4 has not been proved because the name
was not mentioned in the FIR, such finding is against the settled principle of
law that F.I.R is not an encyclopedia. The lower court also committed gross
illegality by taking into his evidence to find out fault in the evidence of the
injured.
9. The apex Court in Bindeswari Prasad Singh @ B. P. Singh and
others Vrs. State of Bihar and Others, (2002)23 OCR SC 476 has held
NILAKANTHA PRADHAN -V- STATE OF ORISSA [S.K.MISHRA,J.]
that an order of acquittal cannot be interfered by the High Court in revision
but in exceptional cases, where the interest of public justice requires
interference for the correction of a manifest illegality or the prevention of
gross miscarriage of justice. The apex Court has further ruled that the High
Court will not be justified in interfering with an order of acquittal merely
because the trial court has taken a wrong view of the law or has erred in
appreciation of evidence.
10. In this case, however, the machinations shown by the trial court in
appreciation of evidence cannot be held to be a simple error in appreciation
of evidence. In fact, the whole approach of the trial court has resulted in
manifest illegality and gross miscarriage of justice.
11. Keeping in view the aforesaid considerations, this Court holds that the
order of acquittal recorded by the trial court cannot be sustained and
requires interference of the revisional court.
12. In the result, the Criminal Revision succeeds, the judgment of acquittal
dated 24.10.2005 passed by the learned Adhoc Additional Sessions Judge,
FTC No.1., Puri is hereby set aside and the case is remitted to the trial
Court for re-hearing of the argument and to decide the case afresh.