Orissa High Court
Susanta Naik vs State Of Odisha on 5 August, 2024
Bench: D. Dash, V. Narasingh
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
CRLA No.432 of 2024
Susanta Naik Appellant
Mr. D. Sethi, Advocate
-versus-
State of Odisha .... Respondent
Mr. P.K. Maharaj, ASC
CORAM:
Mr. JUSTICE D. DASH
Mr. JUSTICE V. NARASINGH
ORDER
05.08.2024 I.A. No.1023 of 2024 Order No.
04. 1. This matter is taken up through hybrid arrangement (virtual/physical) mode.
2. The appellant by filing this Application under Section 389 of the Cr.P.C. prays for suspension of execution of sentence imposed upon him for the conviction recorded under Sections 302/201 of the Indian Penal Code by the learned Sessions Judge, Keonjhar in S.T. Case No.17 of 2022 and his release on bail pending disposal of this Appeal.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that although this appellant had been charged for commission of offence under Section 376-D/201 IPC the trial Court has held him guilty for commission of offence 302/201 of IPC basing upon the circumstantial evidence. He further submits that the projected circumstances do not complete the chain of events being joined together and there remains so many missing links such as non- seizure of mobile phone sets of the accused, phone set said to have been used by the victim which was not in her name etc. He submits Page 1 of 3 that when other co-accused persons facing the trial with the present appellant since have been acquitted of all the charges and this appellant has been serving out the sentence with effect from 26.10.2021. He thus contends that it is a fit case for suspension of further execution of sentence imposed upon the appellant in S.T. Case No.17 of 2022 and his release on bail pending disposal of this appeal.
4. Learned counsel for the State opposes the move. According to him, the trial Court having gone for detail analysis of evidence although has found the sexual relationship between the victim and the accused to have been established yet for good reasons has declined to record conviction under Section 376-D IPC in the absence of other surrounding circumstantial evidence in that light. He further submits that basing upon several circumstances when trial Court has found the prosecution to have discharged the initial burden of proof in pointing at the complicity of this appellant, it has rightly taken a cue from the silence of the appellant that the burden of proof shifting upon his shoulder as per the provision contained in Section 106 of the Evidence Act has not been repelled.
5. Considering the submission made and on going through the evidence on record, we are not inclined to accept the prayer for suspension of execution of sentence against the appellant and his release on bail pending disposal of this appeal.
6. Accordingly, the I.A. stands dismissed.
(D. Dash) Judge (V. Narasingh) Judge Page 2 of 3 CRLA. No. 432 of 2024 Order No.
05. 1. List this matter in the week commencing 21.10.2024.
(D. Dash) Judge (V. Narasingh) Judge PKS/Soumya Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SOUMYA RANJAN SAMAL Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa Date: 07-Aug-2024 16:22:23 Page 3 of 3