Orissa High Court
CRLLP/37/2020 on 30 March, 2021
Author: S. Panda
Bench: S. Panda
CRLLP No. 37 of 2020
3. 30.03.2021 Heard learned Additional Standing Counsel for the
appellant-State.
This is an appeal to leave under Section 378 (1) and
(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
The respondent was the accused persons in Spl.
Case No. 100/87 of 2016-15 in the court of learned Additional
Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge, Keonjhar. He was charged
under section 6 of POCSO Act read with Section 376 (2)(f) & 506
of IPC. The Trial Court acquitted the respondent of the charge by
judgment dated 20.01.2020.
Perused the entire evidence, more particularly the
deposition of the victim as well as the deposition of the Doctor.
The Doctor, who has examined the victim found as
follows:-
(i) There was no external bodily injury found
suggesting forcible sexual intercourse.
(ii) The wearing apparels of the victim had already
seized by the police at the time of my
examination.
(iii) There was no sing and symptom of recent
sexual intercourse.
(iv) On examination of genitalia, there was no
tenderness, no tear of hymen, no bleeding and
no pain.
After discussing all the evidence, the learned Trial
Court found that due to previous enimity between the parties, it
is difficult to rely the oral testimony of the P.Ws. On
Arun consideration of the same and also the reasoning assigned by the
2
learned Trial Court, this Court is of the opinion that rightly the
Court below has passed the impugned order. This Court is not
inclined to interfere with the same since two views are possible
and the views in favour of the accused is to be accepted.
Accordingly, if leave to appeal will be granted, the same will be a
futile exercise and abuse of process of the Court. As such, we
find no reason to grant leave.
The CRLLP is accordingly dismissed.
..........................
S. Panda, J.
............................. S.K.Panigrahi, J.