STATE OF ORISSA Vs. JUDHISTI HIAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE State in this appeal has called in question the order of acquittal passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Gunupur in Sessions Case No. 22 of 1994 acquitting the respondent of the charges under sections 376/506 I.P.C. Facts necessary for disposal of the above appeal run as under:

(2.) DURING trial, prosecution examined as many as thirteen witnesses when the defence examined three. Besides the above, the prosecution proved the F.I.R. as Ext. 5, medical examination report of the victim, seizure list and other documents. The victim has been examined as P.W. 8 and her husband is P.W. 1, P.W. 2, 4 and 7 are her sister -in -law, father -in -law and mother -in -law respectively. P.W. 3 and 6 are two neighbourers and P.W. 5 is a co -villager. The medical officer examining the respondent is P.W. 11 and who examined the victim is P.W. 10. P.W. 13 is the principal investigating officer whereas P.W, 12 has done some formal part of the investigation towards the closure.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the appellant -State submits that in this case, the appreciation of evidence as done by the trial court is improper. According to him, the trial court ought to have relied upon the evidence of P. W.8 for fastening the guilt upon the respondent, who is liable for the offences for which he stood charged. He further submits that the trial court has gone to pick up some flimsy reasons to entertain doubt with regard to the veracity of the testimony of P.W.8. He further submits that even though the required corroboration from evidence was available, the trial court has ignored the same. Thus, he contends that the finding of the trial court is perverse being based on improper appreciation of evidence leading to miscarriage of justice and the same therefore, calls for interference.