STATE OF ORISSA Vs. SUDARSAN NAIK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE State in this appeal has called in question the order of acquittal passed by the Learned Asst. Sessions Judge, Angul in S.T. Case No. 71 -A of 1994 (Trial No. 03 of 1995) 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.) THE prosecution in the trial in order to establish its case against the Respondent examined as many as six witnesses. Besides the above, the prosecution proved the F.I.R. as Ext. 3, medical examination report of the victim, seizure list & other documents. Defence has tendered no evidence despite opportunity being given. The victim has been examined as P.W. 1 & her husband is P.W. 5, P.W. 2, is her sister -in -law, P.W. 6 is the investigating Officer & P.W. 3 & 4 are two seizure witnesses.

(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. 1 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. 1. 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 & the same therefore, calls for interference.