SATYABAN PRADHAN Vs. STATE OF ODISHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, hereinafter referred as "Cr.P.C." for brevity. The petitioner is one of the accused in G.R. Case No.1237-A of 1992 of the court of the learned S.D.J.M., Puri, who has been charge-sheeted for the alleged commission of offences under Sections 341, 307 and 294/34 of the I.P.C. The petitioner was not arrested and one Madhab Chandra Sahoo, the co-accused was arrested and released on bail. Later on the case of Madhab Chandra Sahoo was spitted up from the case of the present petitioner. The said case was committed to the Court of Session and it came before the learned Assistant Sessions Judge-cum-C.J.M., Puri bearing S.T. No.74/116 of 1998 for trial.

(2.) The prosecution examined five witnesses in all and the defence examined none. It is apparent from the case records that the prosecution witness no.1-Gani Sahu, who is one of the eye witnesses, has not supported the case of the prosecution and he has not been cross-examined by the prosecution. It is stated that the informant Pravakara Senapati, who happens to be the injured in this case, is examined as P.W. No.5 and has stated that the occurrence took place about ten years back. He further states that while he was returning from hotel during the noon hour his bicycle dashed against the accused, for which the accused assaulted him, but he has further stated that he does not remember what has happened at that time. Prosecution has also not proved the F.I.R. through this witness. Rest of the witnesses examined on behalf of the prosecution i.e. P. W. No.2-Anil Kumar Sahu, P.W. No.3-Sunil Kumar Sahu and P.W. No.4-Ligam Kumar Behera have not supported the case of the prosecution. They have not been cross-examined by the prosecution by obtaining permission under Section 154 of the Evidence Act. Accordingly, having recorded the evidence of these prosecution witnesses, learned Asst. Sessions Judge has come to the conclusion that there is no evidence on record to conclude that the accused has wrongfully restrained Pravakar Senapati and assaulted him on his face by a stick with an intention to commit murder and has also abused him in obscene languages in a public place to cause annoyance. Accordingly, it was held that the prosecution has failed to bring home the charges under Sections 341, 307, 294/34 of the I.P.C. against the petitioner and the petitioner was therefore acquitted under Section 232 of the Cr.P.C.

(3.) Now at this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that since none of the prosecution witnesses has supported the case of the prosecution and the learned trial court has acquitted the co-accused under Section 232 of the Cr.P.C., the trial of the present petitioner in the split up case will be a futile exercise and hence, would cause an abuse of process of law. He further states that when the result is almost known in this case, the petitioner should not have to undergo the ignominy of facing a criminal trial. Hence, he prays that the criminal proceeding against the present petitioner be quashed in exercise of jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C.