IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK CRLLP No. 65 of 2007 State of Odisha ..…... Petitioner(s) Mr. Amitabh Pradhan, ASC -Versus- Gagan Bihari Mohanty & Anr. ……. Opposite Party (s) Mr. S.R. Mulia, Adv. CORAM: DR. JUSTICE SANJEEB K PANIGRAHI ORDER 06.03.2026 Order No. 09. 1. This matter is taken up through hybrid arrangement. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 3. This an application under Section 378(1) and (3) of the Cr.P.C. for granting leave to file appeal against the judgment of acquittal dated 29.04.2006 delivered in S.T. Case No.532 of 2005 by the learned Adhoc Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.IV, Cuttack. 4. Learned counsel for the State submits that the learned trial court acquitted the Opposite Parties on the ground that P.Ws.1 and 12 do not say a specific date, time and place of assault by the Opposite Parties. However, it is evident from the statements of Digitally Signed Signed by: LITARAM MURMU Reason: Authentication Location: OHC Date: 09-Mar-2026 12:04:05 Signature Not Verified 2 the P.Ws.1 and 12 recorded at the time of trial that they have consistently stated that, as per the demand of the Opposite Parties, a cash of Rs. 22,000/- and gold ornaments were given to the Opposite Parties as dowry. 5. Learned counsel for the State further submits that the learned trial court committed illegality in acquitting the Opposite Parties without giving any importance to the evidence of the witnesses. Since P.Ws.1 and 12 are closely related to the deceased, they were fully aware of the facts of the torture on the deceased. Hence, the judgment of acquittal passed by the learned Ad-hoc Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.4, Cuttack, may be set aside. 6. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and upon a careful scrutiny of the materials available on record, this Court is not persuaded to grant leave to prefer an appeal against the impugned judgment. 7. Viewed from the standpoint of appellate jurisprudence, it must also be borne in mind that the power to grant leave to appeal against an order of acquittal is to be exercised with due circumspection. Unless the judgment of the trial court is shown to be manifestly perverse, grossly unreasonable, or demonstrably contrary to the evidence on record, appellate interference is not ordinarily warranted. The mere possibility of another view Digitally Signed Signed by: LITARAM MURMU Reason: Authentication Location: OHC Date: 09-Mar-2026 12:04:05 Signature Not Verified 3 cannot justify the grant of leave to appeal against an acquittal which is otherwise founded upon a plausible appreciation of the evidence. 8. Tested on the anvil of these well-settled principles, this Court finds no compelling reason to reopen the findings recorded by the learned trial court. The evidentiary deficiencies noticed above render the prosecution case doubtful and insufficient to warrant appellate scrutiny. Accordingly, this Court is not inclined to grant leave to prefer an appeal against the aforesaid judgment of acquittal. Accordingly, the CRLLP is dismissed. ( Dr. Sanjeeb K Panigrahi) Judge Murmu