Page 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK CRLLP No.145 of 2013 (In the matter of an appeal under Section 378 (1) & (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973). State of Orissa …. Appellant (s) -versus- Ashok Kumar Bai …. Respondent (s) Advocates appeared in this case through Hybrid Arrangement Mode: For Appellant (s) : Mr. Gayatri Patra, ASC For Respondent(s) : Mr. Panchanan Panigrahi, Adv CORAM: DR. JUSTICE SANJEEB K PANIGRAHI DATE OF HEARING: -17.03.2026 DATE OF JUDGMENT: -22.05.2026 Dr. Sanjeeb K Panigrahi, J. 1. The present application has been filed by the petitioner-State seeking leave to appeal against the judgment/order of acquittal dated 30.07.2013 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Dhenkanal in C.T. (Sessions) Case No.166 of 2011 arising out of G.R. Case No.354 of 2010 corresponding to Parjang P.S. Case No.148 of 2010, committed by the learned S.D.J.M., Kamakshyanagar. I. FACTUAL MATRIX: 2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 30.09.2010 at about 1:45 P.M., while the injured, Sri Jyoti Ranjan Panda, was discussing with Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 27-May-2026 15:45:01 Signature Not Verified Page 2 Jayakrushna Das, the “Guru” of “Garang Ashram”, the accused came armed with a “Tangia” and dealt successive blows on him, as a result of which he sustained seven bleeding injuries. 3. The informant and Jayakrushna Das, who were eyewitnesses to the occurrence, tried to intervene, but the accused abused them in filthy language and threatened to murder them. The accused also assaulted the informant, who sustained injuries. 4. A written report relating to the occurrence was lodged at Parjang P.S. on the very same day, which was treated as the F.I.R., and accordingly the present case was registered. Upon completion of investigation, charge-sheet was submitted against the accused under Sections 452/294/307/326 of the IPC. 5. The plea of the accused is one of complete denial and false implication. 6. In order to bring home the charges against the accused, the prosecution examined eight witnesses in all, out of whom P.W.5 is the informant and an injured witness, while P.W.6 is the other injured witness. P.Ws.1 and 2 are the mother and brother of the accused respectively and are post-occurrence witnesses, who had been to the said Ashram on the date of occurrence. P.Ws.4 and 7 are the eyewitnesses to the occurrence. P.W.3 is the doctor, who examined and treated the injured Jyoti Ranjan Panda. P.W.8 is the Investigating Officer (I.O.). Besides the oral evidence, the prosecution relied upon the documents marked as Exts.1 and 2. On the other hand, the accused examined himself as D.W.1 in support of his plea. Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 27-May-2026 15:45:01 Signature Not Verified Page 3 7. The learned Sessions Judge, Dhenkanal, without properly appreciating the evidence available on record, came to hold that the prosecution failed to establish the charges under Sections 452/294/307/326 of the IPC against the accused and accordingly acquitted the opposite party/respondent under Section 235(1) of the Cr.P.C. 8. Being aggrieved by the judgment and order of acquittal dated 30.07.2013 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Dhenkanal in C.T. (Sessions) Case No.166 of 2011 arising out of G.R. Case No.354 of 2010 corresponding to Parjang P.S. Case No.148 of 2010, which was committed by the learned S.D.J.M., Kamakshyanagar, the petitioner/appellant-State has preferred the present CRLLP. II. SUBMISSIONS OF THE APPELLANT/STATE: 9. Learned counsel for the Appellant Ms. Gayatri Patra, Additional Standing Counsel for the State made the following submissions in support of his contentions: i. The petitioner-State contended that the impugned order passed by the learned Trial Court is illegal, contrary to the evidence available on record and liable to be set aside. ii. It was contended that the impugned judgment has been passed without proper appreciation of the evidence and settled principles of law and is therefore erroneous both on facts and in law. iii. The petitioner-State submitted that the learned Trial Court misdirected itself in concluding that the informant and the independent occurrence witnesses had not supported the prosecution Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 27-May-2026 15:45:01 Signature Not Verified Page 4 case and in holding that there existed contradictions between the ocular and medical evidence as well as material contradictions in the evidence of P.Ws.4 and 6. iv. It was further submitted that the learned Trial Court, without properly appreciating the evidence of the independent witnesses, was swayed into recording an order of acquittal on the aforesaid grounds, which is unsustainable in law. v. Learned counsel further contended that merely because the informant was declared hostile during trial, the entire prosecution case could not have been discarded without considering the other material evidence available on record. Therefore, the findings recorded by the learned Trial Court are perverse. vi. The petitioner-State contended that the learned Trial Court failed to attach due weight to the evidence of the injured witness, namely P.W.6, and the independent witnesses, who had no animosity against the accused. A plain reading of the evidence of P.Ws.4 and 6 would clearly reveal that the respondent is the author of the crime. vii. It was further submitted that both P.Ws.4 and 6 consistently stated that while they were discussing with each other, the respondent came armed with a Tangia and dealt successive blows on P.W.6, as a result of which he sustained bleeding injuries. P.W.4 further stated that when he along with the informant (P.W.5) tried to intervene, the respondent abused them in filthy language and threatened to murder Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 27-May-2026 15:45:01 Signature Not Verified Page 5 them. During the ensuing tussle between P.W.4 and the respondent, P.W.5 also sustained injuries. viii. The petitioner-State further submitted that the learned Trial Court ignored the evidence of the injured witness, who is the best witness to identify the assailant. Since P.Ws.4 and 6 categorically stated that the respondent assaulted P.W.6 by means of a Tangia, there was no justification to discard their evidence on minor discrepancies. ix. It was contended that the findings of the learned Trial Court regarding contradiction between the ocular and medical evidence are unsustainable, as minor inconsistencies in the evidence of prosecution witnesses cannot by themselves demolish the prosecution case. x. Learned counsel further submitted that nothing was elicited from P.W.3, the doctor who examined the injured, to show that the injuries sustained by P.W.6 could not have been caused by the weapon of offence, namely the Tangia, if its blunt side had been used. Ext.1, i.e., the discharge certificate issued by the concerned hospital, clearly reveals that the injuries sustained by P.W.6 could have been caused by hard and blunt weapons. xi. It was further contended that the learned Trial Court erroneously held that if the assault had been made by means of a Tangia, incised injuries would necessarily have been caused, whereas the injuries found on P.W.6 were opined to have been caused by a hard and blunt object. In absence of any suggestion to P.W.3 that such injuries could Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 27-May-2026 15:45:01 Signature Not Verified Page 6 not have been caused by the blunt side of the Tangia, the learned Trial Court ought not to have disbelieved the medical evidence. xii. It was submitted that the evidence of P.Ws.4 and 6 finds substantial corroboration from the evidence of P.W.3 and, therefore, the findings recorded by the learned Trial Court while acquitting the accused are contrary to the settled principles of law. xiii. The petitioner-State contended that although P.Ws.4 and 6 were subjected to lengthy cross-examination, nothing could be elicited to show as to why they would falsely implicate the respondent. It was further submitted that there is no material available on record to discard the testimony of the injured witness, namely P.W.6, on the ground of false implication and that corroboration is a rule of prudence and not of law. xiv. It was further submitted that P.Ws.1 and 2, being close relatives of the respondent, were naturally not expected to support the prosecution case and were therefore declared hostile by the prosecution. Merely because the informant, namely P.W.5, did not support the prosecution case, no adverse inference can be drawn against the prosecution. xv. The petitioner-State further submitted that the discharge certificate issued by Ashwini Hospital, Cuttack coupled with the evidence of P.W.3 clearly establishes that the injuries sustained by P.W.6 could have been caused by hard and blunt weapons, thereby substantially corroborating the ocular testimony of the prosecution witnesses. Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 27-May-2026 15:45:01 Signature Not Verified Page 7 III. SUBMISSIONS OF THE RESPONDENT: 10. Per contra, learned counsel for the Respondent Mr. Panchanan Panigrahi made the following submissions in support of their contentions: i. The respondent submitted that the prosecution case is that on the date and time of occurrence, while the injured Jyoti Ranjan Panda was engaged in discussion with Baba Jayakrushna Das in the Ashram, the accused, Ashok Bai, who is a disciple of the said Ashram, came holding a Tangia and assaulted him, causing bleeding injuries on his person. When the informant, Lalit Das, protested, he was also assaulted. The respondent contended that the plea of the accused is one of complete denial and false implication in order to oust him from the Ashram, as the mental condition of the accused was not good. ii. The respondent submitted that in order to prove the case, the prosecution examined as many as eight witnesses. P.W.1, Sabitri Bai and P.W.2, Pitabas Bai, who were eyewitnesses to the occurrence, were declared hostile. P.W.3 is the doctor of Ashwini Hospital, Cuttack, namely Dr. Batakrushna Barik, who merely signed the discharge certificate and treatment summary, but did not personally examine the injured Jyoti Ranjan Panda. P.W.4, Jayakrushna Das, the Baba of the Ashram and an eyewitness to the occurrence, admitted that the accused was a disciple and regular visitor to the Ashram. P.W.5, Lalit Das, is the informant as well as an injured witness, but he resiled from the prosecution case and supported the version of the Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 27-May-2026 15:45:01 Signature Not Verified Page 8 accused. P.W.6 is the injured Jyoti Ranjan Panda and P.W.7 is Niranjan Amanat, the Investigating Officer of the case. iii. The respondent submitted that the evidence of P.W.3 Dr. Batakrushna Barik, P.W.4 Jayakrushna Das, P.W.5 Lalit Das, P.W.6 Jyoti Ranjan Panda and P.W.7 Niranjan Amanat requires close scrutiny. It was submitted that P.W.3, who was serving as a doctor at Ashwini Hospital at the relevant time, stated in his examination-in-chief that Jyoti Ranjan Panda was admitted to Ashwini Hospital after preliminary treatment at Talcher. However, he did not state that he himself had examined or treated the injured. Rather, he stated that the injured was examined by a Neuro Surgeon and an Eye Specialist and remained admitted from 30.09.2010 to 06.10.2010 and that he had merely signed the discharge certificate. In cross-examination, P.W.3 stated that he had no prior acquaintance with the injured and that the patient had been identified in the hospital, though the same was not mentioned in Ext.1. He further stated that the matter had been reported to the police after admission of the patient, though the said fact also finds no mention in Ext.1 and that the report was handed over to the patient after treatment. It was further submitted that according to P.W.7, no information had been received by the police regarding treatment of the injured at Ashwini Hospital, Cuttack between 30.09.2010 and 06.10.2010. P.W.7 further stated that injury requisition in respect of Jyoti Ranjan Panda was issued only on 01.11.2010, by which time the injured had already been discharged from the hospital. The respondent contended that the Investigating Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 27-May-2026 15:45:01 Signature Not Verified Page 9 Officer admitted that he had not seized the original discharge certificate from Ashwini Hospital and that Ext.1 is only a photocopy obtained through a messenger, whose name he could not disclose. It was further admitted that no seizure list had been prepared in respect of Ext.1 and no document is available on record to show that Ext.1 had in fact been obtained from Ashwini Hospital, Cuttack. The Investigating Officer also admitted that he had not examined any doctor or official witness from Ashwini Hospital in connection with the case and could not state which doctor had actually attended Jyoti Ranjan Panda. It was further submitted that though during investigation the Investigating Officer received information that Jyoti Ranjan Panda had received preliminary treatment at M.C.L. Hospital, Talcher, upon visiting the said hospital, the Superintendent disclosed that no such treatment had been given there. The Investigating Officer also admitted that he had not visited Krishna Clinic at Talcher. The respondent therefore contended that from the aforesaid circumstances it appears that the injured Jyoti Ranjan Panda had neither received preliminary treatment at Talcher nor was properly referred to Ashwini Hospital, Cuttack for better treatment. It was further contended that Ext.1, being merely a photocopy and not seized from the proper authority, cannot be relied upon. It was also submitted that though the informant/injured Lalit Das was referred to Parjang C.H.C., the doctor who treated him was neither cited as a charge-sheet witness nor examined during trial and the medical certificate relating to Lalit Das has also not been exhibited. Therefore, according to the Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 27-May-2026 15:45:01 Signature Not Verified Page 10 respondent, the prosecution has failed to establish the case of assault upon the injured persons. iv. The respondent submitted that P.W.4, Jayakrushna Das, an ascetic of the said Ashram and an eyewitness to the occurrence, stated in his examination-in-chief that the accused assaulted Jyoti Ranjan Panda and thereafter rushed towards the informant Lalit Das to assault him, whereupon Lalit Das raised hulla. It was further stated that Lalit Das caught hold of the hand of the accused and snatched away the Tangia and while Lalit Das was lying on the ground, the accused threw a stone aiming at his head, but Lalit Das placed the handle of the Tangia before his head and therefore the stone did not hit him. The respondent contended that the aforesaid facts had not been stated by P.W.4 before the police and P.W.5 is also silent regarding the said incident. In cross-examination, P.W.4 admitted that the accused had been a disciple of Sarang Ashram for the last 13 years and therefore had not unauthorisedly entered into the Ashram. P.W.4 further stated in paragraph-4 of his cross-examination that the mother and brother of the accused, namely P.Ws.1 and 2, had also come to the Ashram on the date of occurrence. The respondent further contended that though P.W.4 stated that the Tangia was stained with blood and there were two Tangias in the Ashram, P.W.7, the Investigating Officer, stated in his cross-examination that there was no bloodstain on the axe seized from Lalit Das and there was no identification mark on the said axe. It was further submitted that the alleged weapon of offence was not produced before the Court and the bloodstained clothes were also not Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 27-May-2026 15:45:01 Signature Not Verified Page 11 seized by the police. It was also submitted that P.W.7 admitted that no enquiry had been made regarding whether the accused was suffering from any mental problem. Further, P.W.4 admitted in paragraph-4 of his cross-examination that when the accused assaulted Jyoti Ranjan Panda, he himself was inside the room and therefore it was not possible on his part to witness the occurrence, as the occurrence had taken place outside the room. The respondent further submitted that though according to P.W.4 several persons had gathered at the spot, none of them were examined by the police. In paragraph-5 of his cross-examination, P.W.4 further stated that he had not narrated the incident to any outsider. According to the respondent, the oral evidence of P.W.4 is contrary to the other evidence available on record. v. The respondent submitted that P.W.5, who is the injured as well as the informant of the case, denied any assault upon him or having seen any assault on P.W.6. It was further contended that P.W.5 admitted that the accused was suffering from mental problems and he did not support the prosecution case. vi. The respondent submitted that P.W.6, Jyoti Ranjan Panda, who is the injured witness in the case, stated in his examination-in-chief that after receiving the assault he became senseless and was shifted to Krishna Clinic, Talcher and thereafter referred to Ashwini Hospital, Cuttack, where he received treatment. It was further contended that P.W.6 remained silent regarding any assault on P.W.5. In his cross- examination, P.W.6 stated in paragraph-2 that he regained his senses Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 27-May-2026 15:45:01 Signature Not Verified Page 12 at Krishna Clinic after preliminary treatment. However, according to the respondent, P.W.7, the Investigating Officer, did not support the said fact regarding treatment at Krishna Clinic, Talcher. It was further submitted that P.W.6 stated that his brother Rasmi Ranjan was attending him at Ashwini Hospital, Cuttack and that Jitu Ray and Lulu Mishra had shifted him to Krishna Clinic from the spot of occurrence, but none of them were examined by the police. The respondent further contended that in paragraph-3 of his cross- examination, P.W.6 stated that the police came to Ashwini Hospital one or two days after the occurrence and examined him there and that thereafter he did not meet the police again after giving his statement. However, P.W.7, the Investigating Officer, did not support the said version and stated that he had not seen the injured till 01.11.2010 and had neither visited Ashwini Hospital, Cuttack nor recorded the statement of P.W.6 there. It was further submitted that the Investigating Officer stated that for the first time he met P.W.6 on 01.11.2010 at the police station and on the said date issued medical requisition in his favour and obtained a photocopy of the discharge certificate. The police had also not examined any doctor who had treated the injured at any stage. According to the respondent, the evidence of P.W.6 is therefore unreliable and contrary to the materials available on record. vii. The respondent submitted that P.W.7, Niranjan Amanat, being the Investigating Officer of the case, visited the spot, examined the witnesses and after completion of investigation submitted charge- Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 27-May-2026 15:45:01 Signature Not Verified Page 13 sheet. It was contended that upon scrutiny of his evidence, he admitted that he had not received any injury report from the doctor of Parjang C.H.C. in respect of the informant, P.W.5. It was further submitted that P.W.7 admitted that Ext.1 is a photocopy and that he had neither visited Ashwini Hospital, Cuttack nor Krishna Clinic, Talcher, nor examined any doctor who had treated P.W.6. He further stated that during enquiry at M.C.L. Hospital, Talcher, he found that the injured had not been treated there. The respondent further contended that P.W.7 admitted that he had not seized any medical certificates relating to the treatment of P.W.6 and was also silent regarding the source from which he obtained the photocopy of the discharge certificate along with the treatment summary of P.W.6. According to the respondent, the prosecution has therefore failed to prove the medical evidence relating to the injuries allegedly sustained by P.Ws.5 and 6. It was also submitted that the prosecution failed to prove the weapon of offence. The evidence on record shows that the accused was a disciple of the Ashram and was engaged in Seva work of the Ashram as well as other senior Gurus and therefore he had not unauthorisedly entered into the Ashram on the date of occurrence. The respondent further contended that the prosecution failed to establish that the accused used obscene language or threatened anybody at the time of occurrence. It was also submitted that the prosecution failed to prove the alleged assault upon P.Ws.5 and 6, as no injury report or evidence of any medical expert has been properly brought on record. According to the respondent, there is also no Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 27-May-2026 15:45:01 Signature Not Verified Page 14 material on record to show that the accused had any intention to commit murder or that the injured had sustained grievous injuries on any vital part of the body. viii. The respondent submitted that the learned Trial Court, upon proper appreciation of the evidence adduced by the prosecution and the defence, the relevant documents, material objects and the medical evidence, has passed the impugned judgment and there is no infirmity in the same. Under the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the respondent contended that the present CRLLP is liable to be dismissed. IV. FINDINGS OF THE LEARNED SESSIONS JUDGE, DHENKANAL 11. The learned Trial Court framed charges against the accused for commission of offences punishable under Sections 452/294/307/326 of the IPC. The prosecution case, in brief, was that on 30.09.2010 at about 1:45 P.M., while Baba Jayakrushna Das and Jyoti Ranjan Panda were discussing in Khandanal Ashram, Sarang, the accused Ashok Bai suddenly entered into the Ashram premises and allegedly assaulted Jyoti Ranjan Panda by means of a Tangia causing injuries on his head and forehead. When the informant Lalita Das protested, the accused allegedly abused him in filthy language and assaulted him as well and thereafter threatened the inmates of the Ashram with dire consequences. On the basis of the written report lodged by the informant, Parjang P.S. Case No.148 of 2010 was registered and after Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 27-May-2026 15:45:01 Signature Not Verified Page 15 completion of investigation, charge-sheet was submitted against the accused under Sections 452/294/307/326 IPC. 12. The learned Trial Court noted that the plea of the accused was one of complete denial and false implication. In order to substantiate the charges, the prosecution examined eight witnesses including the informant, the injured witness, the doctor and the Investigating Officer. The accused also examined himself as D.W.1 in support of his plea. 13. Upon appreciation of the evidence on record, the learned Trial Court observed that P.Ws.1 and 2, being the mother and brother of the accused respectively, did not support the prosecution case and were declared hostile. P.W.5, the informant, also disowned the FIR and did not support the prosecution version. The learned Trial Court thereafter mainly relied upon the evidence of P.W.4, the alleged eyewitness, P.W.6, the injured witness, and the medical evidence adduced through P.W.3. 14. So far as the offence under Section 452 IPC is concerned, the learned Trial Court observed that P.W.4 had admitted in his cross- examination that the accused was his disciple and had been visiting the Ashram regularly for the last 13 years and was engaged in the seva work of the Ashram. Accordingly, it was held that the accused had access to the Ashram and therefore his entry could not be treated as criminal trespass. 15. With regard to the offence under Section 294 IPC, the learned Trial Court held that neither P.W.4 nor P.W.6 had specifically deposed Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 27-May-2026 15:45:01 Signature Not Verified Page 16 regarding the alleged abusive language used by the accused and therefore the said charge was not proved. 16. While considering the offence under Section 307 IPC, the learned Trial Court observed that the prosecution had failed to establish that the injuries sustained by the injured were grievous in nature or sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. The Court noted that P.W.3 had not expressed any opinion regarding the nature or seriousness of the injuries and therefore the essential ingredients of Section 307 IPC were not established. 17. The learned Trial Court further found material discrepancies and contradictions between the ocular evidence of P.Ws.4 and 6 and the medical evidence. It was observed that though the prosecution alleged assault by Tangia, which is a sharp cutting weapon, the discharge certificate under Ext.1 revealed that the injuries were caused by blunt weapon. The Court further noted that the prosecution had not elicited from P.W.3 whether such injuries could have been caused by the alleged weapon of offence. 18. The learned Trial Court also observed that the prosecution had not produced the preliminary injury report from Talcher Hospital or Krishna Clinic where the injured was allegedly treated initially. It was further noticed that though Ext.1 disclosed that the injured had been treated by specialist doctors of Ashwini Hospital, none of those treating doctors were examined and instead P.W.3, who had admittedly neither examined nor treated the injured, was examined. Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 27-May-2026 15:45:01 Signature Not Verified Page 17 19. The learned Trial Court further observed that there were contradictions between the evidence of P.Ws.4 and 6 regarding the manner and place of occurrence. P.W.6 stated that P.W.4 was sitting near him at the time of assault, whereas P.W.4 stated in cross- examination that he was inside the room when the assault took place. The Court also noted that several facts narrated by P.W.4 during trial were not stated before the police under Section 161 Cr.P.C. 20. Upon cumulative assessment of the evidence, the learned Trial Court held that there were material discrepancies between the ocular evidence, the evidence of the injured witness and the medical evidence and that the prosecution had failed to prove the charges under Sections 452/294/307/326 IPC beyond reasonable doubt. The plea of false implication taken by the accused was also found to be probable, particularly in view of the evidence that the accused was a disciple residing in the Ashram and allegedly suffering from mental disturbance. 21. Accordingly, extending the benefit of doubt, the learned Trial Court acquitted the accused under Section 235(1) Cr.P.C. of all the charges. V. COURT’S REASONING AND ANALYSIS: 22. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material placed on record. 23. At the outset, it is well-settled that in an appeal against acquittal, the appellate court ought not to re-appreciate the entire evidence unless the findings recorded by the Trial Court are shown to be perverse or wholly unsustainable. The power to interfere with an order of Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 27-May-2026 15:45:01 Signature Not Verified Page 18 acquittal must be exercised with great circumspection and only when the findings recorded by the Trial Court are found to be contrary to the evidence on record or based on a misreading or non-reading of material evidence. Mere possibility of another view being taken on the evidence is not sufficient to disturb a well-reasoned acquittal. In this regard, reference may be made to the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in Chandrappa v. State of Karnataka.1 24. In Sadhu Saran Singh vs. State of U.P.2, the Supreme Court observed that: "In an appeal against acquittal where the presumption of innocence in favour of the accused is reinforced, the appellate Court would interfere with the order of acquittal only when there is perversity of fact and !aw. However, we believe that the paramount consideration of the Court is to do substantial justice and avoid miscarriage of justice which can arise by acquitting the accused who is guilty of an offence. A miscarriage of justice that may occur by the acquittal of the guilty is no less than from the conviction of an innocent. Appellate Court, while 9 enunciating the principles with regard to the scope of powers of the appellate Court in an appeal against acquittal, has no absolute restriction in law to review and relook the entire evidence on which the order of acquittal is founded." 25. With the aforesaid settled legal position in mind, this Court proceeds to examine whether the learned Trial Court committed any manifest error or perversity in appreciating the evidence on record so as to warrant interference at the hands of this Court. 1 (2007) 4 SCC 415 2 (2016) 4 SCC 397 Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 27-May-2026 15:45:01 Signature Not Verified Page 19 26. So far as the charge under Section 452 IPC is concerned, the essential ingredient is unlawful entry into any building with intent to commit an offence or to intimidate, insult or annoy any person in possession thereof. P.W.4, who is the Baba and head of the Ashram and is projected as the principal eyewitness to the occurrence, unequivocally admitted in his cross-examination that the accused had been a disciple of the Ashram for the last 13 years and was a regular visitor engaged in seva work of the Ashram. This admission is fatal to the charge under Section 452 IPC. The accused, therefore, had lawful access to the Ashram premises and his entry on the date of occurrence cannot be treated as unauthorized or constituting criminal trespass. The finding recorded by the learned Trial Court on this aspect is therefore based on a proper appreciation of evidence and does not suffer from any perversity. 27. So far as the charge under Section 294 IPC is concerned, the prosecution was required to establish that the accused committed any obscene act or uttered obscene words in or near a public place causing annoyance to others. In the present case, neither P.W.4 nor P.W.6, who are the principal witnesses relied upon by the prosecution after P.Ws.1, 2 and 5 turned hostile, specifically deposed regarding the abusive or obscene language allegedly used by the accused. The evidence on this aspect is conspicuously absent. The learned Trial Court therefore rightly held that the prosecution failed to establish the charge under Section 294 IPC and no infirmity is found in the said conclusion. Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 27-May-2026 15:45:01 Signature Not Verified Page 20 28. The principal question that falls for consideration is whether the learned Trial Court was justified in acquitting the accused of the charges under Sections 307 and 326 IPC. These charges form the core of the prosecution case, since the allegation is that the accused assaulted P.W.6 by means of a Tangia causing multiple bleeding injuries. 29. The prosecution principally relies upon the evidence of P.W.4, P.W.6 and P.W.3 to prove the assault. P.Ws.1, 2 and 5 have all turned hostile, thereby substantially weakening the prosecution case. However, it is settled law that conviction can be based even on the testimony of a solitary witness, provided such testimony inspires confidence and is wholly reliable. The question therefore is whether the evidence of P.Ws.4 and 6 is of such quality. 30. P.W.4 is projected as an independent eyewitness to the occurrence. In his examination-in-chief, he stated that the accused assaulted P.W.6 with a Tangia and thereafter rushed towards P.W.5 to assault him. He further narrated certain facts regarding the snatching away of the Tangia and the throwing of a stone by the accused. However, in his cross-examination, P.W.4 categorically admitted that at the time the assault took place, he himself was inside the room whereas the occurrence had taken place outside the room. This admission creates serious doubt regarding his claim of having witnessed the occurrence in the manner stated by him. 31. Further, several material facts narrated by P.W.4 during his deposition before the Court were not reflected in his statement recorded under Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 27-May-2026 15:45:01 Signature Not Verified Page 21 Section 161 Cr.P.C. during investigation. The omissions and improvements introduced during trial are substantial in nature and materially affect the reliability of the witness. 32. Furthermore, though P.W.4 admitted that several persons had gathered at the spot, none of them were examined during investigation. Though non-examination of independent witnesses is not always fatal to the prosecution case, the complete absence of such corroboration, coupled with the infirmities already noticed in the testimony of P.W.4, further weakens the prosecution version. 33. P.W.6 is the injured witness and the law is well-settled that the testimony of an injured witness ordinarily carries greater evidentiary value and should not be discarded lightly. In this regard, reference may be drawn to the observations of the Supreme Court in Balu Sudam Khalde and Anr. v. State of Maharashtra3 where it was held: “26. When the evidence of an injured eye-witness is to be appreciated, the under-noted legal principles enunciated by the Courts are required to be kept in mind: (a) The presence of an injured eye-witness at the time and place of the occurrence cannot be doubted unless there are material contradictions in his deposition. (b) Unless, it is otherwise established by the evidence, it must be believed that an injured witness would not allow the real culprits to escape and falsely implicate the accused. (c) The evidence of injured witness has greater evidentiary value and unless compelling reasons exist, their statements are not to be discarded lightly. (d) The evidence of injured witness cannot be doubted on account of some embellishment in natural conduct or minor contradictions. (e) If there be any exaggeration or immaterial embellishments in the evidence 3 2023 SCC OnLine SC 355. Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 27-May-2026 15:45:01 Signature Not Verified Page 22 of an injured witness, then such contradiction, exaggeration or embellishment should be discarded from the evidence of injured, but not the whole evidence. (f) The broad substratum of the prosecution version must be taken into consideration and discrepancies which normally creep due to loss of memory with passage of time should be discarded.” 34. Nevertheless, even the evidence of an injured witness is required to withstand scrutiny on the touchstone of consistency and corroboration. 35. In the present case, P.W.6 stated that after being assaulted he became unconscious and was first shifted to Krishna Clinic, Talcher and thereafter referred to Ashwini Hospital, Cuttack. He further stated that the police visited him at Ashwini Hospital one or two days after the occurrence. However, this version does not find support from the evidence of P.W.7, the Investigating Officer, who categorically stated that he had neither visited Ashwini Hospital, Cuttack nor Krishna Clinic, Talcher and that for the first time he met P.W.6 only on 01.11.2010 at the police station. The version of P.W.6 regarding treatment at Krishna Clinic is also unsupported by any documentary evidence, as no treatment records from the said clinic were seized or produced before the Court. These circumstances create serious doubt regarding the prosecution version relating to the treatment and nature of injuries. 36. The medical evidence in the present case also suffers from serious infirmities. P.W.3, Dr. Batakrushna Barik, admittedly neither personally examined nor treated P.W.6 and merely signed the Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 27-May-2026 15:45:01 Signature Not Verified Page 23 discharge certificate marked as Ext.1. According to him, the injured had been treated by a Neuro Surgeon and an Eye Specialist, neither of whom were examined before the Trial Court. In absence of the testimony of the treating doctors, the prosecution has failed to place reliable medical evidence regarding the exact nature, extent and severity of the injuries allegedly sustained by P.W.6. This constitutes a significant lacuna in the prosecution case. Further, Ext.1 is admittedly a photocopy of the discharge certificate obtained through a messenger whose identity the Investigating Officer could not disclose. No seizure list was prepared in respect of Ext.1 and no independent evidence was brought on record to establish that the said document had in fact been obtained from Ashwini Hospital, Cuttack. The doubtful manner in which Ext.1 was procured and proved materially affects its evidentiary value. 37. Additionally, there exists a material contradiction between the ocular evidence and the medical evidence. The prosecution case is that the accused assaulted P.W.6 by means of a Tangia, which is a sharp cutting weapon. Ordinarily, assault by means of the sharp edge of a Tangia would be expected to result in incised injuries. However, Ext.1 reflects that the injuries sustained by P.W.6 were caused by a hard and blunt object. The prosecution failed to elicit any opinion from P.W.3 or any other medical witness to the effect that such injuries could also have been caused by the blunt side of a Tangia. In absence of such explanation, the contradiction between the alleged weapon of offence Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 27-May-2026 15:45:01 Signature Not Verified Page 24 and the nature of injuries remains unexplained and cannot be treated as a minor discrepancy. 38. It is true, as contended by the learned counsel for the State, that the possibility of the blunt side of a Tangia being used cannot be entirely ruled out. However, in a criminal trial, the burden squarely lies upon the prosecution to establish its case beyond reasonable doubt. Where contradiction exists between ocular and medical evidence, it is incumbent upon the prosecution to bridge the same through cogent medical opinion. The prosecution having failed to do so, the benefit arising out of such doubt must necessarily enure to the accused. 39. This Court is conscious of the settled legal principle that ocular evidence ordinarily prevails over medical evidence unless the medical evidence completely rules out the prosecution version. However, in the present case, the medical evidence itself is uncertain and inadequately proved, while the ocular evidence also suffers from material inconsistencies and improvements. In such circumstances, the learned Trial Court cannot be faulted for extending benefit of doubt to the accused. 40. Upon cumulative assessment of the evidence on record, this Court finds that the prosecution case suffers from several material infirmities. P.Ws.1, 2 and 5, though cited as prosecution witnesses, either turned hostile or disowned the prosecution case. P.W.4, who was projected as an independent eyewitness, admitted in cross- examination that he was inside the room while the occurrence had taken place outside, thereby casting serious doubt upon his claim of Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 27-May-2026 15:45:01 Signature Not Verified Page 25 having witnessed the occurrence. Further, P.W.4 introduced material improvements in his deposition before the Court which were absent in his earlier statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. The investigation also suffered from several deficiencies, namely, failure to visit the hospital where the injured was allegedly treated, failure to record the statement of the injured at the hospital, failure to seize the original discharge certificate from the proper authority, failure to examine the treating doctors and failure to obtain the preliminary injury report in respect of P.W.5. The medical evidence is further rendered unreliable due to the non-examination of the treating doctors and the doubtful nature of Ext.1. Moreover, there exists a material contradiction between the alleged weapon of offence and the nature of injuries reflected in Ext.1, which remained unexplained by the prosecution. 41. The cumulative effect of the aforesaid infirmities is that the prosecution has failed to establish the charges against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Though each infirmity viewed independently may not by itself be sufficient to demolish the prosecution case, the combined effect of all such deficiencies creates serious doubt regarding the truthfulness and reliability of the prosecution version. 42. Though the allegations against the accused are undoubtedly serious in nature, criminal conviction can only be founded upon cogent, reliable and trustworthy evidence establishing guilt beyond reasonable doubt. In the present case, the prosecution evidence suffers from material Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 27-May-2026 15:45:01 Signature Not Verified Page 26 inconsistencies and deficiencies, the benefit whereof must necessarily accrue to the accused. 43. Accordingly, this Court does not find any perversity or illegality in the reasoning and conclusion arrived at by the learned Sessions Judge, Dhenkanal. The findings recorded by the learned Trial Court cannot be said to be against the weight of evidence or based on any misreading of material evidence. The impugned judgment and order of acquittal therefore does not call for interference by this Court in exercise of powers under Section 378 Cr.P.C. VI. CONCLUSION: 44. For the foregoing reasons, the Criminal Leave Petition filed by the Appellant/State is hereby dismissed. Leave to appeal is refused. 45. The judgment and order of acquittal dated 30.07.2013 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Dhenkanal in C.T. (Sessions) Case No.166 of 2011 is hereby affirmed. 46. Interim order, if any, passed earlier stands vacated. (Dr. Sanjeeb K Panigrahi) Judge Orissa High Court, Cuttack, Dated the 22nd May, 2026/