IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK CRLLP No. 133 of 2016 Kartik Chandra Barik ..…... Petitioner(s) Mr. Amlan Shakti Paul, Adv. -Versus- State of Odisha & Anr. ……. Opposite Party (s) Mr. Amitabh Pradhan, ASC CORAM: DR. JUSTICE SANJEEB K PANIGRAHI ORDER 06.03.2026 Order No. 05. 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 17.08.2016 delivered in S.T. Case No.48 of 106 of 2013 by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Balasore. 4. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that P.W.1 in his cross- examination stated that there was a village meeting by the village gentries named Umakanta Das, Babaji Das and Baidhar Panda for amicable settlement, which shows that there was an occurrence. Digitally Signed Signed by: LITARAM MURMU Reason: Authentication Location: OHC Date: 09-Mar-2026 12:04:05 Signature Not Verified 2 5. Learned counsel for the Petitioner further submits that the ingredients of Section 328 of the I.P.C. are well established by the prosecution witness, for which the order of acquittal 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 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 Digitally Signed Signed by: LITARAM MURMU Reason: Authentication Location: OHC Date: 09-Mar-2026 12:04:05 Signature Not Verified 3 leave to prefer an appeal against the aforesaid judgment of acquittal. Accordingly, the CRLLP is dismissed. ( Dr. Sanjeeb K Panigrahi) Judge Murmu