Page 1 of 3. IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK CRLLP No.35 of 2006 State Of Orissa ..... Appellant Represented By Adv. - Addl.standing Counsel -versus- Kabiraj Swain ..... Respondent Represented By Adv. - M/s.j.sahoo CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR MOHAPATRA ORDER 19.09.2025 Order No. 10. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual /Physical Mode). 2. Heard learned counsel for the State-Petitioner. Perused the Leave Application as well as the prayer made therein. 3. The present application has been filed under section 378(1)(3) Cr.P.C. thereby seeking leave of this Court to prefer an appeal against the judgment of acquittal dated 17.08.2005 passed in T.R.No.07 of 2005 arising out of G.R.Case No.595 of 2003 which corresponds to Jankia P.S.Case No.103 of 2003 of the Court of the learned Special Judge under S.C. & ?S.T.(P.A.) Act, Khurda. 4. On perusal of the record, it appears that the accused- Opposite Party faced trial for commission of offence punishable under sections 457, 354 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3(1)(xi) of the S.C. & S.T.(P.A.) Act. Learned trial court upon conclusion of trial by a detailed judgment acquitted the accused Page 2 of 3. by holding that the accused was not found guilty. Learned counsel for the State-Petitioner sought for leave to prefer appeal on the grounds (A) to (H) mentioned in his application. Learned counsel for the State-Petitioner referring to ground No.(C) argued that the learned trial court after examining P.Ws.1 & 2 abruptly adduced the evidence from the side of the prosecution and did not examine other witnesses who were present and as per the hazira filed by the learned Special P.O. Since the defence declined to adduce evidence and the State advanced argument. Thereafter the judgment of acquittal was delivered. It has also been contended that the trial court found certain discrepancies regarding the time of occurrence and date. It is also observed by the court that there was a previous enemity between P.Ws.1 and the accused. As such examination of the witness abruptly concluded and that some of the material witnesses were not examined. It is also alleged that there are incriminating materials against the accused in the evidence of P.Ws.1 & 2. Therefore the judgment of acquittal of the learned trial court is illegal and erroneous. This Court on perusal of the grounds taken in the leave petition found that the grounds advanced by the State- Petitioner are formal in nature. 5. On a careful analysis of the impugned judgment delivered by the learned trial court, this Court observes that the trial court has taken into consideration all the materials available on record and by a well discussed judgment has come to a conclusion that the prosecution has failed to establish the charge against the accused persons. Moreover, in the meantime almost two decades have been lapsed. Therefore, the leave at this juncture will prejudice the accused. In view of the aforesaid position, this Page 3 of 3. Court is not inclined to grant leave to the State-Petitioner to prefer appeal against the order of acquittal. Accordingly, the CRLLP is hereby dismissed. ( A.K. Mohapatra ) Judge RKS