AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
No AI summary yet
Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.
Judgment
9 paragraphs · 353 wordsI.A. No. 1810 of 2022
This matter is taken up through hybrid arrangement (virtual/physical) mode.
The Appellant by filing this application under Section 389 Cr.P.C. has prayed for suspension of further execution of sentence imposed upon him in connection with C.T. Spl. (POCSO) Case No.2 of 2021/43/2021 by judgment dated 06.08.2022 passed by the learned Ad-hoc Addl. Sessions Judge, First Track Special Court, Dhenkanal and his release on bail pending disposal of this appeal.
Learned counsel for the Appellant submits that the prosecution case is based on circumstantial evidence. She inviting our attention to the deposition of the witnesses, who have stated about those circumstances, submits that the said evidence is not believable. She further submits that the evidence with regard to the extra-judicial confession as has been tendered through P.W.1 appears to be highly improbable. In view of all the above, citing the period of detention of the Appellant in custody from 30.10.2020, she urges for suspension of further execution of sentence imposed upon the Appellant by the Trial Court and for his release on bail pending disposal of this Appeal.
Learned counsel for the State opposes the move. According to him, the evidence of P.W.1 as regards extra-judicial confession is wholly reliable and that apart, according to him, the evidence of P.Ws.7 and 9 clearly establish that the present Appellant at the relevant time had entered into the house where the deceased girl of 11 years old was there. He, therefore, submits that with all the available evidence on record being not permissible at this stage to go for a threadbare discussion of the evidence of the prosecution witnesses in taking a view; the present case is not a fit one for acceptance of the prayer advanced by the Appellant.
Taking into account the submissions made and on going through the depositions of the witnesses P.Ws.1, 7 and 9 as also medical evidence at this stage we are not inclined to accept the prayer of the Appellant.
Accordingly, I.A. stands rejected.
CRLA No. 967 of 2022 11.
List this matter in the week commencing 23.09.2024.