Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
SASHIKANTA MISHRA, J.
Aniruddha Panda – Petitioner
Versus
State of Odisha and Another – Opp. Parties
CRLREV No. 112 of 2022
Decided On : 10-11-2022
Important Points
Subject
Criminal Law - Procedure
Act Referred
Headnote
(B) Criminal Procedure - Precedent - Requirement for the court to consider the entire evidence and materials before adjudicating applications related to discharge of the accused. (Paras 7, 8)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner, accused in a case involving alleged sexual assault and relevant digital evidence, sought to be discharged from the proceedings based on the absence of incriminating materials in the seized mobile phone.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the initial order rejecting the discharge application lacked sufficient justification and mandated a review of the digital evidence.
Issues: The primary issue centered on whether the court properly considered all materials before dismissing the discharge application.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the examination of collected digital evidence is essential to determine whether a prima facie case exists before ruling on discharge.
Result: The prior order was set aside, and the lower court was instructed to review the digital evidence and reconsider the discharge application.
For the Petitioner:Mr. D. Panda, Advocate
For the Opposite Parties : Mr. P. Tripathy, Addl. Standing Counsel.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. investigation details and evidence concerning the accused. (Para 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 2. arguments for and against discharge based on evidence. (Para 6 , 7) |
| 3. court's need to review digital evidence. (Para 8) |
| 4. court orders reconsideration of discharge application. (Para 9) |
| 5. conclusion and procedural order for further action. (Para 10 , 11) |
ORDER :
1. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.
2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Standing Counsel for the State.
3. The present revision is directed against order dated 18.02.2022 passed by learned Ad-hoc Addl. Sessions Judge (FTSC), Bhubaneswar in T.R. Case No. 352 of 2022, whereby the application filed by one of the accused person, namely, Aniruddha Panda to discharge him from the alleged offences was rejected.
4. Mr. Devashis Panda, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that in course of investigation the investigating agency seized the mobile phone of co-accused Budhi@ Prafulla Kumari Patra in which the alleged acts of sexual assault were videographed/photographed. That such acts were allegedly videographed/photographed was also stated by the victim in her statement under Section 164 of Cr.PC.. The said mobile phone was seized and sent to the SFSL, Rasulgarh for retrieval of data. The petitioner approached this Court in CRLMC No. 2411 of 2021 as his prayer to be permitted to examine the contents of the mobile phone seized by the IO was turned down. This Court by order dated 01.12.2021 directed learned court below to allow the petitioner to inspect the digital document. Pursuant to such order, the learned court below permitted the petitioner to examine the same. After examining the digital documents an application was filed by the petitioner on 11.01.2022 with prayer to direct the prosecution to follow the procedure required under Section 226 of Cr.P.C. inter alia stating as follows: -
“3. The during course of inspection/examination of the aforesaid seized digital evidence by the counsel of the petitioner, it is found that no incriminating materials are available on record to connect the accused/petitioner with the alleged offences. Also, there is no video or still photograph found from the digital evidence to support the statement of the victim girl as well as the informant recorded u/s 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. to the effect that all the alleged act of sexual assault by all the accused persons on each day of the occurrence have been videographed and photographed in the mobile phone of the accused Budhi Patra @ Prafulla Kumari Patra, which mobile phone was seized by the I.O. and sent to the SFSL and the report of the SFSL has been obtained and the contents/data of the said mobile phone marked as Exhibit-D have been successfully retrieved and extracted/copied to the External Hard Disk (USB Drive).
xx xx xx xx
“6. That since after thorough inspection/examination of the alleged digital evidence by the counsels of the accused-petitioner, nothing incriminating was found as alleged by the victim girl along with the informant to support the charge against the accused-petitioner u/s 376D/376(2)(n)/506/34 of IPC and u/s 6 of POCSO Act, a duty is cast upon the prosecution to fairly point out to the Hon’ble Court whether there is any such digital evidence available with the prosecution and if so, to furnish specific details of such evidence to the Hon’ble Court.”
7. That under the aforesaid circumstances and in the interest of justice, this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to direct the prosecution to specifically state as to whether there is any incriminating material available on record to prove the guilt of the accused-petitioner as required under Section 226 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 failing which the petitioner will be highly prejudiced.”
5. In spite of such application being filed, learned court below considered the petition for discharge at the outset and passed order rejecting the said application. On the same day, by a later ord
