A sessions court in Cuttack has ordered a fresh trial in a high-value cyber fraud case involving a Nigerian national accused of cheating a Cuttack woman of Rs 28.67 lakh. The court held that the acquittal was passed without examining key prosecution witnesses essential for a fair judgment.
Background of the Case
Second additional sessions judge Priyaranjan Mishra, in a judgment delivered on May 29, set aside the January 29, 2026 acquittal of Orajaka Patrick Chizoram by the judicial magistrate first class (JMFC), Cuttack. The order came while considering separate appeals filed by complainant Solanshree Mohanty and the state government.
According to the case records, the state CID-crime branch arrested Chizoram, 37, from New Delhi on December 15, 2022, for allegedly duping Solanshree by posing online as a Netherlands-based gynaecologist. Chizoram has remained in custody since his arrest and is currently lodged at the state holding centre in Athagarh.
Procedural Irregularities Identified
The sessions court found fault with the manner in which the trial was conducted. It noted that the prosecution had sought time to examine crucial witnesses, including two seizure witnesses, the scientific officer, and the investigating officer. However, before their evidence could be recorded, the trial court closed the prosecution evidence on September 23, 2025, and subsequently acquitted the accused.
“The trial court committed grave illegality in closing the prosecution evidence and proceeding to pronounce judgment without affording adequate opportunity to examine the investigating and scientific officers and seizure witnesses,” the sessions judge observed.
Importance of Fair Trial
Emphasising the importance of a fair trial, the sessions judge said, “Criminal adjudication should not suffer on account of denial of reasonable opportunity to adduce material evidence. The court is duty bound to ensure a fair opportunity to both sides so that the truth may emerge through complete appreciation of evidence.”
Holding that the acquittal suffered from “procedural informality affecting fair adjudication,” the court set aside the verdict and remanded the matter to the JMFC court. The trial court has been directed to provide reasonable opportunity to the prosecution to examine the remaining material witnesses and thereafter decide the case afresh in accordance with law. The status of the accused will remain unchanged pending the retrial.
