ORIGINAL JURISDICTION - Orissa High Court

More documents

Recommendations

Info

162 “354. Assault or criminal force to woman with intent to outrage her modesty – Whoever assaults or uses criminal force to any woman, intending to outrage or knowing it to be likely that he will thereby outrage her modesty, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with find, or with both.” The word, ‘modesty’ has not been defined in the Indian Penal Code. Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Rupan Deol Bajaj (Mrs.) and another V. Kanwar Pal Singh Gill and another, 1995 S.C.C. (Crl.) 1059 has relied upon the dictionary meaning of the word ‘modesty’. The Apex Court further relied upon the case of State of Punjab V. Major Singh, AIR 1967 SC 63, wherein the apex Court has held that when any act done, in the presence of a woman, is clearly suggestive of sex according to the common notions of mankind, it must fall within the mischief of section 354, I.P.C. The Apex Court further held that it was needless to say, the “common notions of mankind” referred to by the learned Judge have to be gauged by contemporary societal standards. It was observed that the essence of a woman’s modesty is her sex and from her very birth she possesses the modesty which is the attribute to her sex. Thus, relying on earlier case, the Apex Court in Rupan Deol Bajaj’s (supra) case held that the ultimate test for ascertaining whether modesty has been outraged is the action of the offender such as could be perceived as one which is capable of shocking the sense of decency of a woman. Applying the above test to the reported case, KELU CHARAN BEHERA -V- STATE [S.K.MISHRA,J.] the Apex Court held that it must be held that the alleged act of the respondent in slapping the complainant on her posterior amounted to “outraging of her modesty” for it was not only an affront to the normal sense of feminine decency but also an affront to the dignity of the lady – “sexual overtones” or not, notwithstanding. 7. Applying the aforesaid principle of appreciation to this case, it is seen that the informant does not complain that the present petitioner aimed the blow to her breast. Rather, she has very categorically stated that the petitioner pressed the Lathi (Katha) on her neck and stood on it. Then the petitioner’s wife dragged him. The injury was caused to her breast for the action of the accused persons. It thus, appears that the injury to her breast was caused accidentally. The injury, which was sustained by the injured on her breast has not been attributed particularly to the present petitioner in the sense that she has not stated that due to his assault she sustained the injury. Rather she has stated that due to the assault of the accused persons, she sustained the injury. In this case, this Court comes to the conclusion that applying to the standard laid down by the Apex Court in Rupan Deol Bajaj’s case (supra), it can not be held to be an affront to the normal sense of feminine decency. It is further noted that in this case there is no suggestive
163 overtuous regarding sex. Therefore, the offence under section 354 is not made out. The conviction of the petitioner section 354, I.P.C. is not sustainable. As far as offence under section 323 is concerned, learned trial court as well as the learned appellate court has come to a concurrent finding of fact which requires no interference. Since the petitioner is sentenced to pay fine of Rs.500/- for the offence under section 323, I.P.C., it is not necessary to disturb the same as the learned appellate court has already taken a sufficiently lenient view. 8. In the result, the revision is allowed in part. The conviction and sentence for the offence under section 354 of the I.P.C. are hereby set aside. However, the conviction and sentence for the offence under section 323 of the I.P.C. are left undisturbed. Revision allowed in part. 2010 ( I ) ILR-CUT- 418 S.K.MISHRA,J. NILAKANTHA PRADHAN -V- STATE OF ORISSA & ORS.* FEBRUARY 5,2010. CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE, 1973 ( ACT NO. 2 OF 1974) – SEC.401. Informants revision against an order of acquittal -Evidence of the witnesses have not been properly discussed in the impugned judgment consisting of proper reasoning – Propriety has been entirely ignored – Approach of the trial Court has resulted in manifest illegality and gross miscarriage of justice – Held, order of acquittal recorded by the trial Court can not be sustained which requires interference of the revisional Court. (Para 10 & 11) Case laws Referred to : - 1.AIR 1962 SC 1788 : (1963) 3 SCR 412 :(K.Chinnaswamy reddy -V-State of Andhdra Pradesh & Ors.). 2.(1951) SCR 676 : (Logendranath Jha & Ors.-V-Shri Polailal Biswas). 3.(2002) 23 OCR SC 476 : (Bindeswari Prasad Singh @ B.P.Singh & Ors. -V- State Of Bihar & Ors.). For Petitioner – M/s. S.Nayak, A.K.Parida, T.K.Sahoo.
Page 1 and 2:
2010 ( I ) ILR-CUT- 271 I.M.QUDDUSI
Page 3 and 4:
SK.IBRAHIM -V- STATE OF ORISSA [B.K
Page 5 and 6:
2010 ( I ) ILR-CUT- 275 I.M.QUDDUSI
Page 7 and 8:
MIRJA SIDDIK -V- STATE OF ORISSA ju
Page 9 and 10:
23 DILIP KUMAR RAY -V- STATE OF ORI
Page 11 and 12:
Page 13 and 14:
Page 15 and 16:
2010 ( I ) ILR-CUT- 285 B.P.DAS,J &
Page 17 and 18:
NITYANANDA BEHERA -V- STATE [S.C.PA
Page 19 and 20:
2010 ( I ) ILR-CUT- 289 B.P.DAS,J &
Page 21 and 22:
ANUPAMA BEHERA -V- D.M., LIC OF IND
Page 23 and 24:
ANUPAMA BEHERA -V- D.M., LIC OF IND
Page 25 and 26:
39 13. In the case of P. J. Chacko
Page 27 and 28:
2010 ( I ) ILR-CUT- 297 L.MOHAPATRA
Page 29 and 30:
43 Court in the case of M/s. Thunga
Page 31 and 32:
45 and (c) on account of some mista
Page 33 and 34:
“ The High Court held that the re
Page 35 and 36:
49 Deputy Superintendent of Police.
Page 37 and 38:
The copy of the Station Diary dt.24
Page 39 and 40:
53 accordingly, investigation was t
Page 41 and 42:
55 lying dead with ligature mark on
Page 43 and 44:
11.40(1974) CLT.977 : (Sahadeb Patn
Page 45 and 46:
comparative statement showing perfo
Page 47 and 48:
61 construed according to the plain
Page 49 and 50:
63 11. This Court in Sahadeb Pattna
Page 51 and 52:
ules and regulations h) Ability to
Page 53 and 54:
INDIAN LAW REPORTS, CUTTACK SERIES
Page 55 and 56:
Page 57 and 58:
Page 59 and 60:
2010 ( I ) ILR-CUT- 328 A.S.NAIDU,J
Page 61 and 62:
Page 63 and 64:
2010 ( I ) ILR-CUT- 332 PRADIP MOHA
Page 65 and 66:
Page 67 and 68:
Page 69 and 70:
Page 71 and 72:
Page 73 and 74:
Page 75 and 76:
Page 77 and 78:
91 impression of bias and favourtis
Page 79 and 80:
2010 ( I ) ILR-CUT- 348 M.M.DAS,J.
Page 81 and 82:
95 hearing the appeal set aside the
Page 83 and 84:
97 and the parties to the lease are
Page 85 and 86:
2010 ( I ) ILR-CUT- 354 R.N.BISWAL,
Page 87 and 88:
101 cargo, which was unfit for ship
Page 89 and 90:
103 This Section stipulates that ap
Page 91 and 92:
105 Sub-section (2) of Section 7 of
Page 93 and 94:
107 further, in the meantime also t
Page 95 and 96:
109 “…… The High Court was of
Page 97 and 98: 111 learned Subordinate Judge on th
Page 99 and 100: 2010 ( I ) ILR-CUT- 368 SANJU PANDA
Page 101 and 102: 115 OLR 791 (Sk. Mustafa and anothe
Page 103 and 104: 2010 ( I ) ILR-CUT- 372 SANJU PANDA
Page 105 and 106: 119 Rs. 71,74,451/- for repair of t
Page 107 and 108: 121 reported in AIR 1989 SC 1239 (A
Page 109 and 110: 123 already quoted and the aforesai
Page 111 and 112: 125 offending truck. The further ca
Page 113 and 114: 2010 ( I ) ILR-CUT- 382 B.P.RAY,J.
Page 115 and 116: 129 to any person, or to consent th
Page 117 and 118: 2010 ( I ) ILR-CUT- 386 B.P.RAY, J.
Page 119 and 120: 133 testimony of the victim in a ca
Page 121 and 122: 135 relationship of the appellant w
Page 123 and 124: 137 Officer,Bangalore). 3.AIR 1996
Page 125 and 126: 139 restored, only to avoid the ord
Page 127 and 128: 2010 ( I ) ILR-CUT- 396 141 B.K.PAT
Page 129 and 130: 143 4.12.1997. The vehicle was insu
Page 131 and 132: 145 vehicle and insurance policy tr
Page 133 and 134: 147 place from the date of sale whe
Page 135 and 136: 149 deemed to have issued to the in
Page 137 and 138: 151 6. On an analysis of Sections 9
Page 139 and 140: 153 the policy purports to cover in
Page 141 and 142: 2010 ( I ) ILR-CUT- 410 B.K.NAYAK,
Page 143 and 144: 157 “….. The decision in the ca
Page 145 and 146: 2010 ( I ) ILR-CUT- 414 S.K.MISHRA,
Page 147: 161 the imposition of fine of Rs.50
Page 151 and 152: 165 6. The learned trial court, aft
Page 153 and 154: 167 The Opposite parties 2 to 11 ar
Page 155 and 156: 169 3. It is undisputed at this sta
Page 157: shall dispose of the application on
show all

ORIGINAL JURISDICTION - Orissa High Court

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?