ORIGINAL JURISDICTION - Orissa High Court

More documents

Recommendations

Info

164 For Opp.Parties – Addl.Standing Counsel. (for Opp.Party No.1) M/s.B.S.Tripathy, M.K.Rath, J.Pati. (for Opp.Parties 2 to 11). CRL.REV.NO.107 OF 2006. From the judgment dated 24.10.2005 passed by the Ad hoc Addl.Sessions Judge, F.T.C. No.1, Puri in Sessions Trial No.96/261 of 2003/2002. S.K. MISHRA, J. On consent of the learned counsels for both the parties, the criminal Revision is disposed of at the stage of admission. 2. In this Criminal Revision, the petitioner assails the Judgment of acquittal dated 24.10.2005 passed by the learned Adhoc Additional Sessions Judge, F.T.C. No. I, Puri in Sessions Trial No. 96/261 of 2003/2002 whereby he acquitted the accused-Opp. Parties of the offences under Sections 447, 294, 506, 324, 325, 307, 337/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as “IPC” for brevity). 3. Short facts of the case are that on 4.12.1999 the informant Nilakantha Pradhan went to his land for cutting paddy along with his brother, it is alleged that during their absence, the accused persons being armed with deadly weapons came to the Bari side door of his house and started abusing his father Laxman. When Laxman opened the door, all of them attacked him. When he fell down on the ground, accused Rabindra, Dusa, Surendra and Suka assaulted him by dealing blows with swords. The other accused persons also assaulted him by means of Thengas causing severe NILAKANTHA PRADHAN -V- STATE OF ORISSA [S.K.MISHRA,J.] bleeding injuries on his person. Accused Hina and Phula started pelting stones. On being informed, Nilakantha came running to the spot but the accused persons threatened to kill him. Satrughna Panda, Sahadev Panda, Shyama Panda and Pabana Panda arrived there. Seeing them, the accused persons left the place. On the same day at about 11.45 A.M., the informant lodged a report regarding the occurrence in the Satyabadi Police Station. The Officer Incharge, Satyabadi Police Station took up the investigation. In course of investigation, the injured was examined by the doctor. After completion of investigation, the Investigating Officer submitted the chargesheet. 4. The accused took the plea of complete denial of the prosecution case. 5. In order to establish the charges against the accused persons, prosecution examined seven witnesses, out of whom P.W.3 Nilakantha Pradhan is the informant and father of P.W.2 Sabita Pradhan. P.W. 5 Laxman Pradhan is the injured and was examined by P.W.6 Dr. Haribandhu Mishra on police requisition. P.W.1 Satrughna Pradhan and P.W.4 Shyama Pahanda were examined as independent eye witnesses to the occurrence. P.W. 7 D. K. Tripathy is the Investigating Officer of the case. None were examined on behalf of the defence.
165 6. The learned trial court, after discussing the evidence on record, held that the prosecution has failed to prove its case and hence acquitted the accused persons of the offences invoking Section 235(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as “the Code” for brevity) due to want of sufficient evidence. 7. In course of hearing of the revision, the learned counsel for the petitioner pointed out several infirmities in the judgment and argued to set aside the order of acquittal. The learned counsel for Opp. Parties No.2 to 11, on the other hand, supported the findings recorded by the learned trial Court and further urged that the revisional court should not lightly interfere with the order of acquittal of the lower court. Way back in 1962, the apex Court in K.Chinnaswamy Reddy V. State of Andhra Pradesh and another, reported in A.I.R. 1962 SC 1788 : (1963) 3 SCR 412 has laid down that it is open to a High Court in revision to set aside an order of acquittal even at the instance of the private parties, though the State may not have thought it fit to appeal. However the apex Court cautioned that the jurisdiction should be exercised by the High Court only in exceptional cases, when there is some glaring defect in the procedure or there is manifest error on a point of law and consequently there has been a flagrant miscarriage of justice. Sub-Section (4) of Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1908 forbids the High Court to see that it does not convert the finding of acquittal into one of conviction by the indirect method of ordering retrial, when it cannot itself directly convert a finding of acquittal into a finding of INDIAN LAW REPORTS, CUTTACK SERIES [2010] conviction. The apex Court has further ruled that only in exceptional cases such power should be exercised. But it is not possible to lay down the criteria for determining such exceptional cases which would cover all contingencies. However, the apex Court has pointed out that where the trial Court has no jurisdiction to try the case but has still acquitted the accused or where the trial Court has wrongly shut-out evidence or where the appeal court has wrongly held evidence which was admitted by trial Court to be inadmissible, or where material evidence has been overlooked either by the trial Court or by the appeal Court, or where the acquittal is based on a compounding of the offence which are not compoundable, are instances in which revisional power can be exercised for setting aside of the order of acquittal. In Logendranath Jha & others V Shri Polailal Biswas, (1951) SCR 676; the Apex Court has cautioned against a discussion of the evidence and expressing opinion in the judgment in a Criminal Revision against acquittal on the ground that there can be little doubt that by doing so he shall load the dice against the appellants, and it might prove difficult for any subordinate judicial officer dealing with the case to put aside altogether the strong views expressed in the judgment as to the credibility of the prosecution witnesses and the circumstances of the case in general.
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 and 148: 161 the imposition of fine of Rs.50
Page 149: 163 overtuous regarding sex. Theref
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

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?