January to March 2013 for PDF.pmd - Orissa High Court

CourtNews23for the appellant to explain any incriminating evidence or circumstance in relation to such charges – Held,a failure of justice has occasioned as envisaged U/s.365 Cr. P.C. – Conviction of the appellant U/s. 498-A, 304-B I.P.C. and Section 4 D.P. Act is liable to be set aside.(B. K. Nayak, J.)JAYANTA KUMAR SAHU-V- LAXMIDHAR SAHUW.P.(C) NO.5379 OF 2011 (Dt.16.01.2013)CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE, 1908 – O-6, R-17.Amendment of plaint can be filed at any stage of the proceeding and delay is not, always, a factorto refuse amendment – Primary duty of the Court to shorten litigation and it is not required to go in tothe correctness or falsity of the case in the amendment.In the present case the proposed amendment are only elucidation of some facts which are alreadyon record and since no new facts are introduced the learned Court below should not have disallowed theprayer for amendment – Held, impugned order rejecting the application for amendment is set aside.(B. K. Misra, J.)URDHABA GOUDA-V- STATE OF ORISSAJCLA NO.68 OF 2001 (Dt.18.01.2013)PENAL CODE, 1860 S.304, PART-I.Accused and deceased had a fight two hours prior to the incident in which accused had given slapsto the deceased – Due to intervention of other people both left the place – However deceased again camenear the house of the accused and instigated him to assault by saying “A GOUDA MOTE MARIBU PARAAA AA MARE” – Hearing this the accused became enraged and on heat of passion picked up a knifeand stabbed the deceased.Held, appellant had no pre-meditation to assault the deceased rather on a heat of passion heinflicted such bodily injury which is likely to cause death – Offence is coming U/s. 304, Part-I I.P.C. butnot U/s.302 I.P.C.(Sanju Panda, J & B.N. Mahapatra, J.)CHANDABAI SHARMA-V- ADDL. D.M, BARGARH & ORS.W.P.(C) NO.6797 OF 2002 (Dt.21.01.2013)ODISHA LAND REFORMS ACT, 1960 – S.37 (b).Ceiling proceeding – Definition of “Family” – Petitioner a married daughter prior to the appointed datei.e. 26.09.1970 – Ceiling proceeding against her father after his death – Subsequently draft statement wasrevised in the name of the petitioner and four others being Class-I heirs of her father.Held, petitioner being married prior to the appointed date, she cannot be considered to be a memberof the family of her father but she being a Class-I heir of her father each one of such heir would be treatedas a separate and distinct “Family” within the definition of Section 37 (b) of the Act for the purpose ofceiling proceeding and they cannot also be considered an “association or body of individuals” so as tobe treated as a single person within the meaning of Section 37 (a) of the Act.