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

CourtNews27SIBA PRASAD NAYAK-V- THE DIRECTOR, HEALTH SERVICE & ORS.W.P.(C) NO.1417 OF 2013 (Dt.20.02.2013)CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, 1950 – ART.21.Right to life – Petitioner’s Son suffered from a debilitating disease – Duty of the Government toprovide necessary medical assistance to its citizens and employees.In this case petitioner’s Son suffered from the disease “Muscular Dystrophy” and his application forreferral certificate was rejected on the ground that the disease is not curable and “Stem-cell-theory” formuscular disease is still a research initiative not ethically approved method for treatment and experimentalor researched initiative does not fall within the meaning of the term “treatment” and the institution to whichthe reference has been sought was not duly approved by the State Government.Treatment cannot be deemed to apply only to cure but also it includes all steps taken in order tocure an injury or disease and would include all steps which would “arrest the disease from furtherdeterioration” – Held, direction issued to O.P.1 to 5 to issue referral certificate to the son of the petitionerwithin three days and O.P.6 is directed to sanction maximum limit of medical advance in favour of thepetitioner for the treatment of his son at Chaitanya Hospital, Chinchwad, Pune (Maharashtra) which is anapproved referral hospital permitted by the Government of India.( Indrajit Mahanty, J & Raghubir Dash, J.)RAJENDRA PATEL -V- STATE OF ORISSA.CRLA NO.228 OF 2009 (Dt.27.02.2013)PENAL CODE, 1860 – S.376.Rape – Rape is not merely a physical assault, it is often destructive of the whole personality ofthe victim and degrade the very soul of the helpless female – In this type of offence a conviction can befounded on the testimony of the prosecutrix alone and it is the duty of every Court to award propersentence having regard to the nature of the offence and the manner in which it was committed – Held,finding of the trial Court is confirmed except the age of the victim girl and the sentence is modified to theextent that the accused-appellant is sentenced to undergo imprisonment for the period already undergoneby him and to pay a fine of Rs.50,000/- which is to be paid to the victim.( Sanju Panda, J.)KONAPALU SURYANARAYANA -V- STATE OF ORISSACRLREV. NO.733 OF 2011 (Dt.01.03.2013)CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE, 1973 – S.228.Framing of charge – Court has power to shift and weigh the evidence to find out whether a primafacie case against the accused has been made out.Even if the petitioner had not touched the tainted currency notes kept on his table but the statementof witnesses clearly reveal the factum of demand and acceptance of bribe – Held, framing of chargesagainst the petitioner U/s.7, 13 (2) read with Section 13 (1) (d), P.C. Act by the impugned order cannotbe faulted with.( B. K. Nayak, J.)