CRLA/430/2014
2021 Latest Caselaw 385 Ori

                                    CRLA No.430 of 2014




                                        I.A. No.282 of 2020

07.    12.01.2021                This matter is taken up through Video conferencing
                    because of COVID-19 pandemic.
                                 Heard Mr. Somanath Satapathy, learned counsel
                    for the sole appellant-Duryadhan Khosla and Mrs. S. Patnaik,
                    learned Additional Government Advocate.
                                 This is an application under Section 389 of Cr.P.C.
                    filed by the sole appellant-Duryadhan Khosla for suspension of
                    sentence and grant of bail upon appeal.
                                 In this case, the appellant-Duryadhan Khosla has
                    been convicted for the offence under Section 302 of the IPC and
                    sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of
                    Rs.10,000/-, in default to rigorous imprisonment for one year, vide
                    the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated
                    28.07.2014 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Koraput-
                    Jeypore in Criminal Trial No.15 of 2011.
                                 Mr.    Somanath      Satapathy,    learned    counsel
                    appearing for the appellant submits that P.W.4 the alleged eye-
                    witness has not stated about seeing the occurrence before the
                    Investigating Officer (P.W.6). We have carefully examined the
                    evidence of P.W.4. She has very clearly and categorically
                    implicated the appellant, who has given blows by means of a
                    'KATURI' on the neck of the deceased. P.W.7, Dr. Kamal Lochan
                    Padhi, who has conducted the postmortem examination, also
                    supports the case of the prosecution. In the sense that he found
                    multiple chopped injuries on the neck of the deceased. The
                    submission of the learned counsel for the appellant that P.W.4
                    has not stated about the incident before P.W.6 that she is not an
TUDU                eye witness are erroneous submissions.
                                           2




                                 So, we are not inclined to allow the application for
                   suspension of sentence and grant of bail upon appeal.
                                 Accordingly, the application for bail of appellant
                   under Section 389 of Cr.P.C. is rejected.
                                 The I.A. is disposed of.
                                 As restrictions due to COVID-19 are continuing,
                   learned counsel for both the parties may utilize the soft copy of
                   this order available in the High Court's website or print out thereof
                   at par with certified copies in the manner prescribed, vide Court's
                   Notice No.4587, dated 25.03.2020.

                                                                  ..............................
                                                                      S.K.Mishra, J.

.............................. Savitri Ratho, J.

CRLA No.430 of 2014

08. 12.01.2021 This Appeal is of the year, 2014. Paper books be prepared for taking of the appeal on merit.

.............................. S.K.Mishra, J.

.............................. Savitri Ratho, J.