Orissa High Court
Ugrasen Gouda @ Goud vs State Of Odisha & Ors on 22 August, 2023
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P (C) No.19595 of 2013
Ugrasen Gouda @ Goud ..... Petitioner
Mr. S. Hota on behalf of Mr. S.K.
Dwibedi, Advocate
Vs.
State of Odisha & Ors. ..... Opposite Parties
Mr. H.M. Dhal, AGA
CORAM:
DR. JUSTICE B.R. SARANGI
MR. JUSTICE MURAHARI SRI RAMAN
ORDER
22.08.2023
Order No. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.
2. Heard Mr. S. Hota, learned counsel on behalf of Mr. S.K.
Dwibedi, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr.
H.M. Dhal, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing
for the State-opposite parties.
3. The Petitioner has filed this writ petition claiming
compensation of Rs.10,000/- for loss of his eye sight due to
consumption of spurious/illicit liquor and further to issue
direction to opposite parties No.1, 2 & 4 to pay compensation for
his future protection, as he is now unable to discharge his duties.
4. Mr. S. Hota, learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner
vehemently contended that due to consumption of spurious/illicit
liquor, the petitioner has lost his eye sight. It is further contended
that along with the petitioner three other persons have also
sustained injuries. It is further contended that a criminal case
was instituted against opposite party No.6 and in the said case he
has been acquitted of the charges leveled against him. Since the
petitioner has lost his eye sight, he has approached this Court by
filing this writ petition claiming compensation.
5. Mr. H.M. Dhal, learned Additional Government Advocate
contended that since the petitioner consumed spurious/illicit
liquor and consequence thereof lost his eyesight, he is not
entitled to get any compensation. More so the petitioner has
taken spurious/illicit liquor from an unauthorized shop. It is
further contended that an FIR was lodged against opposite party
no.6 in Junagarh P.S. under Sections 307, 272 & 273 IPC read
with Section 47(a) and 52 of the Bihar and Orissa Excise Act
and he has been acquitted of the said charges. Therefore, claim
of compensation cannot be granted to the petitioner.
6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after
going through the records, this Court finds that the petitioner
claims that he has sustained eye injuries because of consumption
of spurious/illicit liquor and, therefore, he should be given
compensation. But on perusal of the compliance affidavit filed
by opposite party no.4, it appears that learned Additional
Sessions Judge, Dharamgarh has passed the judgment in C.T.
No.55 of 2016 (Sessions) on 19.08.2022, wherein he arrived at
specific finding that the evidence in terms of nature of the liquor
which the petitioner had taken was spurious has been missing
and the case came to the knowledge of the police after 15 days
when he allegedly seized I.D. liquor from the possession of the
accused which was found to contain ethyl alcohol as per Ext. 4,
the chemical examination report. Apart from the same, learned
Additional Sessions Judge, Dharamgarh has held that there is no
evidence on record to connect the ailment of the petitioner who
unfortunately lost his eyesight, with the consumption of the
liquor and none of the victim or their family members went to
the police on the very day to report about the incident.
7. In absence of any material to show that the eyesight of the
petitioner has been lost due to consuming spurious liquor, this
Court came to a conclusion that the petitioner is not entitled to
get compensation. Accordingly, the writ petition merits no
consideration and the same is dismissed.
(DR. B.R. SARANGI)
JUDGE
Alok (M.S. RAMAN)
JUDGE
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: ALOK RANJAN SETHY
Designation: Secretary
Reason: Authentication
Location: Orissa High Court
Date: 23-Aug-2023 10:21:25
