Kuna @ Sushant Swain vs State Of Orissa
2023 Latest Caselaw 2476 Ori

    IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

    CRLA No.710 of 2018 & CRLA No. 219 of 2021
  (In the matter of appeals under Section 374(2) of the
  Criminal Procedure Code, 1973.)

                     CRLA NO.710 of 2018

  Kuna @ Sushant Swain ... Appellant
                                      Mr.S.Mohanty,Advocate
                                -versus-

  State of Orissa                  ... Respondent
                                     Mr.S.K.Nayak, AGA
                                     Mr.D.Panigrahi, Advocate
                                     for Informant.

                     CRLA NO.219 of 2021


  Narayan Prasad Mallick             ... Appellant
  @ Kempa @ Guria
                                       Mr.S.Mohanty, Advocate
                                -versus-

  State of Orissa                  ... Respondent
                                     Mr.S.K.Nayak, AGA
                                     Mr.D.Panigrahi, Advocate
                                     for Informant

        CORAM:
           HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D. DASH
           HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G. SATAPATHY

                   DATE OF HEARING :06.02.2023
                   DATE OF JUDGMENT:28.03.2023


CRLA No.710 of 2018 & CRLA No. 219 of 2021            Page 1 of 27
 G. Satapathy, J.

1. Since the appellants in these two appeals being

represented by the same learned counsel challenge their

conviction and sentence passed by one and the same

Court of Sessions in C.T. Case No. 59 of 2014; both the

appeals were heard together for better appreciation and

to avoid confusion, for their disposal by this common

judgment with the consent of the parties.

2. The Appellants (accused persons), in the above

two appeals, challenge the judgment of conviction and

order of sentence passed on 28.08.2018 by the learned

Sessions Judge, Jagatsinghpur in C.T. Case No. 59 of

2014 convicting the appellants for offence punishable

U/S. 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short,

'the IPC') and sentencing each of them to undergo

rigorous imprisonment for life with direction to set off the

pre-conviction incarceration period against the

substantive sentence of imprisonment, while acquitting

the appellants of the charge U/S. 3(2)(v) of Scheduled

Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocity) Act,

1989 (for short, 'the SC & ST (POA) Act').

3. The prosecution case in brief is on 23.08.2013

at about 11 P.M. in the night when Somanath

Behera(hereinafter referred to as, the "deceased") of

village Marichapada was in his house; these accused

persons, namely, Kuna @ Susanta Kumar Swain and

Narayan Prasad Mallick @ Kempa @ Guria of village

Makundpur, who happen to be his friends, called him

outside and they talked near the front door of the house.

In the course of that, when accused Kuna abused him in

filthy language, the deceased resisted and they all

proceeded towards 'Chapel' (Thakura Ghara) of village by

pushing and pulling each other. The wife of deceased

namely, (Itisree Pradhan) then followed them. At that

time, the convicts were expressing to set the motor cycle

on fire and to lodge a false case against the deceased and

saying so, one of the accused set the motor cycle on fire

and thereafter, the accused persons took the deceased

near the house of Durga Prasad Das by saying that they

would finish him. Accordingly, there the accused Kuna

Swain pounced over the deceased by holding his neck in

one hand and both the accused persons then attacked

the deceased by means of sharp cutting weapons

repeatedly. At this time, the mother of the deceased also

reached there and the wife and mother of the deceased

went on fervently requesting them to leave the deceased,

but they did not pay heed to it. When accused Kuna was

instructing to cut the neck, so as to not leave the

deceased alive any more, the wife and mother of the

deceased raised hullah and when the villagers reached at

the spot, the accused persons decamped by leaving the

deceased lying on the road in a severely injured condition

with profuse bleeding. The deceased was then screaming

and praying Gadi Gosain (Village God) to save him. He

was then telling that the convicts had killed him. The

villagers shifted the deceased to hospital wee after some

time he succumbed to the injuries.

The wife of the deceased lodged a written

report before the Inspector-in-Charge (I.I.C.) of

Jagatsinghpur P.S. at about 1.30 A.M. in the midnight of

24.08.2013 narrating the above incident which was

treated as the First Information Report (FIR-Ext.1). On

receipt of Ext.1, the I.I.C. registered Jagatsingppur P.S.

Case No. 201(31) dated 24.08.2013 and entrusted the

investigation to P.W.8-Sri Suchitra Birya Dash, the Sub-

Inspector of Police (I.O.-P.W.8). He, in course of

investigation, had examined the informant and witnesses

rushed to DHH, Jagatsinghpur and commanded the

Constable P.W.10 to guard the dead body and also

commanded Havildar and another Constable to guard the

spot at village Marichapada. On the same day, P.W.8

conducted inquest over the dead body of the deceased at

DHH, Jagatsinghpur and prepared inquest report under

Ext.4. He also sent the dead body for post-mortem

examination by issuing necessary requisition. He

prepared the spot map under Ext.10 on the same day by

visiting the place of occurrence. On the same day, P.W.8

also seized the burnt motor cycle, sample earth and blood

stained earth with seizure list under Ext.3 so also seized

the wearing apparels of the deceased vide separate

seizure list under Ext.11. On 25.08.2013, P.W.8 arrested

the accused persons and seized their wearing apparels

under separate seizure lists vide Exts. 12 & 13 and

forwarded them in custody to the Court after their

medical examination as well as collection of their blood

sample and nail clippings. The accused Kuna @ Susanta

Swain while in custody gave recovery of the knife

pursuant to his disclosure statement recorded by P.W.8

by leading to the place where it had been kept concealed.

The knife vide separate seizure list under Ext.5 was then

seized. Thereafter, P.W.8 obtained the post mortem

report under Ext.25 so also the opinion of the doctor

about possibility of infliction of injuries on the deceased

by the said knife under M.O.I vide Ext. 23. P.W.8 also

sent the M.O. VIII and M.O.IX (T-shirt and full pant of the

convict Guria @ Narayan Prasad Mallick) and M.O.X and

MO XI (check shirt and trouser of the convict Kuna @

Susanta Swain) along with other materials to State

Forensic Science Laboratory (SFSL), Bhubaneswar

through Court under forwarding report vide Ext. 20 for

chemical examination and received the chemical

examination report under Ext.24. Subsequently, the

Deputy Superintendent of Police (P.W.7) took charge of

the investigation and he after collecting the caste

particulars of the accused persons and the informant

under Ext.7 and getting the statement of P.W.1 and

P.W.13 recorded by learned Sub-Divisional Judicial

Magistrate (SDJM), Jagatsinghpur U/S. 164 of Cr.P.C.

vide Exts. 2 and 7 submitted the Final Form placing the

accused persons for trial for commission of the offences

under section 302/34 of the IPC and section 3(2)(V) of

the SC & ST (POA) Act,

4. Learned S.D.J.M., Jagatsinghpur, on receipt of

the Final Form, took cognizance of the above offences

and after observing the formalities, committed the case

to the Court of Sessions. That is how the trial commenced

by framing the charges for the above offences against the

accused persons.

5. In the trial, the prosecution has examined as

many as 13 witnesses (P.Ws. 1 to 13) and proved several

documents, which have been admitted in evidence and

marked Exts. 1 to 26. Material Objects, being proved,

those have been marked as MO.I to MO.IX.

The defence, having taken the plea of denial,

has examined D.Ws. 1 to 3. Of the witnesses examined

by the prosecution, P.Ws. 1 and 13 are the wife and

mother of the deceased and they have been projected by

the prosecution as eye witnesses to the occurrence, P.Ws.

2 to 5 are post occurrence witnesses, P.Ws. 7 and 8 are

IOs, P.W.9 is the doctor conducting PM examination of

the deceased and P.Ws. 6 and 10 to 12 are witnesses to

the seizures. In the course of trial, the specific plea of the

convicts was denial simplicitor.

6. On examination of the evidence, the learned

trial Court by the impugned judgment convicted the

accused persons mainly by relying upon the evidence of

P.W. 1 and P.W.13 and the factum of recovery of M.O.I

(blood stained knife) pursuant to the disclosure

statement of accused Susanta @ Kuna as well as the

evidence on record that the wearing apparels of both the

accused persons had the stains of blood of the deceased.

Accordingly, the accused persons have been convicted for

the offence under section 302/34 of the IPC and

sentenced as afore stated.

7. Mr.S.Mohanty, learned counsel for the

appellants (accused persons) has submitted that the

learned trial Court has mainly relied upon the evidence of

P.Ws. 1 and 13. He submitted that when P.W.1 has

stated that accused Kuna dealt blows to the neck of her

husband by means of a knife after taking it from other

accused Guria, the post mortem report (Ext.25) does not

disclose any injury on the neck of the deceased and since

the alleged occurrence had taken place at about 11 P.M.

in the night and P.W.1 having admitted in cross-

examination to have arrived when the deceased was lying

and she being unable to say precisely the length and

breadth of the weapon of offence, her version ought not

to have been taken as trustworthy. He submitted that the

same being the state of affairs in the evidence of P.W.13,

her evidence cannot be relied upon to convict the accused

persons. It is further argued that accused Kempa is a

physically disabled person and thereby, his physical

deformity would belie the act attributed to him in

assaulting the deceased. Alternatively it was argued that

the deceased had forcibly taken away the motor cycle of

accused Kuna and both had been to the house of the

deceased to take back the said motor cycle which led to a

hot exchange of word when deceased refused to hand

over the bike and thereby, sudden quarrel ensued and

the deceased attacked the accused persons as would be

evident from their injury reports and there was sudden

fight in a heat of passion upon sudden quarrel which

might have resulted in death of deceased and thereby,

the act of convicts were squarely covered by exception 4

to Section 300 of IPC for which the conviction of the

accused persons for the offence U/s. 302 of IPC is

unsustainable and at best the commission would be for

the offence U/S. 304-II of IPC.

8. Mr.S.K.Nayak, learned Additional Government

Advocate submitted that not only there is evidence of eye

witnesses, but also there is clinching circumstantial

evidence against the accused persons which is further

strengthened by the oral dying declaration of the

deceased as available in the evidence on record and,

therefore, the conviction of the accused persons for

commission of the offence under section 302 IPC be

returned by the Trial Court is not liable to be interfered

with. He further submitted that the plea of physical

deformity of accused Guria having been advanced for the

first time in the appeal and for a moment believing the

same to be true, it cannot be considered to disbelieve the

overwhelming evidence as to his role in the incident.

9. Mr.D.Panigrahi, learned counsel for the

informant reiterating the contentions of the learned AGA

further submitted that the medical evidence together with

serological report complete the chain of events unerringly

pointing the guilt of the accused persons in killing the

deceased in addition to the eye witness account of P.Ws.

1 and 13 which conclusively establish that the accused

persons are the authors of the crime.

10. Proceeding to judge the sustainability of the

finding of guilt recorded by the Trial Court against the

accused persons in addressing the rival submission, it be

first stated that in the instant case, there appears no

difficulty in finding that the death of the deceased was

homicidal for the reason not being absence of challenge

by the defence to such finding of the Trial Court, on the

face of the evidence of the doctor-P.W.9 conducting post

mortem examination over the cadaver of the deceased,

who apart from deposing the nature of injury sustained

by the deceased has positively answered the query of the

Court that the deceased died a homicidal death, which

opinion was never challenged by the defence in any

manner, even by suggesting the witness to the effect that

the deceased had not suffered homicidal death.

Now, the question comes for consideration as

to who was responsible for causing such homicidal death

to the deceased. In pursuit of answering such question,

Trial Court has believed the evidence of eye witnesses

P.Ws. 1 and 13 as well as has relied upon the

circumstantial evidence brought on record by the

prosecution to hold the accused persons guilty of the

offence of murder of the deceased. The learned counsel

for the accused persons, however, advanced some

reasoning to consider P.Ws 1 & 13 as post occurrence

witnesses and to accept his contention that their evidence

are not reliable. Therefore, we would like to examine the

evidence of these witnesses. Careful reading of the

evidence of P.W.1 goes to show that she has vividly and

minutely described the occurrence. What is most

important is that P.W.1 has stated in paragraph-02 of her

evidence that accused Kuna pounced on the neck of her

deceased husband and accused Guria went on inflicting

blows on the person of her deceased husband by means

of sharp cutting knife and she and her mother-in-law

requested both the accused persons not to assault, but

they did not pay heed to such request. It is her further

evidence that after infliction of blows by the accused

Guria, accused Kuna @ Susanta also assaulted her

husband by means of a knife after taking the same from

accused Guria and her husband sustained bleeding

injuries on his person and when they shouted for help,

the sahi people rushed to the spot and seeing them, the

accused persons fled away. It is clear from her evidence

that the deceased was then unarmed. Although, the

defence had challenged the evidence of P.W.1 by cross-

examining at length, but she stood firm on the role

played by the accused persons in killing the deceased,

which has been further explained during cross-

examination that the accused Kuna pounced on the neck

and accused Guria inflicted blows on the neck of the

deceased by knife. It is true that P.W.1 during her cross-

examination, has explained her inability to specifically say

the size of each injury sustained by her husband. But,

that in our view, is not of so significant when the manner

of happening of the incident is seen. Although, no injury

has been detected on the neck of the deceased, yet the

evidence of doctor-P.W.9 discloses that he had noticed

nine incised wounds on the left shoulder joint of the

deceased, besides other injuries on the person of the

deceased. When a person hits/attacks another by using

his hand standing in front of such person, normally the

assault by such person would hit on the left side of the

victim/injured inasmuch as the right hand would more

than often strike on left side of the victim-cum-injured

and in this case, number of incise wounds were detected

on the left shoulder of the deceased. In this situation,

P.W.1, having made some error with regard to the seat of

injury, is quite natural. It is, therefore, clear that the

challenge to discard the evidence of P.W.1 is not

acceptable. P.W.1 has also stated in her evidence that

she followed her husband and accused persons and her

mother-in-law had also followed her and, therefore, the

evidence of her mother-in-law who was examined in this

case as P.W.13 is also of much significance.

11. Turning our attention to the evidence of

P.W.13, it appears that she has stated in her evidence

that she had accompanied the informant (P.W.1) and the

accused persons abused the deceased in obscene

language and they killed her deceased son by a sharp

flesh cutting knife and the deceased fell on the ground.

The defence, having directed scathing cross-examination

to this P.W.13, has not been able to demolish the same

by eliciting anything running in great variance with the

evidence of P.W.1 and on the other hand, the evidence of

P.Ws.1 and 13 corroborate each other on the score of the

accused persons attacking and inflicting blows by means

of a sharp cutting knife. P.W.1 has also proved the FIR

under Ext.1 which also in the absence of any such

variance to it being noticed in the evidence of P.W.1

provide corroboration to her evidence not only in respect

of assault by the accused persons on the deceased, but

also as to the presence of P.W.13 during the occurrence.

12. It would not be place to mention here that

P.W.2 has stated in his evidence that on 23.08.2013 at

about 11 to 11.30 P.M. while he was returning home after

attending a feast, he saw a bike on fire and the

(deceased) was lying on the road in front of the house of

Debiprasad Das with bleeding injuries and the injured

disclosed that the accused persons had assaulted him by

means of a knife and the deceased was then screaming

offering invocation to the God to save him by saying

"GADI GOSAIN GADI GOSAIN MATE RAKHYA KARA". He

has further stated that, he along with Deba Sahoo,

Debiprasad Das examined as P.W.4 and others had

shifted the deceased to D.H.H., Jagatsinghpur. This P.W.4

then has also stated during the Trial, exactly the same as

what has been stated by P.W.2.

13. Above being the oral evidence of material

witnesses, who are either eye witness to the occurrence

or reached at the spot immediately after the occurrence,

let us now advert to the other item of evidence. In

sequence, the evidence of P.W.1 also transpires that the

deceased was screaming for help by saying "MARI GALI

MARI GALI GADI GOSAIN MOTE BANCHAI DIA, MOTE

KUNA AND GURIA MARI DELE" which means that the

deceased was praying to the village God (GADI GOSAIN)

to give him life, while stating the accused persons to have

seriously assaulted him. The defence, of course, has

made a feeble attempt to contradict this evidence, but

the same is otherwise corroborated by the averments

made in the FIR. Besides, P.W.2 in his evidence has also

stated that the victim disclosed that accused persons

namely, Kuna and Guria had assaulted him by means of

knife. Similar is the evidence of P.W.4 in this regard as he

is found to have stated that the deceased was screaming

by saying "KUNA AND GURIA MOTE MARIDELE, GADI

GASAIN MOTE BANCHAI DIA". No such material surfaces

to raise any doubt in mind that P.Ws. 2 and 4 reached the

spot immediately after the assault made by the accused

persons. In addition, P.W.2 has also stated in his

evidence that he along with P.W.4 and others shifted the

deceased to DHH, Jagatsinghpur in an Auto of one

Sandeep Mohanty who has been examined as P.W.3 and

he has stated in evidence that when he arrived at the

spot and enquired from the deceased, it was disclosed by

the deceased before him that accused Kuna and Guria

had assaulted him. Similarly, P.W.4 has also stated that

P.W.1 disclosed before him that accused Kuna and Guria

assaulted the deceased. P.Ws. 1 to 4 in their evidence

have stated the presence of each other at the spot at the

time of occurrence or short while after the occurrence.

P.Ws. 2 to 4 are independent witnesses and they have no

axe to grind against the accused and the defence has not

been able to bring out any probable reason to show any

bias of these witnesses against the accused person. The

defence, of course, has tried to contradict P.W.1 with

respect to her evidence as to who pounced upon the neck

of the deceased, but the IO has affirmatively stated in his

cross-examination that although P.W.1 has not stated

about Kuna pouncing on the neck of the deceased, she

has stated before him that accused Guria pounced on the

neck of the deceased. Similarly, the defence has also

tried to contradict P.W.3 that on his query, the deceased

disclosed before him, but P.W.3 has stated before him

about deceased voluntarily disclosing before P.W.3 that

accused Kuna and Guria had killed the deceased. It,

therefore, cannot be considered to be a valid

contradiction and there may be some amount of error in

the evidence of witness like as it has occurred in this case

and P.W.3 stating about "on his query" instead of

"voluntarily" the deceased disclosed about occurrence

that is not a circumstance standing to be considered as

significant omission to bring in the ambit of contradiction,

more particularly when there is ample direct evidence

available against the accused person for the assault on

the deceased.

14. Evidence of P.Ws. 1 to 4 clearly suggest about

deceased making an oral dying declaration before them

attributing the authorship of the crime to the accused

persons. There appears no doubt in the mind of the Court

that the above evidence of P.Ws. 1 to 4 clearly disclose

about the oral dying declaration made by the deceased

before them stating that the accused persons had

assaulted him, which resulted in his death.

Dying declaration is an exception to the

admissibility of hearsay evidence. Since generally hearsay

evidence is not admissible, yet judicial notice can be

taken of the fact that a person expecting his death may

not speak untruth as to cause of his death. Dying

declaration is based on the maxim "nemo moriturus

praesumitur mentire" which means "a man will not meet

his maker with a lie in his mouth". The dying declaration,

when proved alone is sufficient to convict the assailants

provided said dying declaration is found to be free from

suspicion and it is seen that the deceased having the

occasion to speak had stated so without being tutored.

Law is also very fairly well settled that any statement

made by a person as to his cause of death or as to any

circumstance of transaction which resulted in his death is

relevant. In this case, of course, a question may also

come whether in absence of any certification made by

doctor, the oral dying declaration made by the deceased

can be taken into consideration. In this regard, this Court

feels it profitable to refer the decision in Parbin Ali and

Another Vrs. State of Assam; (2013) 54 OCR(SC)

809 wherein in a similar situation where the wife, father-

in-law and two others relatives of the deceased had

clearly stated that the deceased had informed about the

name of the assailants, the Apex Court after referring to

various authorities on the subject has held in paragraph-

20 as under:-

" Coming to the case at hand, the wife, the father-in-law and the two other relatives have clearly stated that the deceased had informed them about the names of the assailants. Nothing worth has been elicited in the cross-examination. They have deposed in a categorical manner that by the time they arrived at the place of occurrence, the deceased was in a fit state of health to speak and make a statement and, in fact, he did make a statement as to who assaulted him. Nothing has been suggested to these witnesses about the condition of the deceased. As has been mentioned earlier, PW-4, the doctor, who had performed the post mortem, has not been cross-examined. In this backdrop, it can safely be concluded that the deceased was in a conscious state and in a position to speak. Thus, it is difficult to accept that the wife, the father-in-law and other close relatives would implicate the accused-appellants by attributing the oral dying declaration to the deceased. That apart, in the absence of any real discrepancy or material contradiction or omission and additionally non cross-examination of the doctor in this regard makes the dying declaration absolutely credible and the conviction based on the same really cannot be faulted."

15. In Laxman Vrs. State of Maharashtra;

(2002) 6 SCC 710 a Constitution Bench of five Judges of

Apex Court had laid down thus:-

"3. The juristic theory regarding acceptability of a dying declaration is that such declaration is made in extremity, when the party is at the point of death and when every hope of this world is gone, when every motive to falsehood is silenced, and the man is induced by the most powerful consideration to speak only the truth.

Notwithstanding the same, great caution must be exercised in considering the weight to be given to this species of evidence on account of the existence of many circumstances which may affect their truth. The situation in which a man is on the deathbed is so solemn and serene, is the reason in law to accept the veracity of his statement. It is for this reason the requirements of oath and cross examination are dispensed with. Since the accused has no power of cross-examination, the Courts insist that the dying declaration should be of such a nature as to inspire full confidence of the Court in its truthfulness and correctness. The Court, however, has always to be on guard to see that the statement of the deceased was not as a result of either tutoring or prompting or a product of imagination. The Court also must further decide that the deceased was in a fit state of mind and had the opportunity to observe and identify the assailant. Normally, therefore, the Court in order to satisfy whether the deceased was in a fit mental

condition to make the dying declaration looks up to the medical opinion. But where the eyewitnesses state that the deceased was in a fit and conscious state to make the declaration, the medical opinion will not prevail, nor can it be said that since there is no certification of the doctor as to the fitness of the mind of the declarant, the dying declaration is not acceptable. A dying declaration can be oral or in writing and any adequate method of communication whether by words or by signs or otherwise will suffice provided the indication is positive and definite."

16. Moving on to the other item of evidence; the

evidence of I.O. is vital. In this case, it transpires from

the evidence of I.O-P.W.8 that on the intervening night of

23/24.08.2013, the IIC registered the case, directed him

to take up the investigation and on 26.08.2013, he

apprehended the accused persons and seized their nail

clippings and blood samples. Accused Susanta Kumar

Swain is said to have given the recovery of weapon, i.e.,

M.O.I pursuant to his disclosure statement from the bush

near the Store fixed at village Marichapada after making

the statement. M.O.I was accordingly seized by P.W.8

under Ext.5. The evidence of I.O further transpires that

M.O.I was sent to Doctor (P.W.9) for opinion about

possibility of injuries under Ext.22 on the person of the

deceased by its use and accordingly, P.W.9 furnished his

opinion under Ext.23. The vital link evidence of P.W.8 is

that he having sent the wearing apparels of both the

accused persons under M.Os.VIII to XI as also that M.O.I

as well as blood stained earth and sample earth to SFSL

under a forwarding report of the learned S.D.J.M. vide

Ext.20 for chemical examination, the report of the

chemical examiner under Ext.24 has come that all those

contain the human blood of the same group as that of the

deceased. This provides further corroboration to the

evidence of those witnesses already discussed.

17. On conspectus of the analysis of all the

evidence, as noted, We are of the considered view that

the Trial Court has rightly held that the prosecution case

as to the role played by these accused persons in the said

incident in assaulting the deceased and thereby inflicting

injuries upon him which has lead to his death has been

established beyond reasonable doubt.

18. Then the next question comes for discussion as

advanced alternatively that they can at best the held

liable for offence U/S. 304-II of the IPC as their acts to be

coming under exception-4 to Sec. 300 of IPC, which

speaks about commission of culpable homicide without

pre-meditation in a sudden fight in the hit of passion

upon a sudden quarrel and without the offender's having

taken undue advantage or acted in a cruel or unusual

manner. The explanation appended to the aforesaid

exception states that it is immaterial in such cases which

party offers the provocation or commits the first assault.

In this case the evidence transpires that the accused

persons were already carrying the weapon of offence MO-

I while coming to the house of the deceased which itself

against their intention and the evidence that they inflicted

around fourteen number of injuries including eleven

numbers of incised wounds upon the deceased speaks

volume about their said action in a cruel or unusual

manner. All these evidence on record when cumulatively

viewed with the manner in which the accused persons

acted in the incident clearly make out a case of culpability

under section 302 of the IPC. Therefore, we confirm the

impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence.

19. In the result, both the appeals stand dismissed.

(G. Satapathy) Judge

I Agree

(D.Dash) Judge

Orissa High Court, Cuttack, Dated the 28th day of March, 2023/Kishore