Pradip Parida vs State Of Odisha
2023 Latest Caselaw 6260 Ori

                                    IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
                                                JCRLA No.61 of 2012

                                (From the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated
                                30.09.2011 passed by the learned Ad hoc Addl. Sessions Judge,
                                FTC, Jagatsinghpur in Sessions Trial Case No.171/67 of 2011)


                                Pradip Parida                            ....          Appellant

                                                           -versus-

                                State of Odisha                          ....         Respondent


                                Advocates appeared in the case:
                                For Appellant             :           Mr. Achyuta Pattnaik, Adv.

                                                           -versus-



                                For Respondent             :              Mr. B. Panigrahi, ASC


                                           CORAM:
                                           MR. JUSTICE D. DASH
                                           DR. JUSTICE S.K. PANIGRAHI

                                             DATE OF HEARING:-18.11.2022
                                            DATE OF JUDGMENT:-17.05.2023

                                  Dr. S.K. Panigrahi, J.

1. In this JCRLA, the convict/ Appellant (Pradip Parida)

challenges the judgment of conviction and order of sentence

dated 30.09.2011 passed by the learned Ad hoc Addl. Sessions

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR pg. 1 Designation: Secretary Reason: Authentication Location: OHC, Cuttack Date: 18-May-2023 13:57:33 Judge, FTC, Jagatsinghpur in Sessions Trial Case No.171/67 of

2011, whereby the Appellant was convicted under Section 302

of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as "the

I.P.C." for brevity) and sentenced to undergo imprisonment

for life and pay fine Rs.10,000/- in default to undergo further

imprisonment for one year.

I. CASE OF THE PROSECUTION:

2. P.Ws.1, 3, 4, 9, the accused, the deceased and all other

labourers are residents of village Ujalla Gopinathpur under

Tangi P.S., Dist. Khurda and had been to Paradeep to do

labour work under a contractor namely Gobardhan Das and

were staying near the school of Railway Colony, Paradeep.

On 04.07.2010 evening, there was quarrel in between Ravi

Routray (hereinafter "deceased") and Pradip Parida

(hereinafter "accused") for Rs.20/-. In the said process of

quarrel, the accused holding a katari threatened the deceased

to do away his life. However, on the intervention of P.Ws 3,4

& 9 and others, the matter was pacified and they all went to

sleep. P.Ws 1,4,9 along with other labourers including the

accused decided to sleep inside the school while P.W.3 along

with the deceased slept inside the park. At about 1 am on

hearing the cry of the deceased, P.W.3 woke up and found the

accused assaulting the deceased on his head and face by

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR pg. 2 Designation: Secretary Reason: Authentication Location: OHC, Cuttack Date: 18-May-2023 13:57:33 means of a katari and then fled. He noticed injury on the head

and face of Ravi with profuse bleeding. Seeing this he raised

hue and cry, hearing which Rankanidhi Behera (Informant)

since dead, Tangu Parida (P.W.4), Chema Sahoo and others

from their group arrived there. They shifted the deceased to

Atharbanki hospital and thereafter to Cuttack medical.

However, on the way the deceased succumbed to the injuries.

To that effect, case was registered against the Appellant was

arrested and after completion of investigation, he was charge

sheeted under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. After the

charge was framed, the trial was completed by the Adhoc

Addl. Sessions Judge, FTC, Jagatsinghpur and the Appellant

was convicted under Section 302 of IPC and sentenced to

undergo imprisonment for life. Hence, this appeal.

II. SUBMISSION OF THE APPELLANT:

3. Mr. Achyuta Pattnaik, learned counsel for the Appellant

strenuously argued that the appellant is innocent. The plea of

the defence is one of complete denial and false implication.

The specific case/plea of the defence as borne out from the

statement of the accused under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. is

that he is in no way connected or concerned with the death of

the deceased nor is he is in anyway involved in the incident.

Signature Not Verified pg. 3 Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Designation: Secretary Reason: Authentication Location: OHC, Cuttack Date: 18-May-2023 13:57:33

4. Learned Counsel has contended that absence of blood stain in

the cloth of the eye witness who cared the injured to hospital,

created doubt as to the presence of those witnesses at the time

of incident and no blood stained cloth were recovered from

the possession of the witnesses which throws considerable

doubt about his presence at the time of occurrence and non-

examination of any independent witness adversely affects the

prosecution case.

5. He has further raised the contention that there was inordinate

delay in filing the FIR and no plausible explanation has been

given for the same which is fatal to the prosecution case. There

is in ordinate delay of about 14 hours in filing FIR and no

plausible explanation has been given for the same. An

inordinate delay of about 14 hours amounts to an abuse of the

process of law.

III. SUBMISSIONS OF THE STATE/ RESPONDENT

6. Mr. B. Panigrahi, learned Additional Standing Counsel for the

State submitted that on bare reading of the testimonies of

P.Ws.3, 4 and 9, it unfolds that they all including the deceased

and the accused are residents of village Ujalla Gopinathpur

under Tangi PS Dist. Khurda and had been to Paradeep to do

labour work under a contractor namely Gobardhan Das and

were staying near the school of Railway colony. Paradeep On

04.07.2010 evening a quarrel ensued between Ravi Routray Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR pg. 4 Designation: Secretary Reason: Authentication Location: OHC, Cuttack Date: 18-May-2023 13:57:33 (deceased) and the accused for Rs.20/- and in the said process

of quarrel the accused holding a katari threatened Ravi to kill.

However, on the intervention of P.Ws.3, 4 and 9 and others,

the matter was pacified and they all went to sleep P.Ws.1, 4, 9

and others including the accused while sleeping in the school.

P.W.3 along with the deceased slept inside the park which is

unequivocally proved by P.W's.3, 4 and their evidence with

regard to quarrel also amply corroborated by the evidence of

P.W.5 (father of the deceased) whose evidence unfolds that his

son (deceased along with accused, P.Ws.3, 4, 9 and others had

been to Paradeep to do labour work and about 8 months back

of his examination, one day on 4 of the month evening his son

told him over telephone that there was quarrel between them

and accused for Rs.20/- where he was threatened by accused to

be killed by means of a katari. Hearing this, he suggested his

son to remain alert and at about 3 AM on that night, he got

information from one Tangu Parida (P.W.4) regarding the

assault on his son which is amply corroborated by P.W.4.

7. He has further contended that the above prosecution witnesses

were put to strenuous and decisive cross examination. Their

testimonies with regard to the quarrel in between the accused

and deceased and the threatening given by the accused to

deceased to murder him by means of a katari on the evening of

the relevant day of occurrence has not been altered or shaken

Signature Not Verified pg. 5 Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Designation: Secretary Reason: Authentication Location: OHC, Cuttack Date: 18-May-2023 13:57:33 in any manner to dislodge or disbelieve their testimony which

is very much clear, cogent, consistent and trustworthy so far

this circumstance is concerned. As such, it has been proved

beyond reasonable doubt that the quarrel between the accused

and the deceased and the threatening given by the accused to

the deceased to kill him showing a katari.

IV. CONCLUSION:

8. In order to drive home the charge against the accused,

prosecution has examined as many as 11 witnesses. The

informant Rankinidhi Behera (since dead) has not been

examined in this case. P.W.1- Panu Routray is a post

occurrence witness, P.W.2 is Dr. Soumya Ranjan Nayak who

conducted autopsy over the dead body of deceased vide PM

report marked Ext 2, P.W.3- Sarbeswar Sahoo @ Kalia, is the

pre occurrence witness as well as eye witness to occurrence

and also witness to inquest, P.W.4-Tangu Parida is a pre as

well as post occurrence witness, P.W.5- Gouranga Routray the

father of the deceased a post occurrence witness, P.W.6- S.I.

BB Hota is the UD EO, P.W.7- Kedarswar Nanda the ASI of

police and P.W.8-Bijaya Kumar Sahoo, constable of police

both of Paradeep PS are said to be the witness to seizure,

P.W.9 Akhaya Parida is another witness to pre & post

occurrence, P.W. 10 is the scribe of the report as well as the

witness to seizure of katari and other articles from the spot, Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR pg. 6 Designation: Secretary Reason: Authentication Location: OHC, Cuttack Date: 18-May-2023 13:57:33 and P.W.11- Anil Kumar Mishra is the investigating officer in

this case. The rest of the Charge sheeted witnesses are

declined by the prosecution. Per contra none has been

examined on behalf of the defence to refute the charge leveled

against the accused. Besides examining the aforesaid

witnesses, prosecution has also relied upon certain documents

marked Ext. 1 to Ext. 12 and the material objects M.Os.I to IX.

9. Firstly, it is pertinent to determine whether the death of the

deceased was homicidal or suicidal. In this regard, it is

pertinent to scrutinize the post mortem report prepared by

P.W.2 and his testimony. Doctor further stated that the

injuries are ante mortem in nature and sufficient to cause

death of a person in ordinary course of nature. Further, he

opined the cause of death is due to shock & hemorrhage as a

result of aforesaid injury which are homicidal in nature. Time

since death is within 6 to 12 hours at the time of his

examination. Besides that he has testified that the injuries

which he noticed caused by moderately heavy cutting

weapon and the injury no.(xi) is consistent with wound

suggested by the defence. He further stated that on 21.9.10

basing on the police requisition made by the I.O. he examined

the produced weapon of offence i.e. one iron katari of length

37 cm having iron blade and one iron handle, iron blade was

found curved The surface of the blade was found sharp

Signature Not Verified pg. 7 Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Designation: Secretary Reason: Authentication Location: OHC, Cuttack Date: 18-May-2023 13:57:33 cutting and the convex surface was found blunt. The

maximum thickness of the blade at the convex surface was 0.8

cm. He also noticed some reddish brown stain sticking on the

iron blade of the weapon along with rust stain all over the

weapon and answered to the query made by the IO that all

the injuries detected by him on the body of the deceased at

the time of autopsy could be caused by the produced weapon

which he examined. Apart from that he opined the external

injury no.(iii) with its corresponding internal injuries were

sufficient to cause death of a person in ordinary course of

nature However, all the injuries present on the head and face

were combinedly fatal vide his query report.

10. No question was put to doctor by the defence with regard to

the nature of death of the deceased as homicidal in nature

finding the same to be risky. As such the testimony of doctor-

P.W.2 remained unchallenged with regard to the nature of the

death of the deceased as homicidal.

11. The case of the prosecution lies on the determination of the

question that whether the accused committed the murder of

the deceased by intentionally assaulting him by means of a

katari. It is pertinent to mention here that the case of the

prosecution lies on direct evidence based on the testimony of

P.W.3. In this regard, it is pertinent to note the indicting

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR pg. 8 Designation: Secretary Reason: Authentication Location: OHC, Cuttack Date: 18-May-2023 13:57:33 depositions of the prosecution witnesses. The case at hand

rests mainly on the three circumstances:

i. Pre occurrence through the mouth of P.Ws.3, 4, 5 and

ii. Direct evidence through the mouth of P.W.3.

iii. Post occurrence evidence through the mouth of

P.Ws.1, 4, 5, 9 and 10, and the circumstances i.e.

factum of seizure through the mouth of P.Ws.1, 7, 8

and the CE report marked Ext. 12.

12. On bare reading of the testimonies of P.Ws.3, 4 and 9, as it

unfolds that they all including the deceased and the accused

are residents of village Ujalla Gopinathpur under Tangi PS

Dist. Khurda and had been to Paradeep to do some labour

work under a contractor named Gobardhan Das and were

staying near the school of Railway colony. Paradeep. On

04.07.2010 evening a quarrel ensued between Ravi Routray

(deceased) and the accused for Rs.20/- and in the said process

of quarrel the accused holding a katari threatened Ravi to kill.

However, on the intervention of P.Ws.3, 4 and 9 and others,

the matter was pacified and they all went to sleep.

13. P.Ws.1, 4, 9 and others including the accused while sleeping

in the school, P.W.3 along with the deceased slept inside the

park which is unequivocally proved by P.Ws.3, 4 and their

evidence with regard to quarrel also amply corroborated by

Signature Not Verified pg. 9 Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Designation: Secretary Reason: Authentication Location: OHC, Cuttack Date: 18-May-2023 13:57:33 the evidence of P.W.5 (father of the deceased). His evidence

also unfolds that his son (deceased along with accused,

P.Ws.3, 4, 9 and others had been to Paradeep to do labour

work and about 8 months before his examination, one day on

4th day of the month evening his son told him over telephone

that there was quarrel between hum and accused for Rs.20/-

where he was threatened by accused to kill by means of a

katari Hearing this, he suggested his son to remain alert and

at about 3 AM on that night, he got information from one

Tangu Parida (P.W.4) regarding the assault on his son which

is sufficiently corroborated by P.W.

14. With respect to direct evidence, prosecution has examined

P.W.3 who along with the deceased was sleeping at the spot

i.e. the Children's park where the deceased was murdered.

The testimony of P.W.3 in this matter unfolds that on 4.7.10

evening there was quarrel between the deceased and the

accused for Rs.20/-. In the said process of quarrel, accused

Pradip Parida holding a Katari threatened the deceased to do

away his life. However, on their intervention the matter was

pacified. Thereafter, they sent Pradip Parida to sleep and he

(P.W.3) along with the deceased went to the Children's park

and slept there. Other labourers of their group slept in the

school. On the relevant night at about 1 am, hearing the cry of

the deceased, he woke up and found Pradip Parida assaulting

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR pg. 10 Designation: Secretary Reason: Authentication Location: OHC, Cuttack Date: 18-May-2023 13:57:33 Ravi on his head and face by means of katari after which the

latter fled. He noticed injury on the head and face of Ravi and

was profusely bleeding. Seeing this, he raised hue and cry

hearing which Rankanidhi Behera (informant) since dead and

others from their group arrived there. They shifted Ravi to

Atharbanki hospital and thereafter to Cuttack medical. His

evidence further unfolds that while shifting the injured Ram

to Cuttack, on the way the deceased succumbed to the

injuries. Additionally, he stated that the police held inquest in

his presence, prepared inquest report wherein he puts his

endorsement that due to assault by Pradip Parida by means of

katari, they shifted the deceased to Cuttack medical where he

was declared dead He was put to strenuous and decisive

cross examination His evidence in cross examination unfolds

that he was examined by the police in this case on the next

day of occurrence and categorically stated that he has seen the

accused hacking the deceased and has seen him dealing one

blow when he woke up. It is further elicited from his mouth

that while shifting s deceased, his shirt was stained with

blood and denied to the suggestion given by the defence

counsel that there was no land dispute between their family

and the family of accused.

15. All the above prosecution witnesses were put to strenuous

and decisive cross examination. Their testimonies regarding

Signature Not Verified pg. 11 Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Designation: Secretary Reason: Authentication Location: OHC, Cuttack Date: 18-May-2023 13:57:33 the quarrel between the accused and deceased and the

threatening given by the accused to deceased to murder him

by means of a katari on the evening of the relevant day of

occurrence has not been altered or shaken in any manner to

dislodge or disbelieve their testimony which is very much

clear, cogent, consistent and trustworthy so far this

circumstance is concerned. As such prosecution has well

proved the quarrel between the accused and the deceased and

the threatening given by the accused to the deceased to kill

him showing a katari.

16. If the depositions of P.Ws.4, 5 and 9 are considered along with

the documentary evidence on record and medical evidence of

P.W.2, it is crystal clear that the evidence is natural,

trustworthy and acceptable. There is no reason to disbelieve

the depositions of P.Ws.4, 5 and 9 by referring to some minor

contradictions in their testimonies. In this regard, several

authorities have held that minor contradictions are not so

fatal for the prosecution. The Supreme Court in the case of

Narayan Chetanram Chaudhary & Anr. v. State of

Maharashtra1 observed:

"Only such omissions which amount to contradiction in material particulars can be used to discredit the testimony of the witness. The omission in the police statement by itself would not

(2000) 8 SCC 457

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR pg. 12 Designation: Secretary Reason: Authentication Location: OHC, Cuttack Date: 18-May-2023 13:57:33 necessarily render the testimony of witness unreliable. When the version given by the witness in the court is different in material particulars from that disclosed in his earlier statements, the case of the prosecution becomes doubtful and not otherwise. Minor contradictions are bound to appear in the statements of truthful witnesses as memory sometimes plays false and the sense of observation differ from person to person."

17. Additionally, in State of Himachal Pradesh v. Lekh Raj &

Anr2, dealing with discrepancies, contradictions and

omissions, the Supreme Court held:

"Discrepancy has to be distinguished from contradiction. Whereas contradiction in the statement of the witness is fatal for the case, minor discrepancy or variance in evidence will not make the prosecution's case doubtful. The normal course of the human conduct would be that while narrating a particular incidence there may occur minor discrepancies, such discrepancies in law may render credential to the depositions. Parrot like statements are disfavoured by the courts. In order to ascertain as to whether the discrepancy pointed out was minor or not or the same amounted to contradiction, regard is required to be had to the circumstances of the case by keeping in view the social status of the witnesses and environment in which such witness was making the statement.

This Court in Ousu Varghese v. State of Kerala3 held that minor variations in the accounts of the witnesses are often the hallmark of the truth of their testimony. In Jagdish vs. State of Madhya

1999 Supp(4) SCR 286

(1974) (3) SCC 767

Signature Not Verified pg. 13 Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Designation: Secretary Reason: Authentication Location: OHC, Cuttack Date: 18-May-2023 13:57:33 Pradesh4 this Court held that when the discrepancies were comparatively of a minor character and did not go to the root of the prosecution story, they need not be given undue importance. Mere congruity or consistency is not the sole test of truth in the depositions. This Court again in State of Rajasthan vs. Kalki & Anr.5 held that in the depositions of witnesses there are always normal discrepancy, however, honest and truthful they may be. Such discrepancies are due to normal errors of observation, normal errors of memory due to lapse of time, due to mental disposition such as shock and horror at the time of occurrence, and the like. Material discrepancies are those which are not normal, and not expected of a normal person."

18. Further, it has been submitted that evidence advanced by

P.W.3 cannot act as the sole basis for conviction. However,

this Court is of the opinion that it is the quality and not the

quantity of evidence which is necessary for proving or

disproving a fact. The legal system has laid emphasis on

value, weight and quality of evidence rather than on quantity,

multiplicity or plurality of witnesses. The test is whether the

evidence has a ring of truth, is cogent, credible and

trustworthy or otherwise. In the case at hand, even though the

dying declaration of the deceased was not recorded, the

evidentiary value of the deposition of P.Ws.4, 5 and 9

combined with the circumstantial evidence and post mortem

(1981) SCC (Crl.) 676

(1981) (2) SCC 752

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR pg. 14 Designation: Secretary Reason: Authentication Location: OHC, Cuttack Date: 18-May-2023 13:57:33 Report, affirms the guilt of the Appellant. In the case of

Shivaji Sahebrao Bobade v. State of Maharashtra6, the

Supreme Court held that even where a case hangs on the

evidence of a single eye witness it may be enough to sustain

the conviction given sterling testimony of a competent, honest

man although as a rule of prudence courts call for

corroboration. The Court observed:

"It is a platitude to say that witnesses have to be weighed and not counted since quality matters more than quantity in human affairs."

19. Additionally, in Anil Phukan v. State of Assam7, the Supreme Court observed;

"Indeed, conviction can be based on the testimony of a single eye witness and there is no rule of law or evidence which says to the contrary provided the sole witness passes the test of reliability. So long as the single eyewitness is a wholly reliable witness the courts have no difficulty in basing conviction on his testimony alone. However, where the single eye witness is not found to be a wholly reliable witness, in the sense that there are some circumstances which may show that he could have an interest in the prosecution, then the courts generally insist upon some independent corroboration of his testimony, in material particulars, before recording conviction. It is only when the courts find that the single eye witness is a wholly unreliable witness that his testimony is

(1973) 2 SCC 793

(1993) 3 SCC 282 : JT 1993 (2) SC 290

Signature Not Verified pg. 15 Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Designation: Secretary Reason: Authentication Location: OHC, Cuttack Date: 18-May-2023 13:57:33 discarded in toto and no amount of corroboration can cure that defect."

20. Learned counsel for the defence has contended that absence

of blood stain in the cloth of the eye witness who cared the

injured to hospital, created doubt as to the presence of those

witnesses at the time of incident and no blood stained cloth

were recovered from the possession of the witnesses which

throws considerable doubt about his presence at the time of

occurrence and non-examination of any independent witness

adversely affects the prosecution case P.W.3 in his deposition

has clarified that his shirt was stained with blood while

shifting the deceased. It is evident from the record the said

shirt of P.W.3 has not been seized by the I.O. Hence the

decision cited by the defence counsel is not befitting to the

present case as each case depends upon its factual matrix.

Under the above facts and circumstances the contention

raised by the learned defence counsel has got no force and as

such not accepted. As such the testimony of the P.W.3 is very

much clear, agent, consistent and free from reasonable doubt

and there is not infirmities found in his testimony to dislodge

or disbelieve his evidence which give life resurrection to the

prosecution claim with regard to complicity of the accused in

the murder of the deceased.

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR pg. 16 Designation: Secretary Reason: Authentication Location: OHC, Cuttack Date: 18-May-2023 13:57:33

21. Under the above facts and circumstances, keeping in view of

the direct evidence which is clear, cogent, clinching,

consistent and trustworthy supported by the other

circumstantial evidence coupled with medical evidence,

accepting the same as unambiguous and unimpeachable. It is

the accused and the accused alone is the perpetrator of the

murder of Ravi Routray which was his cool and calculated act

with pre meditation, preparation and intention to do away

with the life of deceased by assaulting him brutally and

mercilessly by means of a deadly weapon i.e. katari- M.O.I by

way of giving repeated blows on his vital parts like head and

face at the dead of the night while the deceased was sleeping.

22. There is consensus of judicial opinion in favour of the view

that where the burden of an issue lies on the accused, he is not

required to discharge that burden by leading evidence to

prove his case beyond a reasonable doubt. The original onus

never shifts, and the prosecution has to, at all stages of the

case, prove the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable

doubt. When the burden of an issue is upon the accused, he is

not, in general, called on to prove it beyond a reasonable

doubt or in default to incur verdict of guilty; it is sufficient if

he succeeds in proving a preponderance of probability, for

then the burden is shifted to the prosecution which has still to

Signature Not Verified pg. 17 Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Designation: Secretary Reason: Authentication Location: OHC, Cuttack Date: 18-May-2023 13:57:33 discharge its original onus that never shifts, i.e., that of

establishing, on the whole case, guilt beyond a reasonable

doubt.

23. It is well-settled that even if an accused does not plead self-

defense, it is open to the Court to consider such a plea if the

same arises from the material on record. The burden of

establishing that plea is on the accused and that burden can

be discharged by showing preponderance of probabilities in

favour of that plea on the basis of the material on record. In

the instant case, not only was the plea of private defence not

taken by the Appellant in their statement but also, no basis for

that plea was laid in the cross-examination of the prosecution

witnesses or by adducing any defence evidence. In our

opinion, the burden of establishing that plea was not

discharged in any manner by the Appellant even applying the

test of preponderance of probabilities in favour of that plea.

There is absolutely no material on records in this case to lead

to any such conclusion. On the other hand, the prosecution

has satisfactorily explained as to how the Appellant suffered

injuries and we believe that such explanation is cogent and

genuine.

24. The result is that this Appeal is without merits and the same

is liable to be dismissed. Therefore, this Court finds it

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR pg. 18 Designation: Secretary Reason: Authentication Location: OHC, Cuttack Date: 18-May-2023 13:57:33 appropriate to confirm the judgment of conviction and order

of sentence dated 30.09.2011 passed by the learned Ad hoc

Addl. Sessions Judge, FTC, Jagatsinghpur in Sessions Trial

Case No.171/67 of 2011.

25. Accordingly, this Appeal is dismissed.

( Dr. S.K. Panigrahi ) Judge

D. Dash, J. I agree.

                                                                      ( D. Dash )
                                                                         Judge


                          Orissa High Court, Cuttack,
                          Dated the 17th May, 2023/B. Jhankar




Signature Not Verified                                                                pg. 19
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Designation: Secretary
Reason: Authentication
Location: OHC, Cuttack
Date: 18-May-2023 13:57:33