Orissa High Court

Heeradhar Chhreka @ vs State Of Odisha on 8 January, 2024

Author: G. Satapathy

Bench: D. Dash, G. Satapathy

     IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
                       CRLA NO. 571 of 2023

 (An appeal U/S 374(2) of the Code of Criminal
 Procedure, 1973 against the judgment passed by Ms.
 Smruti Lekha Barik, Additional Sessions Judge-cum-
 Special Judge, Phulbani, Kandhamal, in S.T. Case No.
 10 of 2016 arising out of Khajuripada P.S Case No.98 of
 2015 corresponding to G.R. Case No. 622 of 2015 of
 the Court of learned S.D.J.M, Phulbani).

  Heeradhar Chhreka @            ...               Appellant
  Mallick

                               -versus-
  State of Odisha                ...             Respondent


  For Appellant              : Mr. A. Tripathy, Advocate
  For Respondent             : Mr. G.N. Rout, ASC


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

                   DATE OF HEARING : 09.11.2023
                   DATE OF JUDGMENT: 08.01.2024

G. Satapathy, J.

1. The appellant herein impugns the judgment

passed on 21.04.2023 by the learned Additional

Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge, Kandhamal at

Phulbani in Sessions Trial Case No. 10 of 2016

convicting the appellant for offences punishable

U/Ss. 302/450 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (In

short the <IPC=) and Sec.3(2)(v) of the Scheduled

Caste & Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities

Act, 1989) (In short the <Act=), while acquitting

him for offence U/S. 404 of IPC and co-accused

for offence U/S. 411 of the IPC. By the impugned

judgment, the appellant was, accordingly,

sentenced to the following punishment:

i) The convict shall undergo sentence of imprisonment for life (which is always rigorous in nature) and to pay fine of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand) for commission of offence punishable U/s. 302 of IPC, in default of payment of fine to undergo sentence of rigorous imprisonment for a term of two (02) years.

(ii) The convict shall undergo sentence of imprisonment for life (which is always rigorous in nature) and to pay fine of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) for commission of offence punishable U/s. 3 (2)(v) of SC & ST (POA) Act, in default of payment of fine to undergo sentence of

rigorous imprisonment for a term of one (01) year.

(iii) The convict shall undergo sentence of rigorous imprisonment for a term of five (05) years and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One Thousand) for commission of offence punishable U/s. 450 of the IPC, in default of payment of fine to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a term of six (06) months.

2. The prosecution in brief is that one Urmila

Deep (hereinafter referred to as <the deceased=)

was working in the hotel Suravi at Phulbani as a

maid and on 09.09.2015, she was found dead in

the said hotel which was reported by P.W.1-

Rajesh Kumar Panigrahy and, accordingly, for

of 2015 was registered and the Police S.I. P.W.15

Indramani Nayak inquired the matter. In the

course of inquiry, P.W.15 ascertained that the

deceased was a married woman blessed with

three sons and one daughter, but prior to 7-8

years back, she came to Phulbani town leaving

her husband and children due to quarrel and she

was, accordingly, working in the hotel Suravi, but

prior to one month of the occurrence, she left her

rented house and was staying in the said hotel.

While the deceased was staying at Sagadia Sahi

in Phulbani, she fell in love with the convict-

appellant, who was a cook in another hotel and

they lived together in the rented house at Sagadia

Sahi, Phulbani. On 19.02.2015, the deceased had

lodged a case against the convict-appellant for

offences punishable U/Ss. 341/323/294/506 of

the IPC. It was also found in the inquiry that on

08.09.2015, the deceased had slept alone in the

hotel, but in the dead hour of intervening night of

08/09.09.2015 at about 1.10 A.M., the convict

trespassed into the hotel and killed the deceased

by throttling, which was captured in the CC TV

installed in the hotel. This was the sum and

substance of the inquiry report submitted by

PW15 on 11.09.2015.

3. Finding the aforesaid in inquiry report of

P.W.15 to have disclosed commission of

cognizable offence, the I.I.C., Khajuripada PS, Mr.

A.K.Ghadei treated the same as FIR and

registered Khajuripada P.S. Case No. 98 of 2015

and took up investigation of the case which was

handed over to PW22, but P.W15 in the course of

enquiry had earlier conducted inquest over the

dead body of the deceased as well as sent the

same for PM examination. After recovering the

seized wearing apparels of the accused No.1

under Ext.5 and that of the victim along with her

ornaments under Ext.8, PW22 recovered other

ornaments of the deceased from the co-accused

Manua @ Manoj Sahu of Titlagarh. P.W.22 also

seized one video C.D. on production by Pradipta

Kishore Nayak containing the visuals of the fateful

night of the hotel dated 09.09.2015 along with a

certificate under Ext.9. P.W.22 also seized the

DVD machine, one monitor, five numbers of

cameras, one CP plus CC TV dome camera and

145 meter of cable wire under Ext.3 and left the

aforesaid articles except the DVD machine in Zima

of P.W.1 as well as sent the exhibits to SFSL

Rasulgarh for chemical examination. P.W.22 then

also seized four numbers of photos and certificate

given by the photographer Arun Kumar Sahu

under Ext.P.16 and sent the exhibits to CFSL,

Kolkata. As usual on completion of investigation,

P.W.22 submitted charge sheet against the

convict and co-accused resulting in trial in the

present case for offences punishable

U/Ss.450/302/404 of the IPC r/w Section 3(2)(V)

of the SC & ST (PoA) Act.

4. In support of the charge, the prosecution

examined altogether 22 witnesses P.Ws.1 to 22

and proved certain documents under Exts.1 to

P.32 as well as identified material objects under

MO-I to III as against no evidence whatsoever by

the defence. Of the witnesses, P.W.1 is the Hotel

owner, P.Ws.4, 5, 7 to 14 and 16 to 20 are the

seizure witnesses, P.W.6 is the medical

officer/doctor who had conducted PM examination

over the dead body, P.W.15 is the informant-cum-

Inquiring Officer in U.D. Case No.7 of 2015.

P.W.21 is a witness to inquest, whereas P.W.12 is

the Tahasildar, Komanna and lastly, P.W.22 is the

I.O.

5. The plea of the convict in the course of trial

was denial simplicitor and false implication.

6. After appreciating the evidence on record

upon hearing the parties, the learned trial Court

convicted the appellant by mainly relying upon

the circumstantial evidence of last seen theory as

contained in the digital evidence of CC TV footage.

7. In the course of argument, Mr. A. Tripathy,

learned counsel for the appellant by mainly

relying upon the Forensic Examination report of

CFSL, Kolkata under Ext.P.28 has assailed the

conviction of the appellant by contending inter-

alia that the report is suggestive of presence of

not only that of accused No.1, but also two other

persons, out of whom one was female and

thereby, the report cannot be conclusively relied

upon to convict the appellant and thus, the

conviction of the appellant being not found to

have successfully passed the test of proof beyond

all reasonable doubt, the appellant is entitled to

an acquittal since the sole evidence against him

was the video footage which does not establish

the guilt of the appellant. Accordingly, Mr.

Tripathy has prayed to allow the appeal by

acquitting the appellant of the charge. On the

other hand, Mr. G.N. Rout, learned ASC by

strongly relying upon Ext.P.28 has submitted that

the appellant was found to have entered inside

the hotel in the dead of the night as per the CC TV

footage and thereby, he was the author of the

crime. Mr. Rout has also submitted that the

evidence on record has clearly established the

circumstances unerringly pointing towards the

guilt of the accused No.1 and thereby, the

conviction of the appellant cannot be questioned.

Mr. Rout has accordingly, prayed to dismiss the

appeal.

8. After having carefully bestowed an anxious

consideration to the rival submissions keeping in

view the impugned judgment of conviction and

evidence on record to test the legality and

sustainability of the conviction and sentence of

the appellant, it is apparently clear that the

learned trial Court has based conviction of the

appellant primarily on the circumstantial evidence

in the form of digital evidence and last seen

theory, but before delving upon such evidence/

theory, this Court by relying upon the

unimpeached evidence of the doctor-P.W.6 Samal

Singh, who conducted autopsy over the cadaver

of the deceased, concurs with the finding of the

learned trial Court with regard to the homicidal

death of the deceased which was not challenged

by the appellant in this appeal. The prosecution is

thus found to have established the death of the

deceased to be homicidal in nature beyond all

reasonable doubt with the available evidence on

record. Once the prosecution is found to be

successful in establishing the homicidal death of

the deceased, the next question falls for

consideration is as to who is responsible for the

death of the deceased. In this case, there is

absolutely no ambiguity that the learned trial

Court had heavily relied upon the electronic

evidence in the form of CC TV footage and the last

seen theory culled out therefrom and this Court,

therefore, embarks upon such digital evidence to

re-evaluate it at the threshold. A careful perusal

of the impugned judgment, curiously it appears

that the learned trial Court by relying upon the

digital evidence has based the conviction of the

appellant by assigning the following reason in

paragraph-35 of the judgment.

<35. In the case in hand, it has already been proved that:-

(i). The accused No. 1 is the last seen person with the companion of the deceased;

(ii). There is no intervention of any third person in the time gap when the accused No. 1 found in companion with the deceased and dead body of the deceased was found;

(iii). The relation between the accused No. 1 and the deceased does not appear to be good and it is inimical in nature;

(iv). The video clipping i.e. MO.-I, established about the exchange of words, physical tussle and pressing of neck as reveals from body language and conduct of the accused No. 1 though voice is not audible.

All the above said prove facts complete the chain of circumstance and the chain so strong that it unerringly points towards only hypothesis that the accused No. 1 has caused death of the deceased at the relevant time."

9. It is, however, considered appropriate to

re-evaluate the digital evidence as tendered by

the prosecution in the course of trial. Since the

video footage was captured in the camera

installed in the hotel, the evidence of the owner of

such hotel becomes important, but P.W.1 being

the owner of the hotel Suravi has testified in the

Court that his hotel has coverage of 24 close

circuit camera (CCTV) and in the course of

investigation, the I.O. (P.W.22) seized the digital

video recorder and Hard Disk under seizure list

under Ext.3. The evidence of P.W.14 in this

regard is more or less similar since he has stated

about seizure of some wires and cameras from

the hotel of the PW1 in his present under seizure

list Ext.3. This evidence about seizure of above

articles was never seriously challenged by the

defence except unsuccessfully suggesting to the

witnesses for nothing being seized by the Police in

their presence. However, the I.O.-P.W.22 in his

evidence has stated that on 23.09.2015, he

seized a video C.D. on production by Pradipta

Kishore Nayak containing visuals of dated

09.09.2015 and one certificate issued by said

Pradipta Kishore Nayak and thereafter, P.W.22

has exhibited such certificate in evidence under

Ext.P.18/P.W.22 as a certificate issued U/S 65-B

of the Indian Evidence Act. It is the further

evidence of P.W.22 that on that day, he seized

DVD machine, one monitor, five number of

cameras, one CP plus CC TV dome camera and

145 meter of cable wire under Ext.3 and

thereafter, released all the articles except the

DVD machine in Zima of P.W.1. What strikes to

the mind of the Court that is the non-examination

of said Pradipta Kishore Nayak, on whose

production the C.D. containing visuals of the

occurrence date was seized as well as the

certificate produced by him was also seized. It is

obviously required that since the said Pradipta

Kishore Nayak has issued the certificate stated to

be U/S 65-B of the Indian Evidence Act and the

Court has based the conviction mainly on the

report of the expert with regard to the visuals

contained in the C.D, the prosecution should have

examined the said Pradipta Kishore Nayak in the

trial, but the said Pradipta Kishore Nayak neither

was examined in evidence nor was any

explanation offered as to why his evidence was

withheld by the prosecution. On this point, this

Court considers it apposite to refer to the decision

in Arjun Panditrao Khotkar Vs. Kailash

Kushanrao Gorantyal and others; (2020) 7

SCC 1, wherein a three Judge Bench of the Apex

Court has held that <the required certificates U/S

65-B(4) of the Indian Evidence Act is

unnecessary, if the original document itself is

produced and this can be done by the owner of a

laptop computer, computer tablet or even a

mobile phone, by stepping into the witness box

and proving that the concerned device, on which

the original information is first stored, is owned

and/or operated by him. In cases where the

<computer= happens to be a part of computer

system or computer network and it becomes

impossible to physically bring such system or

network to the Court, then the only means of

providing information contained in such electronic

record can be in accordance with Section 65-B(1)

of the Indian Evidence Act together with the

requisite certificate U/S 65(B)(1) of the Indian

Evidence Act.= A cursory glance of the principle

reiterated by the Apex Court has made it clear

that when the system could be produced, it

should be produced by the owner or person who

operated such device by himself, but in this case

what was the role of Pradipta Kishore Nayak was

never revealed in evidence and how he was

concerned to produce the device or video C.D was

not revealed in the evidence. Further, how he was

competent to issue certificate U/S 65-B(1) of the

Indian Evidence Act has never been revealed in

the evidence. It is also not forthcoming from the

evidence as to whether said Pradipta Kishore

Nayak was the service provider so as to enable

him to issue a certificate. It is also not understood

as to how the said Pradipta Kishore Nayak was

withheld to step into the witness box when his

evidence was not only important, but also the

basis of conviction of the appellant for a charge of

murder which prescribes punishment for life and

death.

10. Be that as it may, it appears from the

record that the said video clip was stored in a pen

drive and sent to Central Forensic Science

Laboratory, Kolkata for examination and expert

opinion and the expert opinion was furnished

under Ext.P.28., but before proceeding further to

analyze Ext.P.28, this Court now evaluate the

findings of the learned trial Court on such expert

opinion. Learned trial Court has recorded its

finding in this regard in paragraph-21 by stating

that from the footage of video clipping i.e.

CAM01, it is found that at 1:11:12 A.M., the

accused No.1 entered to the premises of the said

hotel through gate. From CAM07, it is found that

at about 05:25:43 A.M., both the deceased and

accused No.1 were moving at dining hall, at

05:34:05 A.M. both entered to the room and

there was exchange of words and tussle between

them and the accused No.1 pressed the neck of

the deceased. At about 05:55:20 A.M., the

accused No.1 came outside from the room and till

05:57:18 A.M. moving there and left the place.

Till 06:00:00 A.M. no one entered the said

premises or room. What is true is that the learned

trial Court has stated in the aforesaid paragraph

that both the accused No.1 and deceased entered

into the room and there was tussle between them

and the <accused No.1 pressed the neck of the

deceased=, but such observation appears to be

without any evidence since there is absolutely no

evidence in this regard and it is also not

forthcoming from the judgment as to whether the

learned trial Court has played the video clip in the

Court in presence of both the counsels and parties

and recorded such observation at the time of

recording of the evidence. Further, Ext.P.28 does

not reveal these facts which have been discussed

by the learned trial Court in paragraph-21. Duty

of the Court is to assess the evidence to arrive at

a finding, but not to jump into conclusion by its

own notion or personal observation. It is also not

understood as to how the learned trial Court came

to observe that both accused No.1(appellant) and

deceased entered into the room and there was

exchange of words and tussle between them and

the accused No.1 pressed the neck of the

deceased, since there is no evidence at all to

suggest that the room was covered by any CCTV

camera. Normal situation in a hotel is not to

install any camera inside any room used for

occupation of the guest. Further, the learned trial

Court has also observed that the accused No.1

and deceased were found together in the hotel at

about 05:34:05 A.M. and the suggestive time of

death of the deceased was approximately 4-24

hours from the time of postmortem examination

and thereby, such fact implies that the accused

No.1 was found to be with the deceased within 4-

24 hours from the suggestive time of the death of

the deceased as revealed from the medical

evidence, but there is hardly any evidence to

indicate that the appellant (accused No.1) was

solely found with the deceased within 4-24 hours

just before the suggestive time as stated in the

postmortem report.

11. Even on coming to Ext.P.28, it appears that

one pen drive, one red & black color SanDisk

Cruzer Blade 8 GB pen drive, four card size

photographs of a person and four attested

photographs of the appellant were sent to CFSL,

Kolkata, but it was strange that although P.W.22

has seized such photographs with certificate given

by the photographer Arun Kumar Sahoo under

seizure list Ext.P/16, but the prosecution has

neither examined the said Arun Kumar Sahoo as a

witness nor were the photographs identified as

material objects in the Court. It is also not

forthcoming as to how and when the photographs

of the accused No.1 (appellant) were taken by the

photographer. In the digital age, it cannot be

ruled out about manipulation in photographs by

use of different Apps such as <Photoshop=. It is,

however, revealed from Ext.P.28 that video

footage of camera CAM01 to CAM08 were

analyzed, but no incidence could be read from

CAM02 to CAM05, CAM07 and CAM08, whereas

following facts were noticed by the Assistant

Director, CFSL, Kolkata, Dr. P. Paul Ramesh in the

report(Ext.P.28):-

(i) The CAM01 consisted the view of a front area of the premises with three doors. Jeep parked in the premises. Person

Marked X enters in to the premises at 01:11:12 AM and looks in to the doors and entered into one door. One lady comes out from the same door for natural call and goes back. At 04:47:46 AM she comes out and goes towards to jeep followed by the person marked X. After two minutes person marked X return to room followed by a lady.

(ii) The CAM02 consisted the view of a kitchen. It is dark, no incidence can be read.

(iii) The CAM03 consisted the view of a kitchen. It is dark, no incidence can be read.

(iv) The CAM04 consisted the view of a dining hall. It is dark, no incidence can be read.

(v) The CAM05 consisted the view of an unknown. It is dark, no incidence can be read.

(vi) The CAM06 consisted the view of the kitchen/storage room dated 2015-09-

09(YYYY- MM-DD format) from 01:00:00 AM to 06:00:00 AM. One female can be seen wearing a dark pink coloured blouse and was using yellow printed saree as a blanket and she is observed to be sleeping. She was marked as Y. At 04:18:08 hours, the female wakes up and goes somewhere. At 04:19:31 hours, one person wearing purple t-shirt and black trousers can be partially seen in the available file footage angle. He was marked as Z. At 04:20:17,

person marked as Y can be partially seen in the available file footage angle. At 04:20:50, the person marked as Y can be observed interacting with someone but the other person is not seen in the available file footage angle. At 04:22:18, person marked as Y makes a bed and wears a saree (which she was using as a blanket) and goes somewhere. A person can be seen following her.

(vii) The CAM07 consisted view of a dining hall dated 2015-09-09(YYYY-MM-DD format) from 01:00:00 AM to 06:00:00 AM. Though some movement can be observed in the footage, due to darkness, no incidence can be read.

(viii) The CAM08 consisted the view of the unknown. Due to the darkness, no incidence can be read.

(ix) The morphological class and individual characteristics of the male person marked as X in the CCTV footages and frames of the exhibit 'BR' and the morphological class and individual characteristics of the male person present in the photographs of the exhibits A1 to A4 were compared and found to be consistent.

The Assistant Director of CFSL, Kolkata in

the Forensic report vide Ext.P.28 has furnished

the following opinion:-

(i) The exhibit BR consisted 40 files which consisted CCTV footage of dated 2015-09-

09(YYYY-MM-DD format) from 01:00:00 AM to 06:00:00 AM of a CAM01, CAM02, CAM03, CAM04, CAM05, САМ06, CAM07 and CAM08. Person Marked X enters in to the premises at 01:11:12 AM. At 04:47:46 AM one lady comes out and goes towards to jeep followed by the person marked X. After two minutes, person marked X returned to room followed by a lady.

(ii) The CAM02 and CAM03 consisted a view of the kitchen of dated 2015-09-09(YYYY- MM-DD format) from 01:00:00 AM to 06:00:00 AM. Due to the darkness, no incidence can be read.

(iii) The CAM04 consisted the view dated 2015-09-09(YYYY-MM-DD format) from 01:00:00 AM to 06:00:00 AM of a dining hall. Due to the darkness, no incidence can be read.

(iv) The CAM05 and CAM08 consisted the view of an unknown. It is dark, no incidence can be read.

(v)The CAM06 consisted the view of the kitchen/storage room dated 2015-09- 09(YYYY- MM-DD format) from 01:00:00 AM to 06:00:00 AM. One female marked as Y could be observed sleeping till 04:18:08 hours and later can be seen interacting with a partially seen person marked as Z. At 04:22:18 the female person marked as Y wears a saree and goes somewhere. She was followed by the person marked as Z.

(vi) The CAM07 consisted view of a dining hall dated 2015-09-09(YYYY-MM-DD format) from 01:00:00 AM to 06:00:00 AM. Though some movement can be observed in the footage, due to darkness, no incidence can be read.

(vii) The male person marked as X in the CCTV footages and frames of the exhibit 'BR' and the male person present in the photographs of the exhibits A1 to A4 are found to be same.

A careful glance of the opinion of the

Assistant Director, there were presence of other

persons in the CCTV footage which was marked in

the opinion in the relevant portion of description

in CAM01 and CAM06 which is reiterated again as

follows:-

(i) The exhibit BR consisted 40 files which consisted CCTV footage of dated 2015-09-

(vi) The CAM06 consisted the view of the kitchen/storage room dated 2015-09- 09(YYYY- MM-DD format) from 01:00:00 AM to 06:00:00 AM. One female marked as Y could be observed sleeping till 04:18:08 hours and later can be seen interacting with a partially seen person marked as Z. At 04:22:18 the female person marked as Y wears a saree and goes somewhere. She was followed by the person marked as Z.

In view of the facts as noticed in Ext.P.28 with

regard to presence of persons marked as <Y and

Z= and, therefore, the appellant cannot be forced

to explain for being last seen with the deceased

because Ext.P.28 never says that the appellant

was alone present with the deceased, rather

there was presence of other two persons which

were in fact not explained/clarified by the

prosecution nor it was found therefrom the

observation of the learned trial Court as made in

Paragraph-21.

12. On a conspectus of evidence on record

together with the discussions made herein above,

it appears to the Court that the learned trial Court

has ignored the non-examination of the material

witness, who had issued the certificate U/S 65-B

of the Evidence Act and the photographer from

whose possession the photographs of the

appellant were seized, but in a case of

circumstantial evidence, these factors weigh

heavily against the prosecution inasmuch as law is

fairly well settled that the circumstance from

which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should

be fully and firmly established and should be

consistent only with the hypothesis of guilt of the

accused and they should be incapable of

explaining the circumstance consistence with the

hypothesis of innocence of the accused. In this

case, the circumstance as found from Ext.P.28 is

neither of such nature unerringly pointing towards

the guilt of the appellant nor the doctrine of last

seen theory can be invoked to hold the accused

guilty of the offence for non-offering any

explanation, especially when it is not established

beyond all reasonable doubt that the accused was

only last seen with the deceased. It is, therefore,

found that the learned trial Court has erred in

appreciating the evidence to hold the appellant

guilty of the offence U/S 302 of the IPC because

the prosecution has not proved the guilt of

appellant for such offence through admissible

evidence beyond all reasonable doubt.

13. On coming to the conviction of the

appellant for offence U/S 450 of the IPC, it

appears that the conviction of the appellant for

such offence rests on the basis of conviction of

the appellant for offence U/S 302 of the IPC, but

when such charge of murder having not been

established by the prosecution beyond all

reasonable doubt, the offence U/S 450 of the IPC

which speaks for punishment for house trespass

in order to commit the offence appears to be not

established beyond all reasonable doubt.

Similarly, the offence U/S 3(2)(v) of the Act is

concerned, it cannot be said to have been

established against the offender merely because

the offender is not a member of Scheduled Caste,

whereas the victim is a member of Scheduled

Caste. The essence of offence under the Act being

the mens rea to commit offence against a person

only because of his/her SC Caste, the commission

of such offence by the appellant against the victim

in this case cannot be considered to have been

established, especially when the main charge of

murder against the appellant is found not to have

been established. Thus, in this case, the

prosecution having not been able to establish the

charge for offence U/S 302 of the IPC against the

appellant, his conviction for offence U/S 3(2)(v) of

the Act is unsustainable in the eye of law. In the

wake of aforesaid, especially when the

prosecution has not been able to establish the

charge against the appellant for offence U/Ss.

450/302 of the IPC r/w Section 3(2)(v) of the Act,

his conviction is liable to be set aside and the

appellant is entitled to acquittal.

14. Resultantly, the appeal stands allowed on

contest, but no order as to costs. As a logical

sequitur, the judgment of conviction and order of

sentence passed on 21.04.2023 by the learned

Additional Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge,

Kandhamal at Phulbani in Sessions Trial Case No.

10 of 2016 are hereby set aside.

15. Since, the appellant is in custody, he will

be set at liberty forthwith if his detention is not

otherwise required in any other case.

(G. Satapathy) Judge

I Agree

(D.Dash) Judge

Reason: Authentication Orissa High Court, Cuttack, Orissa the 8th day of January, 2024/S.Sasmal Location: High Court of Dated Date: 10-Jan-2024 14:56:08