Skip to content
How to use Judgment tools
  1. Click Tools to open PDF, Print, Tag, Note, Favourite, and CiteSignal.
  2. Use Brief & Ask in the toolbar for the AI Brief and case chat.
  3. Jump to sections with the pills below the help bar.

Thuru Turi Vs. State

Thuru Turi vs State

Disposition Appeal allowed Court Orissa Decided Apr 02, 1985
~2 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/531646

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

  • 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
  • Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
  • Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
  • Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

Citation
Court
Orissa High Court
Judge
Decided On
Case Number
Jail Criminal Appeal No. 36 of 1985
Subject
Criminal
Disposition
Appeal allowed

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

- LABOUR & SERVICES Pay Scale:[Tarun Chatterjee & R.M. Lodha,JJ] Fixation - Orissa Service Code (1939), Rule 74(b) Promotion - Government servant, by virtue of Rule 74(b), gets higher pay than what he was getting immediately before his promotion - Circular Dated 19.3.1983 modifying earlier Circular Dated 18.6.198...

Key legal issue
Criminal
Outcome / disposition
Appeal allowed
Acts & sections
Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860 - Sections 302

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Thuru Turi

Advocate I.C. Dash, Adv.

Respondent

State

Advocate M.R. Mohanty, Addl. Standing Counsel

Legal References

Acts
Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860 - Sections 302
Reported In
1985(II)OLR12

Excerpt

- labour & services pay scale:[tarun chatterjee & r.m. lodha,jj] fixation - orissa service code (1939), rule 74(b) promotion - government servant, by virtue of rule 74(b), gets higher pay than what he was getting immediately before his promotion - circular dated 19.3.1983 modifying earlier circular dated 18.6.1982 resulting in reduction of pay of employee on promotion held, it is not legal. statutory rules cannot be altered or amended by such executive orders or circulars or instructions nor can they replace statutory rules. .....deceased. the unfortunate incident had occurred after a sudden quarrel. if the appellant had the intention of causing the death of his mother, he would have come armed with a weapon of attack and dealt a decisive blow on a vital part. this he did not do. instead, he dealt some fist blows on the abdomen of the deceased. it could not be said from his act and conduct that he had either the intention of causing the death of the deceased or that he had the knowledge that by his act, he was likely to cause her death. in the absence of intention or knowledge, the offence committed may be the offence of causing grievous hurt or simple hurt, as the case may be. in the instant case, it would be reasonable and legal to hold that the appellant had voluntarily caused grievous hurt to the deceased. he was liable to be convicted under section 325 of the indian penal code.3. in the result, the appeal is allowed in part. the order of conviction passed against the appellant under section 302 of the indian penal code sentencing him to undergo imprisonment for life is set aside and in lieu thereof, he is convicted under section 325 of the indian penal coda and is sentenced to undergo imprisonment for the period already undergone by him which, as has been submitted at the bar, is over one and a half years and would meet the ends of justice. the appellant be set at liberty forthwith.k.p. mohapatra, j.4. i agree.

Full Judgment

B.K. Behera, J.

1. Upon hearing the learned counsel for both the sides, we find no justifiable reason to dislodge the finding recorded by Mr. P. K. Ghosh, Sessions Judge, Sundargarh, that after a sudden quarrel in the evening of July 28, 1983, the appellant had hit the abdomen of his mother which resulted in her death owing to rupture of the spleen, as noticed by the doctor conducting the autopsy. The learned trial Judge has relied on the evidence of the step-brother of the appellant (P. W. 4) who was one of the witnesses to the occurrence, the other being his step-father (P. W. 5). It is unfortunate that the evidence of P. W. 5 was not discussed in the judgment.

2. The learned trial Judge has unreasonably concluded that the appellant had the intention of causing the death of the deceased. The unfortunate incident had occurred after a sudden quarrel. If the appellant had the intention of causing the death of his mother, he would have come armed with a weapon of attack and dealt a decisive blow on a vital part. This he did not do. Instead, he dealt some fist blows on the abdomen of the deceased. It could not be said from his act and conduct that he had either the intention of causing the death of the deceased or that he had the knowledge that by his act, he was likely to cause her death. In the absence of intention or knowledge, the offence committed may be the offence of causing grievous hurt or simple hurt, as the case may be. In the instant case, it would be reasonable and legal to hold that the appellant had voluntarily caused grievous hurt to the deceased. He was liable to be convicted under Section 325 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. In the result, the appeal is allowed in part. The order of conviction passed against the appellant under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code sentencing him to undergo imprisonment for life is set aside and in lieu thereof, he is convicted under Section 325 of the Indian Penal Coda and is sentenced to undergo imprisonment for the period already undergone by him which, as has been submitted at the Bar, is over one and a half years and would meet the ends of justice. The appellant be set at liberty forthwith.

K.P. Mohapatra, J.

4. I agree.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial