Karmu Bhakta and ors. Vs. State - Court Judgment

Excerpt:

Notice (8): Undefined variable: kword [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 120]
Code Context
                                echo "<div class='table-bordered'><b>Excerpt:</b><br/>";

                                    if (trim($desc['Judgement']['casenote'])) {

                                        echo $this->Wand->highlight($this->Excerpt->extractRelevant($kword,strtolower(strip_tags($desc['Judgement']['casenote']))), $query);
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Karmu Bhakta and ors Vs State - Citation 536492 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '536492',
			'acts' => 'Evidence Act; <a href="/act/50902/code-of-criminal-procedure-1973-complete-act">Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1973</a> - Sections 161; Indian Penal Code (IPC) - Sections 395 and 397',
			'appealno' => 'Criminal Revision No. 200 of 1988',
			'appellant' => 'Karmu Bhakta and ors.',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Karmu Bhakta and ors. Vs. State',
			'casenote' => ' - Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002], 110 & 104 & Letters Patent, 1865, Clause 10: [Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Letters Patent  Appeal  Order of Single Judge of High Court passed while deciding matters filed under Order 43, Rule1 of C.P.C., -  Held, After introduction of Section 110A in the C.P.C., by 2002 Amendment Act, no Letters Patent Appeal is maintainable against judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge of a High Court. A right of appeal, even though a vested one, can be taken away by law. It is pertinent to note that Section 100-A introduced by 2002 Amendment of the Code starts with a non obstante clause. The purpose of such clause is to give the enacting part of an overriding effect in the case of a conflict with laws mentioned with the non obstante clause. The legislative intention is thus very clear that the law enacted shall have full operation and there would be no impediment. It is well settled that the definition of judgment in Section 2(9) of C.P.C., is much wider and more liberal, Intermediary or interlocutory judgment fall in the category of orders referred to Clause (a) to (w) of Order 43, Rule 1 and also such other orders which poses the characteristic and trapping of finality and may adversely affect a valuable right of a party or decide an important aspect of a trial in an ancillary proceeding. Amended Section 100-A of the Code clearly stipulates that where any appeal from an original or appellate decree or order is heard and decided by a Single Judge of a High Court, no further appeal shall lie. Even otherwise, the word judgment as defined under Section 2(9) means a statement given by a Judge on the grounds of a decree or order. Thus the contention that against an order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal filed under Section 104 C.P.C., a further appeal lies to a Division Bench cannot be accepted. The newly incorporated Section 100A in clear and specific terms prohibits further appeal against the decree and judgment or order of a Single Judge to a Division Bench notwithstanding anything contained in the Letters Patent. The Letters Patent which provides for further appeal to a Division Bench remains intact, but the right to prefer a further appeal is taken away even in respect of the matters arising under the special enactments or other instruments having the force of law be it against original/appellate decree or order heard and decided by a Single Judge. It has to be kept in mind that the special statute only provide for an Appeal to the High Court. It has not made any provision for filing appeal to a Division Bench against the judgment or decree or order of a Single Judge. No Letters Patent Appeal shall lie against a judgment/order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal arising out of a proceeding under a Special Act.

Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002] & 104:[Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Writ Appeal  Held, A Writ Appeal shall lie against judgment/orders passed by Single Judge in a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In a writ application filed under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution, if any order/judgment/decree is passed in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226, a writ appeal will lie. But, no writ appeal will lie against a judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge in exercising powers of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution. 
 -  The miscreants also made attempts to make their entry into the house by breaking open a window but failed inasmuch as a folded table was kept against the broken open place of the window and there was pelting of glasses at the miscreants by the inmates of the house who did so in spite of pelting of stones and throwing of arrows by the miscreants into the house. 5, 12 and 14 as the culprits both in the test identification parade as well as in court; 5 and 14 both in the test identification parade as well as in court; 7 and 12 both in test identification parade as well as in court and the fourth petitioner Gopal had been identified only by P. 14 as one of the culprits both in test identification parade as well as in court. 5 and also with the aid of flashing of torch lights by the petitioner and their companions hither and thither and as such they could identify them both in the test identification parade as well as in court, their evidence should not have been believed by the courts below because neither electric bulb nor any torch light of the petitioners has been seized, by the Investigating Officer at the time of investigation. This contention relates to appreciation of evidence of the identifying witnesses and since appreciation of evidence is normally not permissible in revision like the one in hand, I refrain myself to evaluate such contention particularly when perversity in appreciation of evidence by the courts below is not brought to my notice. As such, the contention must fail. Dhal for the petitioners that the other inmates of the house having not identified the petitioner Gopal as one of the culprits, it would not be safe to rely only on the evidence of P. 14 was thoroughly reliable and they have accordingly acted upon his evidence it is not considered necessary to disturb their finding particularly when their mode of appreciation of evidence is not shown to be perverse. 6. No other contention having been raised on behalf of the petitioners and the aforesaid contentions having failed, I hold that the revision is without merit and accordingly the same is dismissed.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => 'Tilkeshwar Singh v. The State of Bihar;',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => 'D.P. Dhal, ;P.K. Dhal and ;P.K. Panda, Advs.',
			'counseldef' => 'J. Mahanty, Standing Counsel',
			'court' => 'Orissa',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '1991-09-25',
			'deposition' => 'Petition dismissed',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'B.N. Dash, J.',
			'judgement' => 'ORDER<p style="text-align: justify;">B.N. Dash, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. The prosecution case, shortly stated, is that on 9/10-2-1984 at about midnight time while the informant Susil Kumar Dandpat was sleeping in the outer varandah of their house in village Machilapada under Badasahi Police station, District Meyurbhanj and the other inmates of the house including Sirish Chandra Dandpat (P.W. 1) and Sunilkumar Dandpat (P.W. 14) were sleeping inside the house bolting the entrance door from inside, there was barking of dogs for which P.W. 5 woke up and found that there was flashing of torch lights at some distance. After proceeding for some times when P.W. 5 asked in a raised voice as to who were focussing the torch lights, some people rushed at him and at their sight he ran towards his house shouting on the way to open the entrance door. Before the miscreants could approach him, the entrance door was opened and he entered into the house and bolted the door from inside. The miscreants dashed against the entrance door, but the same did not open inasmuch as the inmates of the house kept pressed the door leaves from inside. The miscreants also made attempts to make their entry into the house by breaking open a window but failed inasmuch as a folded table was kept against the broken open place of the window and there was pelting of glasses at the miscreants by the inmates of the house who did so in spite of pelting of stones and throwing of arrows by the miscreants into the house. On hearing the shouts raised by the inmates of the house, when villagers assembled near the spot, the culprits finding themselves to have been outnumbered took to their heels. Before their departure, they could injure the villagers Pratap Chandra Dandpat (P.W.3), Sadasiv Sahu (P.W.4) and Ajay Kumar Dandpat (P.W.12). After departure of the miscreants, F.I.R. (Ext. 2) was lodged at the Police station in the same night at 3 a.m. and investigation commenced. In course of investigation, stones and arrows thrown by the culprits were seized from the house in question and a test identification parade was conducted in which all the six petitioners were identified as the culprits who attempted to have committed dacoity in the house of P.W. 5. Ultimately, the present petitioners along with one Gagan Bhakta, (since acquitted) were tried for the offence Under Section 397, IPC.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. At the trial, the prosecution examined 15 witnesses of whom P.W. 1, P.W. 5 and P.W. 14 were the inmates of the house; P.W. 2 Radha Mohan Naik and P.W. 6 Bhagaban Sahu were the witnesses to the seizure of the articles from the house in question. P.W. 4 Sadasiv Sahu, P.W. 7 Ashok Kumar Dandpat and P.W. 12 Ajay Kumar Dandpat were the villagers who along with others saw the culprits and foiled their attempt to committing dacoity; P.W. 8 and 9 are the Medical Officers who examined the injured persons (P.Ws. 3, 4 and 12) and also the first petitioner Karmu Bhakta and found injuries on their persons; P.W. 10 is another Medical Officer who extracted an arrow from the person of P.W. 4 and handed over the same to the Investigating Officer; P.W. 13 is the Magistrate who conducted the test identification parade and P.Ws. 11 and 13 are the Police Officers who took some part or the other in the investigation of the case.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The trial court found that the first petitioner Karmu, the third petitioner Sarthak and the fifth petitioner Raju Katual had been duly identified by P.Ws. 5, 12 and 14 as the culprits both in the test identification parade as well as in court; the second petitioner Chandra had been duly identified as one of the culprits by P.Ws. 5 and 14 both in the test identification parade as well as in court; the sixth petitioner Jatindra had been duly identified as one of the culprits by P.Ws. 7 and 12 both in test identification parade as well as in court and the fourth petitioner Gopal had been identified only by P.W. 14 as one of the culprits both in test identification parade as well as in court. So, relying on the evidence of P.Ws. 5, 7, 12 and 14, the trial court convicted the six petitioners Under Section 397, IPC and sentenced each of them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years, while acquitting the accused Gagan Bhakta. In appeal, the learned Sessions Judge, Mayurbhanj, Baripada converted the conviction Under Section 397, IPC to one Under Section 395, IPC. and reduced the sentence to five years rigorous imprisonment in respect of each of the petitioners. Being aggrieved by such judgment and order, the present revision has been filed.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. The concurrent finding of fact that there was an attempt to commit dacoity in the house of P.W. 5 in the night in question is not assailed before me by Mr. P. K. Dhal, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners. It is, however, contended by him that the identifying witnesses having asserted that they had seen the petitioners with the help of electric light burning in the house of P.W. 5 and also with the aid of flashing of torch lights by the petitioner and their companions hither and thither and as such they could identify them both in the test identification parade as well as in court, their evidence should not have been believed by the courts below because neither electric bulb nor any torch light of the petitioners has been seized, by the Investigating Officer at the time of investigation. This contention relates to appreciation of evidence of the identifying witnesses and since appreciation of evidence is normally not permissible in revision like the one in hand, I refrain myself to evaluate such contention particularly when perversity in appreciation of evidence by the courts below is not brought to my notice. As such, the contention is rejected as unsubstantial.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. It is then contended by Mr. Dhal for the petitioners that P.W. 14 having not been examined at the time of investigation, his evidence in court identifying the petitioner Gopal as one of the culprits is inadmissible in evidence and if such evidence is left out of consideration then his evidence of identification in the test identification parade, being not substantive evidence, could not be relied upon for convicting Gopal. There is no pleading in the revision-petition that P.W. 14 had not been examined at the time of investigation. My attention is sought to be invited to the evidence of P.W. 14 himself in support of such factual position, but I am afraid if a court of revision can go through such evidence in the absence of any pleading. Even assuming for the sake of argument that P.W. 14 was not examined at the time of investigation, his evidence cannot be said to be inadmissible in the absence of any provision to that effect in Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 or in the Evidence Act. All that that can be said is that when a witness examined in court whose statement Under Section 161, Cr. P.C. had not been recorded at the time of investigation, the evidentiary value to be attached to the evidence of such witness has to be looked into and if it would be found that prejudice had been caused to the accused then the evidence of such witness may not be acted upon, otherwise not. I am supported in my view by a decision in Tilkeshwar Singh v. The State of Bihar, AIR 1956 SC 238 : (1956 Cri LJ 441). In this case, P.W. 14 had been cited as a witness in the charge-sheet and he was examined in court and both the courts below have relied on his evidence obviously for the reason that no prejudice had been caused to the petitioners: As such, the contention must fail.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. It is then contended by Mr. Dhal for the petitioners that the other inmates of the house having not identified the petitioner Gopal as one of the culprits, it would not be safe to rely only on the evidence of P.W. 14 to sustain his conviction. This argument would have carried some force if there would have been evidence to show that all inmates of the house had occasion to see all the petitioners, but no such evidence is brought to my notice. It is not unlikely that when the inmates of the house were seeing the culprits from different angles, the petitioner Gopal seen by P.W. 14 might not have been seen by the other inmates of the house. When both the courts below have found that the evidence of P.W. 14 was thoroughly reliable and they have accordingly acted upon his evidence it is not considered necessary to disturb their finding particularly when their mode of appreciation of evidence is not shown to be perverse.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. No other contention having been raised on behalf of the petitioners and the aforesaid contentions having failed, I hold that the revision is without merit and accordingly the same is dismissed.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '73(1992)CLT253; 1992CriLJ2154',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'State',
			'sub' => 'Criminal',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'karmu-bhakta-ors-vs-state',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '536492',
		(int) 1 => 'karmu-bhakta-ors-vs-state'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Karmu Bhakta and ors Vs State - Citation 536492 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '536492',
		'acts' => 'Evidence Act; <a href="/act/50902/code-of-criminal-procedure-1973-complete-act">Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1973</a> - Sections 161; Indian Penal Code (IPC) - Sections 395 and 397',
		'appealno' => 'Criminal Revision No. 200 of 1988',
		'appellant' => 'Karmu Bhakta and ors.',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Karmu Bhakta and ors. Vs. State',
		'casenote' => ' - Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002], 110 & 104 & Letters Patent, 1865, Clause 10: [Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Letters Patent  Appeal  Order of Single Judge of High Court passed while deciding matters filed under Order 43, Rule1 of C.P.C., -  Held, After introduction of Section 110A in the C.P.C., by 2002 Amendment Act, no Letters Patent Appeal is maintainable against judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge of a High Court. A right of appeal, even though a vested one, can be taken away by law. It is pertinent to note that Section 100-A introduced by 2002 Amendment of the Code starts with a non obstante clause. The purpose of such clause is to give the enacting part of an overriding effect in the case of a conflict with laws mentioned with the non obstante clause. The legislative intention is thus very clear that the law enacted shall have full operation and there would be no impediment. It is well settled that the definition of judgment in Section 2(9) of C.P.C., is much wider and more liberal, Intermediary or interlocutory judgment fall in the category of orders referred to Clause (a) to (w) of Order 43, Rule 1 and also such other orders which poses the characteristic and trapping of finality and may adversely affect a valuable right of a party or decide an important aspect of a trial in an ancillary proceeding. Amended Section 100-A of the Code clearly stipulates that where any appeal from an original or appellate decree or order is heard and decided by a Single Judge of a High Court, no further appeal shall lie. Even otherwise, the word judgment as defined under Section 2(9) means a statement given by a Judge on the grounds of a decree or order. Thus the contention that against an order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal filed under Section 104 C.P.C., a further appeal lies to a Division Bench cannot be accepted. The newly incorporated Section 100A in clear and specific terms prohibits further appeal against the decree and judgment or order of a Single Judge to a Division Bench notwithstanding anything contained in the Letters Patent. The Letters Patent which provides for further appeal to a Division Bench remains intact, but the right to prefer a further appeal is taken away even in respect of the matters arising under the special enactments or other instruments having the force of law be it against original/appellate decree or order heard and decided by a Single Judge. It has to be kept in mind that the special statute only provide for an Appeal to the High Court. It has not made any provision for filing appeal to a Division Bench against the judgment or decree or order of a Single Judge. No Letters Patent Appeal shall lie against a judgment/order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal arising out of a proceeding under a Special Act.

Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002] & 104:[Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Writ Appeal  Held, A Writ Appeal shall lie against judgment/orders passed by Single Judge in a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In a writ application filed under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution, if any order/judgment/decree is passed in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226, a writ appeal will lie. But, no writ appeal will lie against a judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge in exercising powers of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution. 
 -  The miscreants also made attempts to make their entry into the house by breaking open a window but failed inasmuch as a folded table was kept against the broken open place of the window and there was pelting of glasses at the miscreants by the inmates of the house who did so in spite of pelting of stones and throwing of arrows by the miscreants into the house. 5, 12 and 14 as the culprits both in the test identification parade as well as in court; 5 and 14 both in the test identification parade as well as in court; 7 and 12 both in test identification parade as well as in court and the fourth petitioner Gopal had been identified only by P. 14 as one of the culprits both in test identification parade as well as in court. 5 and also with the aid of flashing of torch lights by the petitioner and their companions hither and thither and as such they could identify them both in the test identification parade as well as in court, their evidence should not have been believed by the courts below because neither electric bulb nor any torch light of the petitioners has been seized, by the Investigating Officer at the time of investigation. This contention relates to appreciation of evidence of the identifying witnesses and since appreciation of evidence is normally not permissible in revision like the one in hand, I refrain myself to evaluate such contention particularly when perversity in appreciation of evidence by the courts below is not brought to my notice. As such, the contention must fail. Dhal for the petitioners that the other inmates of the house having not identified the petitioner Gopal as one of the culprits, it would not be safe to rely only on the evidence of P. 14 was thoroughly reliable and they have accordingly acted upon his evidence it is not considered necessary to disturb their finding particularly when their mode of appreciation of evidence is not shown to be perverse. 6. No other contention having been raised on behalf of the petitioners and the aforesaid contentions having failed, I hold that the revision is without merit and accordingly the same is dismissed.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => 'Tilkeshwar Singh v. The State of Bihar;',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => 'D.P. Dhal, ;P.K. Dhal and ;P.K. Panda, Advs.',
		'counseldef' => 'J. Mahanty, Standing Counsel',
		'court' => 'Orissa',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '1991-09-25',
		'deposition' => 'Petition dismissed',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'B.N. Dash, J.',
		'judgement' => 'ORDER<p>B.N. Dash, J.</p><p>1. The prosecution case, shortly stated, is that on 9/10-2-1984 at about midnight time while the informant Susil Kumar Dandpat was sleeping in the outer varandah of their house in village Machilapada under Badasahi Police station, District Meyurbhanj and the other inmates of the house including Sirish Chandra Dandpat (P.W. 1) and Sunilkumar Dandpat (P.W. 14) were sleeping inside the house bolting the entrance door from inside, there was barking of dogs for which P.W. 5 woke up and found that there was flashing of torch lights at some distance. After proceeding for some times when P.W. 5 asked in a raised voice as to who were focussing the torch lights, some people rushed at him and at their sight he ran towards his house shouting on the way to open the entrance door. Before the miscreants could approach him, the entrance door was opened and he entered into the house and bolted the door from inside. The miscreants dashed against the entrance door, but the same did not open inasmuch as the inmates of the house kept pressed the door leaves from inside. The miscreants also made attempts to make their entry into the house by breaking open a window but failed inasmuch as a folded table was kept against the broken open place of the window and there was pelting of glasses at the miscreants by the inmates of the house who did so in spite of pelting of stones and throwing of arrows by the miscreants into the house. On hearing the shouts raised by the inmates of the house, when villagers assembled near the spot, the culprits finding themselves to have been outnumbered took to their heels. Before their departure, they could injure the villagers Pratap Chandra Dandpat (P.W.3), Sadasiv Sahu (P.W.4) and Ajay Kumar Dandpat (P.W.12). After departure of the miscreants, F.I.R. (Ext. 2) was lodged at the Police station in the same night at 3 a.m. and investigation commenced. In course of investigation, stones and arrows thrown by the culprits were seized from the house in question and a test identification parade was conducted in which all the six petitioners were identified as the culprits who attempted to have committed dacoity in the house of P.W. 5. Ultimately, the present petitioners along with one Gagan Bhakta, (since acquitted) were tried for the offence Under Section 397, IPC.</p><p>2. At the trial, the prosecution examined 15 witnesses of whom P.W. 1, P.W. 5 and P.W. 14 were the inmates of the house; P.W. 2 Radha Mohan Naik and P.W. 6 Bhagaban Sahu were the witnesses to the seizure of the articles from the house in question. P.W. 4 Sadasiv Sahu, P.W. 7 Ashok Kumar Dandpat and P.W. 12 Ajay Kumar Dandpat were the villagers who along with others saw the culprits and foiled their attempt to committing dacoity; P.W. 8 and 9 are the Medical Officers who examined the injured persons (P.Ws. 3, 4 and 12) and also the first petitioner Karmu Bhakta and found injuries on their persons; P.W. 10 is another Medical Officer who extracted an arrow from the person of P.W. 4 and handed over the same to the Investigating Officer; P.W. 13 is the Magistrate who conducted the test identification parade and P.Ws. 11 and 13 are the Police Officers who took some part or the other in the investigation of the case.</p><p>The trial court found that the first petitioner Karmu, the third petitioner Sarthak and the fifth petitioner Raju Katual had been duly identified by P.Ws. 5, 12 and 14 as the culprits both in the test identification parade as well as in court; the second petitioner Chandra had been duly identified as one of the culprits by P.Ws. 5 and 14 both in the test identification parade as well as in court; the sixth petitioner Jatindra had been duly identified as one of the culprits by P.Ws. 7 and 12 both in test identification parade as well as in court and the fourth petitioner Gopal had been identified only by P.W. 14 as one of the culprits both in test identification parade as well as in court. So, relying on the evidence of P.Ws. 5, 7, 12 and 14, the trial court convicted the six petitioners Under Section 397, IPC and sentenced each of them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years, while acquitting the accused Gagan Bhakta. In appeal, the learned Sessions Judge, Mayurbhanj, Baripada converted the conviction Under Section 397, IPC to one Under Section 395, IPC. and reduced the sentence to five years rigorous imprisonment in respect of each of the petitioners. Being aggrieved by such judgment and order, the present revision has been filed.</p><p>3. The concurrent finding of fact that there was an attempt to commit dacoity in the house of P.W. 5 in the night in question is not assailed before me by Mr. P. K. Dhal, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners. It is, however, contended by him that the identifying witnesses having asserted that they had seen the petitioners with the help of electric light burning in the house of P.W. 5 and also with the aid of flashing of torch lights by the petitioner and their companions hither and thither and as such they could identify them both in the test identification parade as well as in court, their evidence should not have been believed by the courts below because neither electric bulb nor any torch light of the petitioners has been seized, by the Investigating Officer at the time of investigation. This contention relates to appreciation of evidence of the identifying witnesses and since appreciation of evidence is normally not permissible in revision like the one in hand, I refrain myself to evaluate such contention particularly when perversity in appreciation of evidence by the courts below is not brought to my notice. As such, the contention is rejected as unsubstantial.</p><p>4. It is then contended by Mr. Dhal for the petitioners that P.W. 14 having not been examined at the time of investigation, his evidence in court identifying the petitioner Gopal as one of the culprits is inadmissible in evidence and if such evidence is left out of consideration then his evidence of identification in the test identification parade, being not substantive evidence, could not be relied upon for convicting Gopal. There is no pleading in the revision-petition that P.W. 14 had not been examined at the time of investigation. My attention is sought to be invited to the evidence of P.W. 14 himself in support of such factual position, but I am afraid if a court of revision can go through such evidence in the absence of any pleading. Even assuming for the sake of argument that P.W. 14 was not examined at the time of investigation, his evidence cannot be said to be inadmissible in the absence of any provision to that effect in Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 or in the Evidence Act. All that that can be said is that when a witness examined in court whose statement Under Section 161, Cr. P.C. had not been recorded at the time of investigation, the evidentiary value to be attached to the evidence of such witness has to be looked into and if it would be found that prejudice had been caused to the accused then the evidence of such witness may not be acted upon, otherwise not. I am supported in my view by a decision in Tilkeshwar Singh v. The State of Bihar, AIR 1956 SC 238 : (1956 Cri LJ 441). In this case, P.W. 14 had been cited as a witness in the charge-sheet and he was examined in court and both the courts below have relied on his evidence obviously for the reason that no prejudice had been caused to the petitioners: As such, the contention must fail.</p><p>5. It is then contended by Mr. Dhal for the petitioners that the other inmates of the house having not identified the petitioner Gopal as one of the culprits, it would not be safe to rely only on the evidence of P.W. 14 to sustain his conviction. This argument would have carried some force if there would have been evidence to show that all inmates of the house had occasion to see all the petitioners, but no such evidence is brought to my notice. It is not unlikely that when the inmates of the house were seeing the culprits from different angles, the petitioner Gopal seen by P.W. 14 might not have been seen by the other inmates of the house. When both the courts below have found that the evidence of P.W. 14 was thoroughly reliable and they have accordingly acted upon his evidence it is not considered necessary to disturb their finding particularly when their mode of appreciation of evidence is not shown to be perverse.</p><p>6. No other contention having been raised on behalf of the petitioners and the aforesaid contentions having failed, I hold that the revision is without merit and accordingly the same is dismissed.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '73(1992)CLT253; 1992CriLJ2154',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'State',
		'sub' => 'Criminal',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'karmu-bhakta-ors-vs-state'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '536492',
	(int) 1 => 'karmu-bhakta-ors-vs-state'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/536492/karmu-bhakta-ors-vs-state'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$caseref = 'Tilkeshwar Singh v. The State of Bihar<br>'
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 120
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 120]
Code Context
                                echo "<div class='table-bordered'><b>Excerpt:</b><br/>";

                                    if (trim($desc['Judgement']['casenote'])) {

                                        echo $this->Wand->highlight($this->Excerpt->extractRelevant($kword,strtolower(strip_tags($desc['Judgement']['casenote']))), $query);
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Karmu Bhakta and ors Vs State - Citation 536492 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '536492',
			'acts' => 'Evidence Act; <a href="/act/50902/code-of-criminal-procedure-1973-complete-act">Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1973</a> - Sections 161; Indian Penal Code (IPC) - Sections 395 and 397',
			'appealno' => 'Criminal Revision No. 200 of 1988',
			'appellant' => 'Karmu Bhakta and ors.',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Karmu Bhakta and ors. Vs. State',
			'casenote' => ' - Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002], 110 & 104 & Letters Patent, 1865, Clause 10: [Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Letters Patent  Appeal  Order of Single Judge of High Court passed while deciding matters filed under Order 43, Rule1 of C.P.C., -  Held, After introduction of Section 110A in the C.P.C., by 2002 Amendment Act, no Letters Patent Appeal is maintainable against judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge of a High Court. A right of appeal, even though a vested one, can be taken away by law. It is pertinent to note that Section 100-A introduced by 2002 Amendment of the Code starts with a non obstante clause. The purpose of such clause is to give the enacting part of an overriding effect in the case of a conflict with laws mentioned with the non obstante clause. The legislative intention is thus very clear that the law enacted shall have full operation and there would be no impediment. It is well settled that the definition of judgment in Section 2(9) of C.P.C., is much wider and more liberal, Intermediary or interlocutory judgment fall in the category of orders referred to Clause (a) to (w) of Order 43, Rule 1 and also such other orders which poses the characteristic and trapping of finality and may adversely affect a valuable right of a party or decide an important aspect of a trial in an ancillary proceeding. Amended Section 100-A of the Code clearly stipulates that where any appeal from an original or appellate decree or order is heard and decided by a Single Judge of a High Court, no further appeal shall lie. Even otherwise, the word judgment as defined under Section 2(9) means a statement given by a Judge on the grounds of a decree or order. Thus the contention that against an order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal filed under Section 104 C.P.C., a further appeal lies to a Division Bench cannot be accepted. The newly incorporated Section 100A in clear and specific terms prohibits further appeal against the decree and judgment or order of a Single Judge to a Division Bench notwithstanding anything contained in the Letters Patent. The Letters Patent which provides for further appeal to a Division Bench remains intact, but the right to prefer a further appeal is taken away even in respect of the matters arising under the special enactments or other instruments having the force of law be it against original/appellate decree or order heard and decided by a Single Judge. It has to be kept in mind that the special statute only provide for an Appeal to the High Court. It has not made any provision for filing appeal to a Division Bench against the judgment or decree or order of a Single Judge. No Letters Patent Appeal shall lie against a judgment/order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal arising out of a proceeding under a Special Act.

Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002] & 104:[Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Writ Appeal  Held, A Writ Appeal shall lie against judgment/orders passed by Single Judge in a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In a writ application filed under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution, if any order/judgment/decree is passed in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226, a writ appeal will lie. But, no writ appeal will lie against a judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge in exercising powers of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution. 
 -  The miscreants also made attempts to make their entry into the house by breaking open a window but failed inasmuch as a folded table was kept against the broken open place of the window and there was pelting of glasses at the miscreants by the inmates of the house who did so in spite of pelting of stones and throwing of arrows by the miscreants into the house. 5, 12 and 14 as the culprits both in the test identification parade as well as in court; 5 and 14 both in the test identification parade as well as in court; 7 and 12 both in test identification parade as well as in court and the fourth petitioner Gopal had been identified only by P. 14 as one of the culprits both in test identification parade as well as in court. 5 and also with the aid of flashing of torch lights by the petitioner and their companions hither and thither and as such they could identify them both in the test identification parade as well as in court, their evidence should not have been believed by the courts below because neither electric bulb nor any torch light of the petitioners has been seized, by the Investigating Officer at the time of investigation. This contention relates to appreciation of evidence of the identifying witnesses and since appreciation of evidence is normally not permissible in revision like the one in hand, I refrain myself to evaluate such contention particularly when perversity in appreciation of evidence by the courts below is not brought to my notice. As such, the contention must fail. Dhal for the petitioners that the other inmates of the house having not identified the petitioner Gopal as one of the culprits, it would not be safe to rely only on the evidence of P. 14 was thoroughly reliable and they have accordingly acted upon his evidence it is not considered necessary to disturb their finding particularly when their mode of appreciation of evidence is not shown to be perverse. 6. No other contention having been raised on behalf of the petitioners and the aforesaid contentions having failed, I hold that the revision is without merit and accordingly the same is dismissed.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => 'Tilkeshwar Singh v. The State of Bihar;',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => 'D.P. Dhal, ;P.K. Dhal and ;P.K. Panda, Advs.',
			'counseldef' => 'J. Mahanty, Standing Counsel',
			'court' => 'Orissa',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '1991-09-25',
			'deposition' => 'Petition dismissed',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'B.N. Dash, J.',
			'judgement' => 'ORDER<p style="text-align: justify;">B.N. Dash, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. The prosecution case, shortly stated, is that on 9/10-2-1984 at about midnight time while the informant Susil Kumar Dandpat was sleeping in the outer varandah of their house in village Machilapada under Badasahi Police station, District Meyurbhanj and the other inmates of the house including Sirish Chandra Dandpat (P.W. 1) and Sunilkumar Dandpat (P.W. 14) were sleeping inside the house bolting the entrance door from inside, there was barking of dogs for which P.W. 5 woke up and found that there was flashing of torch lights at some distance. After proceeding for some times when P.W. 5 asked in a raised voice as to who were focussing the torch lights, some people rushed at him and at their sight he ran towards his house shouting on the way to open the entrance door. Before the miscreants could approach him, the entrance door was opened and he entered into the house and bolted the door from inside. The miscreants dashed against the entrance door, but the same did not open inasmuch as the inmates of the house kept pressed the door leaves from inside. The miscreants also made attempts to make their entry into the house by breaking open a window but failed inasmuch as a folded table was kept against the broken open place of the window and there was pelting of glasses at the miscreants by the inmates of the house who did so in spite of pelting of stones and throwing of arrows by the miscreants into the house. On hearing the shouts raised by the inmates of the house, when villagers assembled near the spot, the culprits finding themselves to have been outnumbered took to their heels. Before their departure, they could injure the villagers Pratap Chandra Dandpat (P.W.3), Sadasiv Sahu (P.W.4) and Ajay Kumar Dandpat (P.W.12). After departure of the miscreants, F.I.R. (Ext. 2) was lodged at the Police station in the same night at 3 a.m. and investigation commenced. In course of investigation, stones and arrows thrown by the culprits were seized from the house in question and a test identification parade was conducted in which all the six petitioners were identified as the culprits who attempted to have committed dacoity in the house of P.W. 5. Ultimately, the present petitioners along with one Gagan Bhakta, (since acquitted) were tried for the offence Under Section 397, IPC.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. At the trial, the prosecution examined 15 witnesses of whom P.W. 1, P.W. 5 and P.W. 14 were the inmates of the house; P.W. 2 Radha Mohan Naik and P.W. 6 Bhagaban Sahu were the witnesses to the seizure of the articles from the house in question. P.W. 4 Sadasiv Sahu, P.W. 7 Ashok Kumar Dandpat and P.W. 12 Ajay Kumar Dandpat were the villagers who along with others saw the culprits and foiled their attempt to committing dacoity; P.W. 8 and 9 are the Medical Officers who examined the injured persons (P.Ws. 3, 4 and 12) and also the first petitioner Karmu Bhakta and found injuries on their persons; P.W. 10 is another Medical Officer who extracted an arrow from the person of P.W. 4 and handed over the same to the Investigating Officer; P.W. 13 is the Magistrate who conducted the test identification parade and P.Ws. 11 and 13 are the Police Officers who took some part or the other in the investigation of the case.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The trial court found that the first petitioner Karmu, the third petitioner Sarthak and the fifth petitioner Raju Katual had been duly identified by P.Ws. 5, 12 and 14 as the culprits both in the test identification parade as well as in court; the second petitioner Chandra had been duly identified as one of the culprits by P.Ws. 5 and 14 both in the test identification parade as well as in court; the sixth petitioner Jatindra had been duly identified as one of the culprits by P.Ws. 7 and 12 both in test identification parade as well as in court and the fourth petitioner Gopal had been identified only by P.W. 14 as one of the culprits both in test identification parade as well as in court. So, relying on the evidence of P.Ws. 5, 7, 12 and 14, the trial court convicted the six petitioners Under Section 397, IPC and sentenced each of them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years, while acquitting the accused Gagan Bhakta. In appeal, the learned Sessions Judge, Mayurbhanj, Baripada converted the conviction Under Section 397, IPC to one Under Section 395, IPC. and reduced the sentence to five years rigorous imprisonment in respect of each of the petitioners. Being aggrieved by such judgment and order, the present revision has been filed.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. The concurrent finding of fact that there was an attempt to commit dacoity in the house of P.W. 5 in the night in question is not assailed before me by Mr. P. K. Dhal, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners. It is, however, contended by him that the identifying witnesses having asserted that they had seen the petitioners with the help of electric light burning in the house of P.W. 5 and also with the aid of flashing of torch lights by the petitioner and their companions hither and thither and as such they could identify them both in the test identification parade as well as in court, their evidence should not have been believed by the courts below because neither electric bulb nor any torch light of the petitioners has been seized, by the Investigating Officer at the time of investigation. This contention relates to appreciation of evidence of the identifying witnesses and since appreciation of evidence is normally not permissible in revision like the one in hand, I refrain myself to evaluate such contention particularly when perversity in appreciation of evidence by the courts below is not brought to my notice. As such, the contention is rejected as unsubstantial.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. It is then contended by Mr. Dhal for the petitioners that P.W. 14 having not been examined at the time of investigation, his evidence in court identifying the petitioner Gopal as one of the culprits is inadmissible in evidence and if such evidence is left out of consideration then his evidence of identification in the test identification parade, being not substantive evidence, could not be relied upon for convicting Gopal. There is no pleading in the revision-petition that P.W. 14 had not been examined at the time of investigation. My attention is sought to be invited to the evidence of P.W. 14 himself in support of such factual position, but I am afraid if a court of revision can go through such evidence in the absence of any pleading. Even assuming for the sake of argument that P.W. 14 was not examined at the time of investigation, his evidence cannot be said to be inadmissible in the absence of any provision to that effect in Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 or in the Evidence Act. All that that can be said is that when a witness examined in court whose statement Under Section 161, Cr. P.C. had not been recorded at the time of investigation, the evidentiary value to be attached to the evidence of such witness has to be looked into and if it would be found that prejudice had been caused to the accused then the evidence of such witness may not be acted upon, otherwise not. I am supported in my view by a decision in Tilkeshwar Singh v. The State of Bihar, AIR 1956 SC 238 : (1956 Cri LJ 441). In this case, P.W. 14 had been cited as a witness in the charge-sheet and he was examined in court and both the courts below have relied on his evidence obviously for the reason that no prejudice had been caused to the petitioners: As such, the contention must fail.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. It is then contended by Mr. Dhal for the petitioners that the other inmates of the house having not identified the petitioner Gopal as one of the culprits, it would not be safe to rely only on the evidence of P.W. 14 to sustain his conviction. This argument would have carried some force if there would have been evidence to show that all inmates of the house had occasion to see all the petitioners, but no such evidence is brought to my notice. It is not unlikely that when the inmates of the house were seeing the culprits from different angles, the petitioner Gopal seen by P.W. 14 might not have been seen by the other inmates of the house. When both the courts below have found that the evidence of P.W. 14 was thoroughly reliable and they have accordingly acted upon his evidence it is not considered necessary to disturb their finding particularly when their mode of appreciation of evidence is not shown to be perverse.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. No other contention having been raised on behalf of the petitioners and the aforesaid contentions having failed, I hold that the revision is without merit and accordingly the same is dismissed.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '73(1992)CLT253; 1992CriLJ2154',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'State',
			'sub' => 'Criminal',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'karmu-bhakta-ors-vs-state',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '536492',
		(int) 1 => 'karmu-bhakta-ors-vs-state'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Karmu Bhakta and ors Vs State - Citation 536492 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '536492',
		'acts' => 'Evidence Act; <a href="/act/50902/code-of-criminal-procedure-1973-complete-act">Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1973</a> - Sections 161; Indian Penal Code (IPC) - Sections 395 and 397',
		'appealno' => 'Criminal Revision No. 200 of 1988',
		'appellant' => 'Karmu Bhakta and ors.',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Karmu Bhakta and ors. Vs. State',
		'casenote' => ' - Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002], 110 & 104 & Letters Patent, 1865, Clause 10: [Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Letters Patent  Appeal  Order of Single Judge of High Court passed while deciding matters filed under Order 43, Rule1 of C.P.C., -  Held, After introduction of Section 110A in the C.P.C., by 2002 Amendment Act, no Letters Patent Appeal is maintainable against judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge of a High Court. A right of appeal, even though a vested one, can be taken away by law. It is pertinent to note that Section 100-A introduced by 2002 Amendment of the Code starts with a non obstante clause. The purpose of such clause is to give the enacting part of an overriding effect in the case of a conflict with laws mentioned with the non obstante clause. The legislative intention is thus very clear that the law enacted shall have full operation and there would be no impediment. It is well settled that the definition of judgment in Section 2(9) of C.P.C., is much wider and more liberal, Intermediary or interlocutory judgment fall in the category of orders referred to Clause (a) to (w) of Order 43, Rule 1 and also such other orders which poses the characteristic and trapping of finality and may adversely affect a valuable right of a party or decide an important aspect of a trial in an ancillary proceeding. Amended Section 100-A of the Code clearly stipulates that where any appeal from an original or appellate decree or order is heard and decided by a Single Judge of a High Court, no further appeal shall lie. Even otherwise, the word judgment as defined under Section 2(9) means a statement given by a Judge on the grounds of a decree or order. Thus the contention that against an order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal filed under Section 104 C.P.C., a further appeal lies to a Division Bench cannot be accepted. The newly incorporated Section 100A in clear and specific terms prohibits further appeal against the decree and judgment or order of a Single Judge to a Division Bench notwithstanding anything contained in the Letters Patent. The Letters Patent which provides for further appeal to a Division Bench remains intact, but the right to prefer a further appeal is taken away even in respect of the matters arising under the special enactments or other instruments having the force of law be it against original/appellate decree or order heard and decided by a Single Judge. It has to be kept in mind that the special statute only provide for an Appeal to the High Court. It has not made any provision for filing appeal to a Division Bench against the judgment or decree or order of a Single Judge. No Letters Patent Appeal shall lie against a judgment/order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal arising out of a proceeding under a Special Act.

Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002] & 104:[Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Writ Appeal  Held, A Writ Appeal shall lie against judgment/orders passed by Single Judge in a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In a writ application filed under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution, if any order/judgment/decree is passed in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226, a writ appeal will lie. But, no writ appeal will lie against a judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge in exercising powers of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution. 
 -  The miscreants also made attempts to make their entry into the house by breaking open a window but failed inasmuch as a folded table was kept against the broken open place of the window and there was pelting of glasses at the miscreants by the inmates of the house who did so in spite of pelting of stones and throwing of arrows by the miscreants into the house. 5, 12 and 14 as the culprits both in the test identification parade as well as in court; 5 and 14 both in the test identification parade as well as in court; 7 and 12 both in test identification parade as well as in court and the fourth petitioner Gopal had been identified only by P. 14 as one of the culprits both in test identification parade as well as in court. 5 and also with the aid of flashing of torch lights by the petitioner and their companions hither and thither and as such they could identify them both in the test identification parade as well as in court, their evidence should not have been believed by the courts below because neither electric bulb nor any torch light of the petitioners has been seized, by the Investigating Officer at the time of investigation. This contention relates to appreciation of evidence of the identifying witnesses and since appreciation of evidence is normally not permissible in revision like the one in hand, I refrain myself to evaluate such contention particularly when perversity in appreciation of evidence by the courts below is not brought to my notice. As such, the contention must fail. Dhal for the petitioners that the other inmates of the house having not identified the petitioner Gopal as one of the culprits, it would not be safe to rely only on the evidence of P. 14 was thoroughly reliable and they have accordingly acted upon his evidence it is not considered necessary to disturb their finding particularly when their mode of appreciation of evidence is not shown to be perverse. 6. No other contention having been raised on behalf of the petitioners and the aforesaid contentions having failed, I hold that the revision is without merit and accordingly the same is dismissed.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => 'Tilkeshwar Singh v. The State of Bihar;',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => 'D.P. Dhal, ;P.K. Dhal and ;P.K. Panda, Advs.',
		'counseldef' => 'J. Mahanty, Standing Counsel',
		'court' => 'Orissa',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '1991-09-25',
		'deposition' => 'Petition dismissed',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'B.N. Dash, J.',
		'judgement' => 'ORDER<p>B.N. Dash, J.</p><p>1. The prosecution case, shortly stated, is that on 9/10-2-1984 at about midnight time while the informant Susil Kumar Dandpat was sleeping in the outer varandah of their house in village Machilapada under Badasahi Police station, District Meyurbhanj and the other inmates of the house including Sirish Chandra Dandpat (P.W. 1) and Sunilkumar Dandpat (P.W. 14) were sleeping inside the house bolting the entrance door from inside, there was barking of dogs for which P.W. 5 woke up and found that there was flashing of torch lights at some distance. After proceeding for some times when P.W. 5 asked in a raised voice as to who were focussing the torch lights, some people rushed at him and at their sight he ran towards his house shouting on the way to open the entrance door. Before the miscreants could approach him, the entrance door was opened and he entered into the house and bolted the door from inside. The miscreants dashed against the entrance door, but the same did not open inasmuch as the inmates of the house kept pressed the door leaves from inside. The miscreants also made attempts to make their entry into the house by breaking open a window but failed inasmuch as a folded table was kept against the broken open place of the window and there was pelting of glasses at the miscreants by the inmates of the house who did so in spite of pelting of stones and throwing of arrows by the miscreants into the house. On hearing the shouts raised by the inmates of the house, when villagers assembled near the spot, the culprits finding themselves to have been outnumbered took to their heels. Before their departure, they could injure the villagers Pratap Chandra Dandpat (P.W.3), Sadasiv Sahu (P.W.4) and Ajay Kumar Dandpat (P.W.12). After departure of the miscreants, F.I.R. (Ext. 2) was lodged at the Police station in the same night at 3 a.m. and investigation commenced. In course of investigation, stones and arrows thrown by the culprits were seized from the house in question and a test identification parade was conducted in which all the six petitioners were identified as the culprits who attempted to have committed dacoity in the house of P.W. 5. Ultimately, the present petitioners along with one Gagan Bhakta, (since acquitted) were tried for the offence Under Section 397, IPC.</p><p>2. At the trial, the prosecution examined 15 witnesses of whom P.W. 1, P.W. 5 and P.W. 14 were the inmates of the house; P.W. 2 Radha Mohan Naik and P.W. 6 Bhagaban Sahu were the witnesses to the seizure of the articles from the house in question. P.W. 4 Sadasiv Sahu, P.W. 7 Ashok Kumar Dandpat and P.W. 12 Ajay Kumar Dandpat were the villagers who along with others saw the culprits and foiled their attempt to committing dacoity; P.W. 8 and 9 are the Medical Officers who examined the injured persons (P.Ws. 3, 4 and 12) and also the first petitioner Karmu Bhakta and found injuries on their persons; P.W. 10 is another Medical Officer who extracted an arrow from the person of P.W. 4 and handed over the same to the Investigating Officer; P.W. 13 is the Magistrate who conducted the test identification parade and P.Ws. 11 and 13 are the Police Officers who took some part or the other in the investigation of the case.</p><p>The trial court found that the first petitioner Karmu, the third petitioner Sarthak and the fifth petitioner Raju Katual had been duly identified by P.Ws. 5, 12 and 14 as the culprits both in the test identification parade as well as in court; the second petitioner Chandra had been duly identified as one of the culprits by P.Ws. 5 and 14 both in the test identification parade as well as in court; the sixth petitioner Jatindra had been duly identified as one of the culprits by P.Ws. 7 and 12 both in test identification parade as well as in court and the fourth petitioner Gopal had been identified only by P.W. 14 as one of the culprits both in test identification parade as well as in court. So, relying on the evidence of P.Ws. 5, 7, 12 and 14, the trial court convicted the six petitioners Under Section 397, IPC and sentenced each of them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years, while acquitting the accused Gagan Bhakta. In appeal, the learned Sessions Judge, Mayurbhanj, Baripada converted the conviction Under Section 397, IPC to one Under Section 395, IPC. and reduced the sentence to five years rigorous imprisonment in respect of each of the petitioners. Being aggrieved by such judgment and order, the present revision has been filed.</p><p>3. The concurrent finding of fact that there was an attempt to commit dacoity in the house of P.W. 5 in the night in question is not assailed before me by Mr. P. K. Dhal, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners. It is, however, contended by him that the identifying witnesses having asserted that they had seen the petitioners with the help of electric light burning in the house of P.W. 5 and also with the aid of flashing of torch lights by the petitioner and their companions hither and thither and as such they could identify them both in the test identification parade as well as in court, their evidence should not have been believed by the courts below because neither electric bulb nor any torch light of the petitioners has been seized, by the Investigating Officer at the time of investigation. This contention relates to appreciation of evidence of the identifying witnesses and since appreciation of evidence is normally not permissible in revision like the one in hand, I refrain myself to evaluate such contention particularly when perversity in appreciation of evidence by the courts below is not brought to my notice. As such, the contention is rejected as unsubstantial.</p><p>4. It is then contended by Mr. Dhal for the petitioners that P.W. 14 having not been examined at the time of investigation, his evidence in court identifying the petitioner Gopal as one of the culprits is inadmissible in evidence and if such evidence is left out of consideration then his evidence of identification in the test identification parade, being not substantive evidence, could not be relied upon for convicting Gopal. There is no pleading in the revision-petition that P.W. 14 had not been examined at the time of investigation. My attention is sought to be invited to the evidence of P.W. 14 himself in support of such factual position, but I am afraid if a court of revision can go through such evidence in the absence of any pleading. Even assuming for the sake of argument that P.W. 14 was not examined at the time of investigation, his evidence cannot be said to be inadmissible in the absence of any provision to that effect in Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 or in the Evidence Act. All that that can be said is that when a witness examined in court whose statement Under Section 161, Cr. P.C. had not been recorded at the time of investigation, the evidentiary value to be attached to the evidence of such witness has to be looked into and if it would be found that prejudice had been caused to the accused then the evidence of such witness may not be acted upon, otherwise not. I am supported in my view by a decision in Tilkeshwar Singh v. The State of Bihar, AIR 1956 SC 238 : (1956 Cri LJ 441). In this case, P.W. 14 had been cited as a witness in the charge-sheet and he was examined in court and both the courts below have relied on his evidence obviously for the reason that no prejudice had been caused to the petitioners: As such, the contention must fail.</p><p>5. It is then contended by Mr. Dhal for the petitioners that the other inmates of the house having not identified the petitioner Gopal as one of the culprits, it would not be safe to rely only on the evidence of P.W. 14 to sustain his conviction. This argument would have carried some force if there would have been evidence to show that all inmates of the house had occasion to see all the petitioners, but no such evidence is brought to my notice. It is not unlikely that when the inmates of the house were seeing the culprits from different angles, the petitioner Gopal seen by P.W. 14 might not have been seen by the other inmates of the house. When both the courts below have found that the evidence of P.W. 14 was thoroughly reliable and they have accordingly acted upon his evidence it is not considered necessary to disturb their finding particularly when their mode of appreciation of evidence is not shown to be perverse.</p><p>6. No other contention having been raised on behalf of the petitioners and the aforesaid contentions having failed, I hold that the revision is without merit and accordingly the same is dismissed.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '73(1992)CLT253; 1992CriLJ2154',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'State',
		'sub' => 'Criminal',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'karmu-bhakta-ors-vs-state'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '536492',
	(int) 1 => 'karmu-bhakta-ors-vs-state'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/536492/karmu-bhakta-ors-vs-state'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$caseref = 'Tilkeshwar Singh v. The State of Bihar<br>'
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 120
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

- sections 100-a [as inserted by act 22 of 2002], 110 & 104 & letters patent, 1865, clause 10: [dr. b.s. chauhan, cj, l. mohapatra & a.s. naidu, jj] letters patent appeal order of single judge of high court passed while deciding matters filed under order 43, rule1 of c.p.c., - held, after introduction of section 110a in the c.p.c., by 2002 amendment act, no letters patent appeal is maintainable against judgment/order/decree passed by a single judge of a high court. a right of appeal, even though a vested one, can be taken away by law. it is pertinent to note that section 100-a introduced by 2002 amendment of the code starts with a non obstante clause. the purpose of such clause is to give the enacting part of an overriding effect in the case of a conflict with laws mentioned with the.....

Notice (8): Undefined variable: kword [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 123]
Code Context
                                    }

                                //highest occurence of word in the judgement

                                echo $this->Wand->highlight($this->Excerpt->extractRelevant($kword,strtolower(strip_tags($desc['Judgement']['judgement']))), $query) . "</div>";
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Karmu Bhakta and ors Vs State - Citation 536492 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '536492',
			'acts' => 'Evidence Act; <a href="/act/50902/code-of-criminal-procedure-1973-complete-act">Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1973</a> - Sections 161; Indian Penal Code (IPC) - Sections 395 and 397',
			'appealno' => 'Criminal Revision No. 200 of 1988',
			'appellant' => 'Karmu Bhakta and ors.',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Karmu Bhakta and ors. Vs. State',
			'casenote' => ' - Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002], 110 & 104 & Letters Patent, 1865, Clause 10: [Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Letters Patent  Appeal  Order of Single Judge of High Court passed while deciding matters filed under Order 43, Rule1 of C.P.C., -  Held, After introduction of Section 110A in the C.P.C., by 2002 Amendment Act, no Letters Patent Appeal is maintainable against judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge of a High Court. A right of appeal, even though a vested one, can be taken away by law. It is pertinent to note that Section 100-A introduced by 2002 Amendment of the Code starts with a non obstante clause. The purpose of such clause is to give the enacting part of an overriding effect in the case of a conflict with laws mentioned with the non obstante clause. The legislative intention is thus very clear that the law enacted shall have full operation and there would be no impediment. It is well settled that the definition of judgment in Section 2(9) of C.P.C., is much wider and more liberal, Intermediary or interlocutory judgment fall in the category of orders referred to Clause (a) to (w) of Order 43, Rule 1 and also such other orders which poses the characteristic and trapping of finality and may adversely affect a valuable right of a party or decide an important aspect of a trial in an ancillary proceeding. Amended Section 100-A of the Code clearly stipulates that where any appeal from an original or appellate decree or order is heard and decided by a Single Judge of a High Court, no further appeal shall lie. Even otherwise, the word judgment as defined under Section 2(9) means a statement given by a Judge on the grounds of a decree or order. Thus the contention that against an order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal filed under Section 104 C.P.C., a further appeal lies to a Division Bench cannot be accepted. The newly incorporated Section 100A in clear and specific terms prohibits further appeal against the decree and judgment or order of a Single Judge to a Division Bench notwithstanding anything contained in the Letters Patent. The Letters Patent which provides for further appeal to a Division Bench remains intact, but the right to prefer a further appeal is taken away even in respect of the matters arising under the special enactments or other instruments having the force of law be it against original/appellate decree or order heard and decided by a Single Judge. It has to be kept in mind that the special statute only provide for an Appeal to the High Court. It has not made any provision for filing appeal to a Division Bench against the judgment or decree or order of a Single Judge. No Letters Patent Appeal shall lie against a judgment/order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal arising out of a proceeding under a Special Act.

Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002] & 104:[Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Writ Appeal  Held, A Writ Appeal shall lie against judgment/orders passed by Single Judge in a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In a writ application filed under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution, if any order/judgment/decree is passed in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226, a writ appeal will lie. But, no writ appeal will lie against a judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge in exercising powers of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution. 
 -  The miscreants also made attempts to make their entry into the house by breaking open a window but failed inasmuch as a folded table was kept against the broken open place of the window and there was pelting of glasses at the miscreants by the inmates of the house who did so in spite of pelting of stones and throwing of arrows by the miscreants into the house. 5, 12 and 14 as the culprits both in the test identification parade as well as in court; 5 and 14 both in the test identification parade as well as in court; 7 and 12 both in test identification parade as well as in court and the fourth petitioner Gopal had been identified only by P. 14 as one of the culprits both in test identification parade as well as in court. 5 and also with the aid of flashing of torch lights by the petitioner and their companions hither and thither and as such they could identify them both in the test identification parade as well as in court, their evidence should not have been believed by the courts below because neither electric bulb nor any torch light of the petitioners has been seized, by the Investigating Officer at the time of investigation. This contention relates to appreciation of evidence of the identifying witnesses and since appreciation of evidence is normally not permissible in revision like the one in hand, I refrain myself to evaluate such contention particularly when perversity in appreciation of evidence by the courts below is not brought to my notice. As such, the contention must fail. Dhal for the petitioners that the other inmates of the house having not identified the petitioner Gopal as one of the culprits, it would not be safe to rely only on the evidence of P. 14 was thoroughly reliable and they have accordingly acted upon his evidence it is not considered necessary to disturb their finding particularly when their mode of appreciation of evidence is not shown to be perverse. 6. No other contention having been raised on behalf of the petitioners and the aforesaid contentions having failed, I hold that the revision is without merit and accordingly the same is dismissed.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => 'Tilkeshwar Singh v. The State of Bihar;',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => 'D.P. Dhal, ;P.K. Dhal and ;P.K. Panda, Advs.',
			'counseldef' => 'J. Mahanty, Standing Counsel',
			'court' => 'Orissa',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '1991-09-25',
			'deposition' => 'Petition dismissed',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'B.N. Dash, J.',
			'judgement' => 'ORDER<p style="text-align: justify;">B.N. Dash, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. The prosecution case, shortly stated, is that on 9/10-2-1984 at about midnight time while the informant Susil Kumar Dandpat was sleeping in the outer varandah of their house in village Machilapada under Badasahi Police station, District Meyurbhanj and the other inmates of the house including Sirish Chandra Dandpat (P.W. 1) and Sunilkumar Dandpat (P.W. 14) were sleeping inside the house bolting the entrance door from inside, there was barking of dogs for which P.W. 5 woke up and found that there was flashing of torch lights at some distance. After proceeding for some times when P.W. 5 asked in a raised voice as to who were focussing the torch lights, some people rushed at him and at their sight he ran towards his house shouting on the way to open the entrance door. Before the miscreants could approach him, the entrance door was opened and he entered into the house and bolted the door from inside. The miscreants dashed against the entrance door, but the same did not open inasmuch as the inmates of the house kept pressed the door leaves from inside. The miscreants also made attempts to make their entry into the house by breaking open a window but failed inasmuch as a folded table was kept against the broken open place of the window and there was pelting of glasses at the miscreants by the inmates of the house who did so in spite of pelting of stones and throwing of arrows by the miscreants into the house. On hearing the shouts raised by the inmates of the house, when villagers assembled near the spot, the culprits finding themselves to have been outnumbered took to their heels. Before their departure, they could injure the villagers Pratap Chandra Dandpat (P.W.3), Sadasiv Sahu (P.W.4) and Ajay Kumar Dandpat (P.W.12). After departure of the miscreants, F.I.R. (Ext. 2) was lodged at the Police station in the same night at 3 a.m. and investigation commenced. In course of investigation, stones and arrows thrown by the culprits were seized from the house in question and a test identification parade was conducted in which all the six petitioners were identified as the culprits who attempted to have committed dacoity in the house of P.W. 5. Ultimately, the present petitioners along with one Gagan Bhakta, (since acquitted) were tried for the offence Under Section 397, IPC.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. At the trial, the prosecution examined 15 witnesses of whom P.W. 1, P.W. 5 and P.W. 14 were the inmates of the house; P.W. 2 Radha Mohan Naik and P.W. 6 Bhagaban Sahu were the witnesses to the seizure of the articles from the house in question. P.W. 4 Sadasiv Sahu, P.W. 7 Ashok Kumar Dandpat and P.W. 12 Ajay Kumar Dandpat were the villagers who along with others saw the culprits and foiled their attempt to committing dacoity; P.W. 8 and 9 are the Medical Officers who examined the injured persons (P.Ws. 3, 4 and 12) and also the first petitioner Karmu Bhakta and found injuries on their persons; P.W. 10 is another Medical Officer who extracted an arrow from the person of P.W. 4 and handed over the same to the Investigating Officer; P.W. 13 is the Magistrate who conducted the test identification parade and P.Ws. 11 and 13 are the Police Officers who took some part or the other in the investigation of the case.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The trial court found that the first petitioner Karmu, the third petitioner Sarthak and the fifth petitioner Raju Katual had been duly identified by P.Ws. 5, 12 and 14 as the culprits both in the test identification parade as well as in court; the second petitioner Chandra had been duly identified as one of the culprits by P.Ws. 5 and 14 both in the test identification parade as well as in court; the sixth petitioner Jatindra had been duly identified as one of the culprits by P.Ws. 7 and 12 both in test identification parade as well as in court and the fourth petitioner Gopal had been identified only by P.W. 14 as one of the culprits both in test identification parade as well as in court. So, relying on the evidence of P.Ws. 5, 7, 12 and 14, the trial court convicted the six petitioners Under Section 397, IPC and sentenced each of them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years, while acquitting the accused Gagan Bhakta. In appeal, the learned Sessions Judge, Mayurbhanj, Baripada converted the conviction Under Section 397, IPC to one Under Section 395, IPC. and reduced the sentence to five years rigorous imprisonment in respect of each of the petitioners. Being aggrieved by such judgment and order, the present revision has been filed.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. The concurrent finding of fact that there was an attempt to commit dacoity in the house of P.W. 5 in the night in question is not assailed before me by Mr. P. K. Dhal, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners. It is, however, contended by him that the identifying witnesses having asserted that they had seen the petitioners with the help of electric light burning in the house of P.W. 5 and also with the aid of flashing of torch lights by the petitioner and their companions hither and thither and as such they could identify them both in the test identification parade as well as in court, their evidence should not have been believed by the courts below because neither electric bulb nor any torch light of the petitioners has been seized, by the Investigating Officer at the time of investigation. This contention relates to appreciation of evidence of the identifying witnesses and since appreciation of evidence is normally not permissible in revision like the one in hand, I refrain myself to evaluate such contention particularly when perversity in appreciation of evidence by the courts below is not brought to my notice. As such, the contention is rejected as unsubstantial.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. It is then contended by Mr. Dhal for the petitioners that P.W. 14 having not been examined at the time of investigation, his evidence in court identifying the petitioner Gopal as one of the culprits is inadmissible in evidence and if such evidence is left out of consideration then his evidence of identification in the test identification parade, being not substantive evidence, could not be relied upon for convicting Gopal. There is no pleading in the revision-petition that P.W. 14 had not been examined at the time of investigation. My attention is sought to be invited to the evidence of P.W. 14 himself in support of such factual position, but I am afraid if a court of revision can go through such evidence in the absence of any pleading. Even assuming for the sake of argument that P.W. 14 was not examined at the time of investigation, his evidence cannot be said to be inadmissible in the absence of any provision to that effect in Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 or in the Evidence Act. All that that can be said is that when a witness examined in court whose statement Under Section 161, Cr. P.C. had not been recorded at the time of investigation, the evidentiary value to be attached to the evidence of such witness has to be looked into and if it would be found that prejudice had been caused to the accused then the evidence of such witness may not be acted upon, otherwise not. I am supported in my view by a decision in Tilkeshwar Singh v. The State of Bihar, AIR 1956 SC 238 : (1956 Cri LJ 441). In this case, P.W. 14 had been cited as a witness in the charge-sheet and he was examined in court and both the courts below have relied on his evidence obviously for the reason that no prejudice had been caused to the petitioners: As such, the contention must fail.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. It is then contended by Mr. Dhal for the petitioners that the other inmates of the house having not identified the petitioner Gopal as one of the culprits, it would not be safe to rely only on the evidence of P.W. 14 to sustain his conviction. This argument would have carried some force if there would have been evidence to show that all inmates of the house had occasion to see all the petitioners, but no such evidence is brought to my notice. It is not unlikely that when the inmates of the house were seeing the culprits from different angles, the petitioner Gopal seen by P.W. 14 might not have been seen by the other inmates of the house. When both the courts below have found that the evidence of P.W. 14 was thoroughly reliable and they have accordingly acted upon his evidence it is not considered necessary to disturb their finding particularly when their mode of appreciation of evidence is not shown to be perverse.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. No other contention having been raised on behalf of the petitioners and the aforesaid contentions having failed, I hold that the revision is without merit and accordingly the same is dismissed.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '73(1992)CLT253; 1992CriLJ2154',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'State',
			'sub' => 'Criminal',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'karmu-bhakta-ors-vs-state',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '536492',
		(int) 1 => 'karmu-bhakta-ors-vs-state'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Karmu Bhakta and ors Vs State - Citation 536492 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '536492',
		'acts' => 'Evidence Act; <a href="/act/50902/code-of-criminal-procedure-1973-complete-act">Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1973</a> - Sections 161; Indian Penal Code (IPC) - Sections 395 and 397',
		'appealno' => 'Criminal Revision No. 200 of 1988',
		'appellant' => 'Karmu Bhakta and ors.',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Karmu Bhakta and ors. Vs. State',
		'casenote' => ' - Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002], 110 & 104 & Letters Patent, 1865, Clause 10: [Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Letters Patent  Appeal  Order of Single Judge of High Court passed while deciding matters filed under Order 43, Rule1 of C.P.C., -  Held, After introduction of Section 110A in the C.P.C., by 2002 Amendment Act, no Letters Patent Appeal is maintainable against judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge of a High Court. A right of appeal, even though a vested one, can be taken away by law. It is pertinent to note that Section 100-A introduced by 2002 Amendment of the Code starts with a non obstante clause. The purpose of such clause is to give the enacting part of an overriding effect in the case of a conflict with laws mentioned with the non obstante clause. The legislative intention is thus very clear that the law enacted shall have full operation and there would be no impediment. It is well settled that the definition of judgment in Section 2(9) of C.P.C., is much wider and more liberal, Intermediary or interlocutory judgment fall in the category of orders referred to Clause (a) to (w) of Order 43, Rule 1 and also such other orders which poses the characteristic and trapping of finality and may adversely affect a valuable right of a party or decide an important aspect of a trial in an ancillary proceeding. Amended Section 100-A of the Code clearly stipulates that where any appeal from an original or appellate decree or order is heard and decided by a Single Judge of a High Court, no further appeal shall lie. Even otherwise, the word judgment as defined under Section 2(9) means a statement given by a Judge on the grounds of a decree or order. Thus the contention that against an order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal filed under Section 104 C.P.C., a further appeal lies to a Division Bench cannot be accepted. The newly incorporated Section 100A in clear and specific terms prohibits further appeal against the decree and judgment or order of a Single Judge to a Division Bench notwithstanding anything contained in the Letters Patent. The Letters Patent which provides for further appeal to a Division Bench remains intact, but the right to prefer a further appeal is taken away even in respect of the matters arising under the special enactments or other instruments having the force of law be it against original/appellate decree or order heard and decided by a Single Judge. It has to be kept in mind that the special statute only provide for an Appeal to the High Court. It has not made any provision for filing appeal to a Division Bench against the judgment or decree or order of a Single Judge. No Letters Patent Appeal shall lie against a judgment/order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal arising out of a proceeding under a Special Act.

Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002] & 104:[Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Writ Appeal  Held, A Writ Appeal shall lie against judgment/orders passed by Single Judge in a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In a writ application filed under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution, if any order/judgment/decree is passed in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226, a writ appeal will lie. But, no writ appeal will lie against a judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge in exercising powers of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution. 
 -  The miscreants also made attempts to make their entry into the house by breaking open a window but failed inasmuch as a folded table was kept against the broken open place of the window and there was pelting of glasses at the miscreants by the inmates of the house who did so in spite of pelting of stones and throwing of arrows by the miscreants into the house. 5, 12 and 14 as the culprits both in the test identification parade as well as in court; 5 and 14 both in the test identification parade as well as in court; 7 and 12 both in test identification parade as well as in court and the fourth petitioner Gopal had been identified only by P. 14 as one of the culprits both in test identification parade as well as in court. 5 and also with the aid of flashing of torch lights by the petitioner and their companions hither and thither and as such they could identify them both in the test identification parade as well as in court, their evidence should not have been believed by the courts below because neither electric bulb nor any torch light of the petitioners has been seized, by the Investigating Officer at the time of investigation. This contention relates to appreciation of evidence of the identifying witnesses and since appreciation of evidence is normally not permissible in revision like the one in hand, I refrain myself to evaluate such contention particularly when perversity in appreciation of evidence by the courts below is not brought to my notice. As such, the contention must fail. Dhal for the petitioners that the other inmates of the house having not identified the petitioner Gopal as one of the culprits, it would not be safe to rely only on the evidence of P. 14 was thoroughly reliable and they have accordingly acted upon his evidence it is not considered necessary to disturb their finding particularly when their mode of appreciation of evidence is not shown to be perverse. 6. No other contention having been raised on behalf of the petitioners and the aforesaid contentions having failed, I hold that the revision is without merit and accordingly the same is dismissed.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => 'Tilkeshwar Singh v. The State of Bihar;',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => 'D.P. Dhal, ;P.K. Dhal and ;P.K. Panda, Advs.',
		'counseldef' => 'J. Mahanty, Standing Counsel',
		'court' => 'Orissa',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '1991-09-25',
		'deposition' => 'Petition dismissed',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'B.N. Dash, J.',
		'judgement' => 'ORDER<p>B.N. Dash, J.</p><p>1. The prosecution case, shortly stated, is that on 9/10-2-1984 at about midnight time while the informant Susil Kumar Dandpat was sleeping in the outer varandah of their house in village Machilapada under Badasahi Police station, District Meyurbhanj and the other inmates of the house including Sirish Chandra Dandpat (P.W. 1) and Sunilkumar Dandpat (P.W. 14) were sleeping inside the house bolting the entrance door from inside, there was barking of dogs for which P.W. 5 woke up and found that there was flashing of torch lights at some distance. After proceeding for some times when P.W. 5 asked in a raised voice as to who were focussing the torch lights, some people rushed at him and at their sight he ran towards his house shouting on the way to open the entrance door. Before the miscreants could approach him, the entrance door was opened and he entered into the house and bolted the door from inside. The miscreants dashed against the entrance door, but the same did not open inasmuch as the inmates of the house kept pressed the door leaves from inside. The miscreants also made attempts to make their entry into the house by breaking open a window but failed inasmuch as a folded table was kept against the broken open place of the window and there was pelting of glasses at the miscreants by the inmates of the house who did so in spite of pelting of stones and throwing of arrows by the miscreants into the house. On hearing the shouts raised by the inmates of the house, when villagers assembled near the spot, the culprits finding themselves to have been outnumbered took to their heels. Before their departure, they could injure the villagers Pratap Chandra Dandpat (P.W.3), Sadasiv Sahu (P.W.4) and Ajay Kumar Dandpat (P.W.12). After departure of the miscreants, F.I.R. (Ext. 2) was lodged at the Police station in the same night at 3 a.m. and investigation commenced. In course of investigation, stones and arrows thrown by the culprits were seized from the house in question and a test identification parade was conducted in which all the six petitioners were identified as the culprits who attempted to have committed dacoity in the house of P.W. 5. Ultimately, the present petitioners along with one Gagan Bhakta, (since acquitted) were tried for the offence Under Section 397, IPC.</p><p>2. At the trial, the prosecution examined 15 witnesses of whom P.W. 1, P.W. 5 and P.W. 14 were the inmates of the house; P.W. 2 Radha Mohan Naik and P.W. 6 Bhagaban Sahu were the witnesses to the seizure of the articles from the house in question. P.W. 4 Sadasiv Sahu, P.W. 7 Ashok Kumar Dandpat and P.W. 12 Ajay Kumar Dandpat were the villagers who along with others saw the culprits and foiled their attempt to committing dacoity; P.W. 8 and 9 are the Medical Officers who examined the injured persons (P.Ws. 3, 4 and 12) and also the first petitioner Karmu Bhakta and found injuries on their persons; P.W. 10 is another Medical Officer who extracted an arrow from the person of P.W. 4 and handed over the same to the Investigating Officer; P.W. 13 is the Magistrate who conducted the test identification parade and P.Ws. 11 and 13 are the Police Officers who took some part or the other in the investigation of the case.</p><p>The trial court found that the first petitioner Karmu, the third petitioner Sarthak and the fifth petitioner Raju Katual had been duly identified by P.Ws. 5, 12 and 14 as the culprits both in the test identification parade as well as in court; the second petitioner Chandra had been duly identified as one of the culprits by P.Ws. 5 and 14 both in the test identification parade as well as in court; the sixth petitioner Jatindra had been duly identified as one of the culprits by P.Ws. 7 and 12 both in test identification parade as well as in court and the fourth petitioner Gopal had been identified only by P.W. 14 as one of the culprits both in test identification parade as well as in court. So, relying on the evidence of P.Ws. 5, 7, 12 and 14, the trial court convicted the six petitioners Under Section 397, IPC and sentenced each of them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years, while acquitting the accused Gagan Bhakta. In appeal, the learned Sessions Judge, Mayurbhanj, Baripada converted the conviction Under Section 397, IPC to one Under Section 395, IPC. and reduced the sentence to five years rigorous imprisonment in respect of each of the petitioners. Being aggrieved by such judgment and order, the present revision has been filed.</p><p>3. The concurrent finding of fact that there was an attempt to commit dacoity in the house of P.W. 5 in the night in question is not assailed before me by Mr. P. K. Dhal, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners. It is, however, contended by him that the identifying witnesses having asserted that they had seen the petitioners with the help of electric light burning in the house of P.W. 5 and also with the aid of flashing of torch lights by the petitioner and their companions hither and thither and as such they could identify them both in the test identification parade as well as in court, their evidence should not have been believed by the courts below because neither electric bulb nor any torch light of the petitioners has been seized, by the Investigating Officer at the time of investigation. This contention relates to appreciation of evidence of the identifying witnesses and since appreciation of evidence is normally not permissible in revision like the one in hand, I refrain myself to evaluate such contention particularly when perversity in appreciation of evidence by the courts below is not brought to my notice. As such, the contention is rejected as unsubstantial.</p><p>4. It is then contended by Mr. Dhal for the petitioners that P.W. 14 having not been examined at the time of investigation, his evidence in court identifying the petitioner Gopal as one of the culprits is inadmissible in evidence and if such evidence is left out of consideration then his evidence of identification in the test identification parade, being not substantive evidence, could not be relied upon for convicting Gopal. There is no pleading in the revision-petition that P.W. 14 had not been examined at the time of investigation. My attention is sought to be invited to the evidence of P.W. 14 himself in support of such factual position, but I am afraid if a court of revision can go through such evidence in the absence of any pleading. Even assuming for the sake of argument that P.W. 14 was not examined at the time of investigation, his evidence cannot be said to be inadmissible in the absence of any provision to that effect in Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 or in the Evidence Act. All that that can be said is that when a witness examined in court whose statement Under Section 161, Cr. P.C. had not been recorded at the time of investigation, the evidentiary value to be attached to the evidence of such witness has to be looked into and if it would be found that prejudice had been caused to the accused then the evidence of such witness may not be acted upon, otherwise not. I am supported in my view by a decision in Tilkeshwar Singh v. The State of Bihar, AIR 1956 SC 238 : (1956 Cri LJ 441). In this case, P.W. 14 had been cited as a witness in the charge-sheet and he was examined in court and both the courts below have relied on his evidence obviously for the reason that no prejudice had been caused to the petitioners: As such, the contention must fail.</p><p>5. It is then contended by Mr. Dhal for the petitioners that the other inmates of the house having not identified the petitioner Gopal as one of the culprits, it would not be safe to rely only on the evidence of P.W. 14 to sustain his conviction. This argument would have carried some force if there would have been evidence to show that all inmates of the house had occasion to see all the petitioners, but no such evidence is brought to my notice. It is not unlikely that when the inmates of the house were seeing the culprits from different angles, the petitioner Gopal seen by P.W. 14 might not have been seen by the other inmates of the house. When both the courts below have found that the evidence of P.W. 14 was thoroughly reliable and they have accordingly acted upon his evidence it is not considered necessary to disturb their finding particularly when their mode of appreciation of evidence is not shown to be perverse.</p><p>6. No other contention having been raised on behalf of the petitioners and the aforesaid contentions having failed, I hold that the revision is without merit and accordingly the same is dismissed.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '73(1992)CLT253; 1992CriLJ2154',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'State',
		'sub' => 'Criminal',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'karmu-bhakta-ors-vs-state'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '536492',
	(int) 1 => 'karmu-bhakta-ors-vs-state'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/536492/karmu-bhakta-ors-vs-state'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$caseref = 'Tilkeshwar Singh v. The State of Bihar<br>'
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 123
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 123]
Code Context
                                    }

                                //highest occurence of word in the judgement

                                echo $this->Wand->highlight($this->Excerpt->extractRelevant($kword,strtolower(strip_tags($desc['Judgement']['judgement']))), $query) . "</div>";
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Karmu Bhakta and ors Vs State - Citation 536492 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '536492',
			'acts' => 'Evidence Act; <a href="/act/50902/code-of-criminal-procedure-1973-complete-act">Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1973</a> - Sections 161; Indian Penal Code (IPC) - Sections 395 and 397',
			'appealno' => 'Criminal Revision No. 200 of 1988',
			'appellant' => 'Karmu Bhakta and ors.',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Karmu Bhakta and ors. Vs. State',
			'casenote' => ' - Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002], 110 & 104 & Letters Patent, 1865, Clause 10: [Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Letters Patent  Appeal  Order of Single Judge of High Court passed while deciding matters filed under Order 43, Rule1 of C.P.C., -  Held, After introduction of Section 110A in the C.P.C., by 2002 Amendment Act, no Letters Patent Appeal is maintainable against judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge of a High Court. A right of appeal, even though a vested one, can be taken away by law. It is pertinent to note that Section 100-A introduced by 2002 Amendment of the Code starts with a non obstante clause. The purpose of such clause is to give the enacting part of an overriding effect in the case of a conflict with laws mentioned with the non obstante clause. The legislative intention is thus very clear that the law enacted shall have full operation and there would be no impediment. It is well settled that the definition of judgment in Section 2(9) of C.P.C., is much wider and more liberal, Intermediary or interlocutory judgment fall in the category of orders referred to Clause (a) to (w) of Order 43, Rule 1 and also such other orders which poses the characteristic and trapping of finality and may adversely affect a valuable right of a party or decide an important aspect of a trial in an ancillary proceeding. Amended Section 100-A of the Code clearly stipulates that where any appeal from an original or appellate decree or order is heard and decided by a Single Judge of a High Court, no further appeal shall lie. Even otherwise, the word judgment as defined under Section 2(9) means a statement given by a Judge on the grounds of a decree or order. Thus the contention that against an order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal filed under Section 104 C.P.C., a further appeal lies to a Division Bench cannot be accepted. The newly incorporated Section 100A in clear and specific terms prohibits further appeal against the decree and judgment or order of a Single Judge to a Division Bench notwithstanding anything contained in the Letters Patent. The Letters Patent which provides for further appeal to a Division Bench remains intact, but the right to prefer a further appeal is taken away even in respect of the matters arising under the special enactments or other instruments having the force of law be it against original/appellate decree or order heard and decided by a Single Judge. It has to be kept in mind that the special statute only provide for an Appeal to the High Court. It has not made any provision for filing appeal to a Division Bench against the judgment or decree or order of a Single Judge. No Letters Patent Appeal shall lie against a judgment/order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal arising out of a proceeding under a Special Act.

Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002] & 104:[Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Writ Appeal  Held, A Writ Appeal shall lie against judgment/orders passed by Single Judge in a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In a writ application filed under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution, if any order/judgment/decree is passed in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226, a writ appeal will lie. But, no writ appeal will lie against a judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge in exercising powers of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution. 
 -  The miscreants also made attempts to make their entry into the house by breaking open a window but failed inasmuch as a folded table was kept against the broken open place of the window and there was pelting of glasses at the miscreants by the inmates of the house who did so in spite of pelting of stones and throwing of arrows by the miscreants into the house. 5, 12 and 14 as the culprits both in the test identification parade as well as in court; 5 and 14 both in the test identification parade as well as in court; 7 and 12 both in test identification parade as well as in court and the fourth petitioner Gopal had been identified only by P. 14 as one of the culprits both in test identification parade as well as in court. 5 and also with the aid of flashing of torch lights by the petitioner and their companions hither and thither and as such they could identify them both in the test identification parade as well as in court, their evidence should not have been believed by the courts below because neither electric bulb nor any torch light of the petitioners has been seized, by the Investigating Officer at the time of investigation. This contention relates to appreciation of evidence of the identifying witnesses and since appreciation of evidence is normally not permissible in revision like the one in hand, I refrain myself to evaluate such contention particularly when perversity in appreciation of evidence by the courts below is not brought to my notice. As such, the contention must fail. Dhal for the petitioners that the other inmates of the house having not identified the petitioner Gopal as one of the culprits, it would not be safe to rely only on the evidence of P. 14 was thoroughly reliable and they have accordingly acted upon his evidence it is not considered necessary to disturb their finding particularly when their mode of appreciation of evidence is not shown to be perverse. 6. No other contention having been raised on behalf of the petitioners and the aforesaid contentions having failed, I hold that the revision is without merit and accordingly the same is dismissed.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => 'Tilkeshwar Singh v. The State of Bihar;',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => 'D.P. Dhal, ;P.K. Dhal and ;P.K. Panda, Advs.',
			'counseldef' => 'J. Mahanty, Standing Counsel',
			'court' => 'Orissa',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '1991-09-25',
			'deposition' => 'Petition dismissed',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'B.N. Dash, J.',
			'judgement' => 'ORDER<p style="text-align: justify;">B.N. Dash, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. The prosecution case, shortly stated, is that on 9/10-2-1984 at about midnight time while the informant Susil Kumar Dandpat was sleeping in the outer varandah of their house in village Machilapada under Badasahi Police station, District Meyurbhanj and the other inmates of the house including Sirish Chandra Dandpat (P.W. 1) and Sunilkumar Dandpat (P.W. 14) were sleeping inside the house bolting the entrance door from inside, there was barking of dogs for which P.W. 5 woke up and found that there was flashing of torch lights at some distance. After proceeding for some times when P.W. 5 asked in a raised voice as to who were focussing the torch lights, some people rushed at him and at their sight he ran towards his house shouting on the way to open the entrance door. Before the miscreants could approach him, the entrance door was opened and he entered into the house and bolted the door from inside. The miscreants dashed against the entrance door, but the same did not open inasmuch as the inmates of the house kept pressed the door leaves from inside. The miscreants also made attempts to make their entry into the house by breaking open a window but failed inasmuch as a folded table was kept against the broken open place of the window and there was pelting of glasses at the miscreants by the inmates of the house who did so in spite of pelting of stones and throwing of arrows by the miscreants into the house. On hearing the shouts raised by the inmates of the house, when villagers assembled near the spot, the culprits finding themselves to have been outnumbered took to their heels. Before their departure, they could injure the villagers Pratap Chandra Dandpat (P.W.3), Sadasiv Sahu (P.W.4) and Ajay Kumar Dandpat (P.W.12). After departure of the miscreants, F.I.R. (Ext. 2) was lodged at the Police station in the same night at 3 a.m. and investigation commenced. In course of investigation, stones and arrows thrown by the culprits were seized from the house in question and a test identification parade was conducted in which all the six petitioners were identified as the culprits who attempted to have committed dacoity in the house of P.W. 5. Ultimately, the present petitioners along with one Gagan Bhakta, (since acquitted) were tried for the offence Under Section 397, IPC.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. At the trial, the prosecution examined 15 witnesses of whom P.W. 1, P.W. 5 and P.W. 14 were the inmates of the house; P.W. 2 Radha Mohan Naik and P.W. 6 Bhagaban Sahu were the witnesses to the seizure of the articles from the house in question. P.W. 4 Sadasiv Sahu, P.W. 7 Ashok Kumar Dandpat and P.W. 12 Ajay Kumar Dandpat were the villagers who along with others saw the culprits and foiled their attempt to committing dacoity; P.W. 8 and 9 are the Medical Officers who examined the injured persons (P.Ws. 3, 4 and 12) and also the first petitioner Karmu Bhakta and found injuries on their persons; P.W. 10 is another Medical Officer who extracted an arrow from the person of P.W. 4 and handed over the same to the Investigating Officer; P.W. 13 is the Magistrate who conducted the test identification parade and P.Ws. 11 and 13 are the Police Officers who took some part or the other in the investigation of the case.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The trial court found that the first petitioner Karmu, the third petitioner Sarthak and the fifth petitioner Raju Katual had been duly identified by P.Ws. 5, 12 and 14 as the culprits both in the test identification parade as well as in court; the second petitioner Chandra had been duly identified as one of the culprits by P.Ws. 5 and 14 both in the test identification parade as well as in court; the sixth petitioner Jatindra had been duly identified as one of the culprits by P.Ws. 7 and 12 both in test identification parade as well as in court and the fourth petitioner Gopal had been identified only by P.W. 14 as one of the culprits both in test identification parade as well as in court. So, relying on the evidence of P.Ws. 5, 7, 12 and 14, the trial court convicted the six petitioners Under Section 397, IPC and sentenced each of them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years, while acquitting the accused Gagan Bhakta. In appeal, the learned Sessions Judge, Mayurbhanj, Baripada converted the conviction Under Section 397, IPC to one Under Section 395, IPC. and reduced the sentence to five years rigorous imprisonment in respect of each of the petitioners. Being aggrieved by such judgment and order, the present revision has been filed.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. The concurrent finding of fact that there was an attempt to commit dacoity in the house of P.W. 5 in the night in question is not assailed before me by Mr. P. K. Dhal, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners. It is, however, contended by him that the identifying witnesses having asserted that they had seen the petitioners with the help of electric light burning in the house of P.W. 5 and also with the aid of flashing of torch lights by the petitioner and their companions hither and thither and as such they could identify them both in the test identification parade as well as in court, their evidence should not have been believed by the courts below because neither electric bulb nor any torch light of the petitioners has been seized, by the Investigating Officer at the time of investigation. This contention relates to appreciation of evidence of the identifying witnesses and since appreciation of evidence is normally not permissible in revision like the one in hand, I refrain myself to evaluate such contention particularly when perversity in appreciation of evidence by the courts below is not brought to my notice. As such, the contention is rejected as unsubstantial.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. It is then contended by Mr. Dhal for the petitioners that P.W. 14 having not been examined at the time of investigation, his evidence in court identifying the petitioner Gopal as one of the culprits is inadmissible in evidence and if such evidence is left out of consideration then his evidence of identification in the test identification parade, being not substantive evidence, could not be relied upon for convicting Gopal. There is no pleading in the revision-petition that P.W. 14 had not been examined at the time of investigation. My attention is sought to be invited to the evidence of P.W. 14 himself in support of such factual position, but I am afraid if a court of revision can go through such evidence in the absence of any pleading. Even assuming for the sake of argument that P.W. 14 was not examined at the time of investigation, his evidence cannot be said to be inadmissible in the absence of any provision to that effect in Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 or in the Evidence Act. All that that can be said is that when a witness examined in court whose statement Under Section 161, Cr. P.C. had not been recorded at the time of investigation, the evidentiary value to be attached to the evidence of such witness has to be looked into and if it would be found that prejudice had been caused to the accused then the evidence of such witness may not be acted upon, otherwise not. I am supported in my view by a decision in Tilkeshwar Singh v. The State of Bihar, AIR 1956 SC 238 : (1956 Cri LJ 441). In this case, P.W. 14 had been cited as a witness in the charge-sheet and he was examined in court and both the courts below have relied on his evidence obviously for the reason that no prejudice had been caused to the petitioners: As such, the contention must fail.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. It is then contended by Mr. Dhal for the petitioners that the other inmates of the house having not identified the petitioner Gopal as one of the culprits, it would not be safe to rely only on the evidence of P.W. 14 to sustain his conviction. This argument would have carried some force if there would have been evidence to show that all inmates of the house had occasion to see all the petitioners, but no such evidence is brought to my notice. It is not unlikely that when the inmates of the house were seeing the culprits from different angles, the petitioner Gopal seen by P.W. 14 might not have been seen by the other inmates of the house. When both the courts below have found that the evidence of P.W. 14 was thoroughly reliable and they have accordingly acted upon his evidence it is not considered necessary to disturb their finding particularly when their mode of appreciation of evidence is not shown to be perverse.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. No other contention having been raised on behalf of the petitioners and the aforesaid contentions having failed, I hold that the revision is without merit and accordingly the same is dismissed.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '73(1992)CLT253; 1992CriLJ2154',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'State',
			'sub' => 'Criminal',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'karmu-bhakta-ors-vs-state',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '536492',
		(int) 1 => 'karmu-bhakta-ors-vs-state'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Karmu Bhakta and ors Vs State - Citation 536492 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '536492',
		'acts' => 'Evidence Act; <a href="/act/50902/code-of-criminal-procedure-1973-complete-act">Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1973</a> - Sections 161; Indian Penal Code (IPC) - Sections 395 and 397',
		'appealno' => 'Criminal Revision No. 200 of 1988',
		'appellant' => 'Karmu Bhakta and ors.',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Karmu Bhakta and ors. Vs. State',
		'casenote' => ' - Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002], 110 & 104 & Letters Patent, 1865, Clause 10: [Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Letters Patent  Appeal  Order of Single Judge of High Court passed while deciding matters filed under Order 43, Rule1 of C.P.C., -  Held, After introduction of Section 110A in the C.P.C., by 2002 Amendment Act, no Letters Patent Appeal is maintainable against judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge of a High Court. A right of appeal, even though a vested one, can be taken away by law. It is pertinent to note that Section 100-A introduced by 2002 Amendment of the Code starts with a non obstante clause. The purpose of such clause is to give the enacting part of an overriding effect in the case of a conflict with laws mentioned with the non obstante clause. The legislative intention is thus very clear that the law enacted shall have full operation and there would be no impediment. It is well settled that the definition of judgment in Section 2(9) of C.P.C., is much wider and more liberal, Intermediary or interlocutory judgment fall in the category of orders referred to Clause (a) to (w) of Order 43, Rule 1 and also such other orders which poses the characteristic and trapping of finality and may adversely affect a valuable right of a party or decide an important aspect of a trial in an ancillary proceeding. Amended Section 100-A of the Code clearly stipulates that where any appeal from an original or appellate decree or order is heard and decided by a Single Judge of a High Court, no further appeal shall lie. Even otherwise, the word judgment as defined under Section 2(9) means a statement given by a Judge on the grounds of a decree or order. Thus the contention that against an order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal filed under Section 104 C.P.C., a further appeal lies to a Division Bench cannot be accepted. The newly incorporated Section 100A in clear and specific terms prohibits further appeal against the decree and judgment or order of a Single Judge to a Division Bench notwithstanding anything contained in the Letters Patent. The Letters Patent which provides for further appeal to a Division Bench remains intact, but the right to prefer a further appeal is taken away even in respect of the matters arising under the special enactments or other instruments having the force of law be it against original/appellate decree or order heard and decided by a Single Judge. It has to be kept in mind that the special statute only provide for an Appeal to the High Court. It has not made any provision for filing appeal to a Division Bench against the judgment or decree or order of a Single Judge. No Letters Patent Appeal shall lie against a judgment/order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal arising out of a proceeding under a Special Act.

Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002] & 104:[Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Writ Appeal  Held, A Writ Appeal shall lie against judgment/orders passed by Single Judge in a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In a writ application filed under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution, if any order/judgment/decree is passed in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226, a writ appeal will lie. But, no writ appeal will lie against a judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge in exercising powers of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution. 
 -  The miscreants also made attempts to make their entry into the house by breaking open a window but failed inasmuch as a folded table was kept against the broken open place of the window and there was pelting of glasses at the miscreants by the inmates of the house who did so in spite of pelting of stones and throwing of arrows by the miscreants into the house. 5, 12 and 14 as the culprits both in the test identification parade as well as in court; 5 and 14 both in the test identification parade as well as in court; 7 and 12 both in test identification parade as well as in court and the fourth petitioner Gopal had been identified only by P. 14 as one of the culprits both in test identification parade as well as in court. 5 and also with the aid of flashing of torch lights by the petitioner and their companions hither and thither and as such they could identify them both in the test identification parade as well as in court, their evidence should not have been believed by the courts below because neither electric bulb nor any torch light of the petitioners has been seized, by the Investigating Officer at the time of investigation. This contention relates to appreciation of evidence of the identifying witnesses and since appreciation of evidence is normally not permissible in revision like the one in hand, I refrain myself to evaluate such contention particularly when perversity in appreciation of evidence by the courts below is not brought to my notice. As such, the contention must fail. Dhal for the petitioners that the other inmates of the house having not identified the petitioner Gopal as one of the culprits, it would not be safe to rely only on the evidence of P. 14 was thoroughly reliable and they have accordingly acted upon his evidence it is not considered necessary to disturb their finding particularly when their mode of appreciation of evidence is not shown to be perverse. 6. No other contention having been raised on behalf of the petitioners and the aforesaid contentions having failed, I hold that the revision is without merit and accordingly the same is dismissed.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => 'Tilkeshwar Singh v. The State of Bihar;',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => 'D.P. Dhal, ;P.K. Dhal and ;P.K. Panda, Advs.',
		'counseldef' => 'J. Mahanty, Standing Counsel',
		'court' => 'Orissa',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '1991-09-25',
		'deposition' => 'Petition dismissed',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'B.N. Dash, J.',
		'judgement' => 'ORDER<p>B.N. Dash, J.</p><p>1. The prosecution case, shortly stated, is that on 9/10-2-1984 at about midnight time while the informant Susil Kumar Dandpat was sleeping in the outer varandah of their house in village Machilapada under Badasahi Police station, District Meyurbhanj and the other inmates of the house including Sirish Chandra Dandpat (P.W. 1) and Sunilkumar Dandpat (P.W. 14) were sleeping inside the house bolting the entrance door from inside, there was barking of dogs for which P.W. 5 woke up and found that there was flashing of torch lights at some distance. After proceeding for some times when P.W. 5 asked in a raised voice as to who were focussing the torch lights, some people rushed at him and at their sight he ran towards his house shouting on the way to open the entrance door. Before the miscreants could approach him, the entrance door was opened and he entered into the house and bolted the door from inside. The miscreants dashed against the entrance door, but the same did not open inasmuch as the inmates of the house kept pressed the door leaves from inside. The miscreants also made attempts to make their entry into the house by breaking open a window but failed inasmuch as a folded table was kept against the broken open place of the window and there was pelting of glasses at the miscreants by the inmates of the house who did so in spite of pelting of stones and throwing of arrows by the miscreants into the house. On hearing the shouts raised by the inmates of the house, when villagers assembled near the spot, the culprits finding themselves to have been outnumbered took to their heels. Before their departure, they could injure the villagers Pratap Chandra Dandpat (P.W.3), Sadasiv Sahu (P.W.4) and Ajay Kumar Dandpat (P.W.12). After departure of the miscreants, F.I.R. (Ext. 2) was lodged at the Police station in the same night at 3 a.m. and investigation commenced. In course of investigation, stones and arrows thrown by the culprits were seized from the house in question and a test identification parade was conducted in which all the six petitioners were identified as the culprits who attempted to have committed dacoity in the house of P.W. 5. Ultimately, the present petitioners along with one Gagan Bhakta, (since acquitted) were tried for the offence Under Section 397, IPC.</p><p>2. At the trial, the prosecution examined 15 witnesses of whom P.W. 1, P.W. 5 and P.W. 14 were the inmates of the house; P.W. 2 Radha Mohan Naik and P.W. 6 Bhagaban Sahu were the witnesses to the seizure of the articles from the house in question. P.W. 4 Sadasiv Sahu, P.W. 7 Ashok Kumar Dandpat and P.W. 12 Ajay Kumar Dandpat were the villagers who along with others saw the culprits and foiled their attempt to committing dacoity; P.W. 8 and 9 are the Medical Officers who examined the injured persons (P.Ws. 3, 4 and 12) and also the first petitioner Karmu Bhakta and found injuries on their persons; P.W. 10 is another Medical Officer who extracted an arrow from the person of P.W. 4 and handed over the same to the Investigating Officer; P.W. 13 is the Magistrate who conducted the test identification parade and P.Ws. 11 and 13 are the Police Officers who took some part or the other in the investigation of the case.</p><p>The trial court found that the first petitioner Karmu, the third petitioner Sarthak and the fifth petitioner Raju Katual had been duly identified by P.Ws. 5, 12 and 14 as the culprits both in the test identification parade as well as in court; the second petitioner Chandra had been duly identified as one of the culprits by P.Ws. 5 and 14 both in the test identification parade as well as in court; the sixth petitioner Jatindra had been duly identified as one of the culprits by P.Ws. 7 and 12 both in test identification parade as well as in court and the fourth petitioner Gopal had been identified only by P.W. 14 as one of the culprits both in test identification parade as well as in court. So, relying on the evidence of P.Ws. 5, 7, 12 and 14, the trial court convicted the six petitioners Under Section 397, IPC and sentenced each of them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years, while acquitting the accused Gagan Bhakta. In appeal, the learned Sessions Judge, Mayurbhanj, Baripada converted the conviction Under Section 397, IPC to one Under Section 395, IPC. and reduced the sentence to five years rigorous imprisonment in respect of each of the petitioners. Being aggrieved by such judgment and order, the present revision has been filed.</p><p>3. The concurrent finding of fact that there was an attempt to commit dacoity in the house of P.W. 5 in the night in question is not assailed before me by Mr. P. K. Dhal, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners. It is, however, contended by him that the identifying witnesses having asserted that they had seen the petitioners with the help of electric light burning in the house of P.W. 5 and also with the aid of flashing of torch lights by the petitioner and their companions hither and thither and as such they could identify them both in the test identification parade as well as in court, their evidence should not have been believed by the courts below because neither electric bulb nor any torch light of the petitioners has been seized, by the Investigating Officer at the time of investigation. This contention relates to appreciation of evidence of the identifying witnesses and since appreciation of evidence is normally not permissible in revision like the one in hand, I refrain myself to evaluate such contention particularly when perversity in appreciation of evidence by the courts below is not brought to my notice. As such, the contention is rejected as unsubstantial.</p><p>4. It is then contended by Mr. Dhal for the petitioners that P.W. 14 having not been examined at the time of investigation, his evidence in court identifying the petitioner Gopal as one of the culprits is inadmissible in evidence and if such evidence is left out of consideration then his evidence of identification in the test identification parade, being not substantive evidence, could not be relied upon for convicting Gopal. There is no pleading in the revision-petition that P.W. 14 had not been examined at the time of investigation. My attention is sought to be invited to the evidence of P.W. 14 himself in support of such factual position, but I am afraid if a court of revision can go through such evidence in the absence of any pleading. Even assuming for the sake of argument that P.W. 14 was not examined at the time of investigation, his evidence cannot be said to be inadmissible in the absence of any provision to that effect in Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 or in the Evidence Act. All that that can be said is that when a witness examined in court whose statement Under Section 161, Cr. P.C. had not been recorded at the time of investigation, the evidentiary value to be attached to the evidence of such witness has to be looked into and if it would be found that prejudice had been caused to the accused then the evidence of such witness may not be acted upon, otherwise not. I am supported in my view by a decision in Tilkeshwar Singh v. The State of Bihar, AIR 1956 SC 238 : (1956 Cri LJ 441). In this case, P.W. 14 had been cited as a witness in the charge-sheet and he was examined in court and both the courts below have relied on his evidence obviously for the reason that no prejudice had been caused to the petitioners: As such, the contention must fail.</p><p>5. It is then contended by Mr. Dhal for the petitioners that the other inmates of the house having not identified the petitioner Gopal as one of the culprits, it would not be safe to rely only on the evidence of P.W. 14 to sustain his conviction. This argument would have carried some force if there would have been evidence to show that all inmates of the house had occasion to see all the petitioners, but no such evidence is brought to my notice. It is not unlikely that when the inmates of the house were seeing the culprits from different angles, the petitioner Gopal seen by P.W. 14 might not have been seen by the other inmates of the house. When both the courts below have found that the evidence of P.W. 14 was thoroughly reliable and they have accordingly acted upon his evidence it is not considered necessary to disturb their finding particularly when their mode of appreciation of evidence is not shown to be perverse.</p><p>6. No other contention having been raised on behalf of the petitioners and the aforesaid contentions having failed, I hold that the revision is without merit and accordingly the same is dismissed.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '73(1992)CLT253; 1992CriLJ2154',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'State',
		'sub' => 'Criminal',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'karmu-bhakta-ors-vs-state'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '536492',
	(int) 1 => 'karmu-bhakta-ors-vs-state'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/536492/karmu-bhakta-ors-vs-state'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$caseref = 'Tilkeshwar Singh v. The State of Bihar<br>'
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 123
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

orderb.n. dash, j.1. the prosecution case, shortly stated, is that on 9/10-2-1984 at about midnight time while the informant susil kumar dandpat was sleeping in the outer varandah of their house in village machilapada under badasahi police station, district meyurbhanj and the other inmates of the house including sirish chandra dandpat (p.w. 1) and sunilkumar dandpat (p.w. 14) were sleeping inside the house bolting the entrance door from inside, there was barking of dogs for which p.w. 5 woke up and found that there was flashing of torch lights at some distance. after proceeding for some times when p.w. 5 asked in a raised voice as to who were focussing the torch lights, some people rushed at him and at their sight he ran towards his house shouting on the way to open the entrance door......

Judgment:

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Karmu Bhakta and ors Vs State - Citation 536492 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '536492',
			'acts' => 'Evidence Act; <a href="/act/50902/code-of-criminal-procedure-1973-complete-act">Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1973</a> - Sections 161; Indian Penal Code (IPC) - Sections 395 and 397',
			'appealno' => 'Criminal Revision No. 200 of 1988',
			'appellant' => 'Karmu Bhakta and ors.',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Karmu Bhakta and ors. Vs. State',
			'casenote' => ' - Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002], 110 & 104 & Letters Patent, 1865, Clause 10: [Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Letters Patent  Appeal  Order of Single Judge of High Court passed while deciding matters filed under Order 43, Rule1 of C.P.C., -  Held, After introduction of Section 110A in the C.P.C., by 2002 Amendment Act, no Letters Patent Appeal is maintainable against judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge of a High Court. A right of appeal, even though a vested one, can be taken away by law. It is pertinent to note that Section 100-A introduced by 2002 Amendment of the Code starts with a non obstante clause. The purpose of such clause is to give the enacting part of an overriding effect in the case of a conflict with laws mentioned with the non obstante clause. The legislative intention is thus very clear that the law enacted shall have full operation and there would be no impediment. It is well settled that the definition of judgment in Section 2(9) of C.P.C., is much wider and more liberal, Intermediary or interlocutory judgment fall in the category of orders referred to Clause (a) to (w) of Order 43, Rule 1 and also such other orders which poses the characteristic and trapping of finality and may adversely affect a valuable right of a party or decide an important aspect of a trial in an ancillary proceeding. Amended Section 100-A of the Code clearly stipulates that where any appeal from an original or appellate decree or order is heard and decided by a Single Judge of a High Court, no further appeal shall lie. Even otherwise, the word judgment as defined under Section 2(9) means a statement given by a Judge on the grounds of a decree or order. Thus the contention that against an order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal filed under Section 104 C.P.C., a further appeal lies to a Division Bench cannot be accepted. The newly incorporated Section 100A in clear and specific terms prohibits further appeal against the decree and judgment or order of a Single Judge to a Division Bench notwithstanding anything contained in the Letters Patent. The Letters Patent which provides for further appeal to a Division Bench remains intact, but the right to prefer a further appeal is taken away even in respect of the matters arising under the special enactments or other instruments having the force of law be it against original/appellate decree or order heard and decided by a Single Judge. It has to be kept in mind that the special statute only provide for an Appeal to the High Court. It has not made any provision for filing appeal to a Division Bench against the judgment or decree or order of a Single Judge. No Letters Patent Appeal shall lie against a judgment/order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal arising out of a proceeding under a Special Act.

Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002] & 104:[Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Writ Appeal  Held, A Writ Appeal shall lie against judgment/orders passed by Single Judge in a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In a writ application filed under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution, if any order/judgment/decree is passed in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226, a writ appeal will lie. But, no writ appeal will lie against a judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge in exercising powers of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution. 
 -  The miscreants also made attempts to make their entry into the house by breaking open a window but failed inasmuch as a folded table was kept against the broken open place of the window and there was pelting of glasses at the miscreants by the inmates of the house who did so in spite of pelting of stones and throwing of arrows by the miscreants into the house. 5, 12 and 14 as the culprits both in the test identification parade as well as in court; 5 and 14 both in the test identification parade as well as in court; 7 and 12 both in test identification parade as well as in court and the fourth petitioner Gopal had been identified only by P. 14 as one of the culprits both in test identification parade as well as in court. 5 and also with the aid of flashing of torch lights by the petitioner and their companions hither and thither and as such they could identify them both in the test identification parade as well as in court, their evidence should not have been believed by the courts below because neither electric bulb nor any torch light of the petitioners has been seized, by the Investigating Officer at the time of investigation. This contention relates to appreciation of evidence of the identifying witnesses and since appreciation of evidence is normally not permissible in revision like the one in hand, I refrain myself to evaluate such contention particularly when perversity in appreciation of evidence by the courts below is not brought to my notice. As such, the contention must fail. Dhal for the petitioners that the other inmates of the house having not identified the petitioner Gopal as one of the culprits, it would not be safe to rely only on the evidence of P. 14 was thoroughly reliable and they have accordingly acted upon his evidence it is not considered necessary to disturb their finding particularly when their mode of appreciation of evidence is not shown to be perverse. 6. No other contention having been raised on behalf of the petitioners and the aforesaid contentions having failed, I hold that the revision is without merit and accordingly the same is dismissed.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => 'Tilkeshwar Singh v. The State of Bihar;',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => 'D.P. Dhal, ;P.K. Dhal and ;P.K. Panda, Advs.',
			'counseldef' => 'J. Mahanty, Standing Counsel',
			'court' => 'Orissa',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '1991-09-25',
			'deposition' => 'Petition dismissed',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'B.N. Dash, J.',
			'judgement' => 'ORDER<p style="text-align: justify;">B.N. Dash, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. The prosecution case, shortly stated, is that on 9/10-2-1984 at about midnight time while the informant Susil Kumar Dandpat was sleeping in the outer varandah of their house in village Machilapada under Badasahi Police station, District Meyurbhanj and the other inmates of the house including Sirish Chandra Dandpat (P.W. 1) and Sunilkumar Dandpat (P.W. 14) were sleeping inside the house bolting the entrance door from inside, there was barking of dogs for which P.W. 5 woke up and found that there was flashing of torch lights at some distance. After proceeding for some times when P.W. 5 asked in a raised voice as to who were focussing the torch lights, some people rushed at him and at their sight he ran towards his house shouting on the way to open the entrance door. Before the miscreants could approach him, the entrance door was opened and he entered into the house and bolted the door from inside. The miscreants dashed against the entrance door, but the same did not open inasmuch as the inmates of the house kept pressed the door leaves from inside. The miscreants also made attempts to make their entry into the house by breaking open a window but failed inasmuch as a folded table was kept against the broken open place of the window and there was pelting of glasses at the miscreants by the inmates of the house who did so in spite of pelting of stones and throwing of arrows by the miscreants into the house. On hearing the shouts raised by the inmates of the house, when villagers assembled near the spot, the culprits finding themselves to have been outnumbered took to their heels. Before their departure, they could injure the villagers Pratap Chandra Dandpat (P.W.3), Sadasiv Sahu (P.W.4) and Ajay Kumar Dandpat (P.W.12). After departure of the miscreants, F.I.R. (Ext. 2) was lodged at the Police station in the same night at 3 a.m. and investigation commenced. In course of investigation, stones and arrows thrown by the culprits were seized from the house in question and a test identification parade was conducted in which all the six petitioners were identified as the culprits who attempted to have committed dacoity in the house of P.W. 5. Ultimately, the present petitioners along with one Gagan Bhakta, (since acquitted) were tried for the offence Under Section 397, IPC.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. At the trial, the prosecution examined 15 witnesses of whom P.W. 1, P.W. 5 and P.W. 14 were the inmates of the house; P.W. 2 Radha Mohan Naik and P.W. 6 Bhagaban Sahu were the witnesses to the seizure of the articles from the house in question. P.W. 4 Sadasiv Sahu, P.W. 7 Ashok Kumar Dandpat and P.W. 12 Ajay Kumar Dandpat were the villagers who along with others saw the culprits and foiled their attempt to committing dacoity; P.W. 8 and 9 are the Medical Officers who examined the injured persons (P.Ws. 3, 4 and 12) and also the first petitioner Karmu Bhakta and found injuries on their persons; P.W. 10 is another Medical Officer who extracted an arrow from the person of P.W. 4 and handed over the same to the Investigating Officer; P.W. 13 is the Magistrate who conducted the test identification parade and P.Ws. 11 and 13 are the Police Officers who took some part or the other in the investigation of the case.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The trial court found that the first petitioner Karmu, the third petitioner Sarthak and the fifth petitioner Raju Katual had been duly identified by P.Ws. 5, 12 and 14 as the culprits both in the test identification parade as well as in court; the second petitioner Chandra had been duly identified as one of the culprits by P.Ws. 5 and 14 both in the test identification parade as well as in court; the sixth petitioner Jatindra had been duly identified as one of the culprits by P.Ws. 7 and 12 both in test identification parade as well as in court and the fourth petitioner Gopal had been identified only by P.W. 14 as one of the culprits both in test identification parade as well as in court. So, relying on the evidence of P.Ws. 5, 7, 12 and 14, the trial court convicted the six petitioners Under Section 397, IPC and sentenced each of them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years, while acquitting the accused Gagan Bhakta. In appeal, the learned Sessions Judge, Mayurbhanj, Baripada converted the conviction Under Section 397, IPC to one Under Section 395, IPC. and reduced the sentence to five years rigorous imprisonment in respect of each of the petitioners. Being aggrieved by such judgment and order, the present revision has been filed.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. The concurrent finding of fact that there was an attempt to commit dacoity in the house of P.W. 5 in the night in question is not assailed before me by Mr. P. K. Dhal, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners. It is, however, contended by him that the identifying witnesses having asserted that they had seen the petitioners with the help of electric light burning in the house of P.W. 5 and also with the aid of flashing of torch lights by the petitioner and their companions hither and thither and as such they could identify them both in the test identification parade as well as in court, their evidence should not have been believed by the courts below because neither electric bulb nor any torch light of the petitioners has been seized, by the Investigating Officer at the time of investigation. This contention relates to appreciation of evidence of the identifying witnesses and since appreciation of evidence is normally not permissible in revision like the one in hand, I refrain myself to evaluate such contention particularly when perversity in appreciation of evidence by the courts below is not brought to my notice. As such, the contention is rejected as unsubstantial.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. It is then contended by Mr. Dhal for the petitioners that P.W. 14 having not been examined at the time of investigation, his evidence in court identifying the petitioner Gopal as one of the culprits is inadmissible in evidence and if such evidence is left out of consideration then his evidence of identification in the test identification parade, being not substantive evidence, could not be relied upon for convicting Gopal. There is no pleading in the revision-petition that P.W. 14 had not been examined at the time of investigation. My attention is sought to be invited to the evidence of P.W. 14 himself in support of such factual position, but I am afraid if a court of revision can go through such evidence in the absence of any pleading. Even assuming for the sake of argument that P.W. 14 was not examined at the time of investigation, his evidence cannot be said to be inadmissible in the absence of any provision to that effect in Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 or in the Evidence Act. All that that can be said is that when a witness examined in court whose statement Under Section 161, Cr. P.C. had not been recorded at the time of investigation, the evidentiary value to be attached to the evidence of such witness has to be looked into and if it would be found that prejudice had been caused to the accused then the evidence of such witness may not be acted upon, otherwise not. I am supported in my view by a decision in Tilkeshwar Singh v. The State of Bihar, AIR 1956 SC 238 : (1956 Cri LJ 441). In this case, P.W. 14 had been cited as a witness in the charge-sheet and he was examined in court and both the courts below have relied on his evidence obviously for the reason that no prejudice had been caused to the petitioners: As such, the contention must fail.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. It is then contended by Mr. Dhal for the petitioners that the other inmates of the house having not identified the petitioner Gopal as one of the culprits, it would not be safe to rely only on the evidence of P.W. 14 to sustain his conviction. This argument would have carried some force if there would have been evidence to show that all inmates of the house had occasion to see all the petitioners, but no such evidence is brought to my notice. It is not unlikely that when the inmates of the house were seeing the culprits from different angles, the petitioner Gopal seen by P.W. 14 might not have been seen by the other inmates of the house. When both the courts below have found that the evidence of P.W. 14 was thoroughly reliable and they have accordingly acted upon his evidence it is not considered necessary to disturb their finding particularly when their mode of appreciation of evidence is not shown to be perverse.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. No other contention having been raised on behalf of the petitioners and the aforesaid contentions having failed, I hold that the revision is without merit and accordingly the same is dismissed.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '73(1992)CLT253; 1992CriLJ2154',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'State',
			'sub' => 'Criminal',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'karmu-bhakta-ors-vs-state',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '536492',
		(int) 1 => 'karmu-bhakta-ors-vs-state'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Karmu Bhakta and ors Vs State - Citation 536492 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '536492',
		'acts' => 'Evidence Act; <a href="/act/50902/code-of-criminal-procedure-1973-complete-act">Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1973</a> - Sections 161; Indian Penal Code (IPC) - Sections 395 and 397',
		'appealno' => 'Criminal Revision No. 200 of 1988',
		'appellant' => 'Karmu Bhakta and ors.',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Karmu Bhakta and ors. Vs. State',
		'casenote' => ' - Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002], 110 & 104 & Letters Patent, 1865, Clause 10: [Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Letters Patent  Appeal  Order of Single Judge of High Court passed while deciding matters filed under Order 43, Rule1 of C.P.C., -  Held, After introduction of Section 110A in the C.P.C., by 2002 Amendment Act, no Letters Patent Appeal is maintainable against judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge of a High Court. A right of appeal, even though a vested one, can be taken away by law. It is pertinent to note that Section 100-A introduced by 2002 Amendment of the Code starts with a non obstante clause. The purpose of such clause is to give the enacting part of an overriding effect in the case of a conflict with laws mentioned with the non obstante clause. The legislative intention is thus very clear that the law enacted shall have full operation and there would be no impediment. It is well settled that the definition of judgment in Section 2(9) of C.P.C., is much wider and more liberal, Intermediary or interlocutory judgment fall in the category of orders referred to Clause (a) to (w) of Order 43, Rule 1 and also such other orders which poses the characteristic and trapping of finality and may adversely affect a valuable right of a party or decide an important aspect of a trial in an ancillary proceeding. Amended Section 100-A of the Code clearly stipulates that where any appeal from an original or appellate decree or order is heard and decided by a Single Judge of a High Court, no further appeal shall lie. Even otherwise, the word judgment as defined under Section 2(9) means a statement given by a Judge on the grounds of a decree or order. Thus the contention that against an order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal filed under Section 104 C.P.C., a further appeal lies to a Division Bench cannot be accepted. The newly incorporated Section 100A in clear and specific terms prohibits further appeal against the decree and judgment or order of a Single Judge to a Division Bench notwithstanding anything contained in the Letters Patent. The Letters Patent which provides for further appeal to a Division Bench remains intact, but the right to prefer a further appeal is taken away even in respect of the matters arising under the special enactments or other instruments having the force of law be it against original/appellate decree or order heard and decided by a Single Judge. It has to be kept in mind that the special statute only provide for an Appeal to the High Court. It has not made any provision for filing appeal to a Division Bench against the judgment or decree or order of a Single Judge. No Letters Patent Appeal shall lie against a judgment/order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal arising out of a proceeding under a Special Act.

Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002] & 104:[Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Writ Appeal  Held, A Writ Appeal shall lie against judgment/orders passed by Single Judge in a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In a writ application filed under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution, if any order/judgment/decree is passed in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226, a writ appeal will lie. But, no writ appeal will lie against a judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge in exercising powers of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution. 
 -  The miscreants also made attempts to make their entry into the house by breaking open a window but failed inasmuch as a folded table was kept against the broken open place of the window and there was pelting of glasses at the miscreants by the inmates of the house who did so in spite of pelting of stones and throwing of arrows by the miscreants into the house. 5, 12 and 14 as the culprits both in the test identification parade as well as in court; 5 and 14 both in the test identification parade as well as in court; 7 and 12 both in test identification parade as well as in court and the fourth petitioner Gopal had been identified only by P. 14 as one of the culprits both in test identification parade as well as in court. 5 and also with the aid of flashing of torch lights by the petitioner and their companions hither and thither and as such they could identify them both in the test identification parade as well as in court, their evidence should not have been believed by the courts below because neither electric bulb nor any torch light of the petitioners has been seized, by the Investigating Officer at the time of investigation. This contention relates to appreciation of evidence of the identifying witnesses and since appreciation of evidence is normally not permissible in revision like the one in hand, I refrain myself to evaluate such contention particularly when perversity in appreciation of evidence by the courts below is not brought to my notice. As such, the contention must fail. Dhal for the petitioners that the other inmates of the house having not identified the petitioner Gopal as one of the culprits, it would not be safe to rely only on the evidence of P. 14 was thoroughly reliable and they have accordingly acted upon his evidence it is not considered necessary to disturb their finding particularly when their mode of appreciation of evidence is not shown to be perverse. 6. No other contention having been raised on behalf of the petitioners and the aforesaid contentions having failed, I hold that the revision is without merit and accordingly the same is dismissed.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => 'Tilkeshwar Singh v. The State of Bihar;',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => 'D.P. Dhal, ;P.K. Dhal and ;P.K. Panda, Advs.',
		'counseldef' => 'J. Mahanty, Standing Counsel',
		'court' => 'Orissa',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '1991-09-25',
		'deposition' => 'Petition dismissed',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'B.N. Dash, J.',
		'judgement' => 'ORDER<p>B.N. Dash, J.</p><p>1. The prosecution case, shortly stated, is that on 9/10-2-1984 at about midnight time while the informant Susil Kumar Dandpat was sleeping in the outer varandah of their house in village Machilapada under Badasahi Police station, District Meyurbhanj and the other inmates of the house including Sirish Chandra Dandpat (P.W. 1) and Sunilkumar Dandpat (P.W. 14) were sleeping inside the house bolting the entrance door from inside, there was barking of dogs for which P.W. 5 woke up and found that there was flashing of torch lights at some distance. After proceeding for some times when P.W. 5 asked in a raised voice as to who were focussing the torch lights, some people rushed at him and at their sight he ran towards his house shouting on the way to open the entrance door. Before the miscreants could approach him, the entrance door was opened and he entered into the house and bolted the door from inside. The miscreants dashed against the entrance door, but the same did not open inasmuch as the inmates of the house kept pressed the door leaves from inside. The miscreants also made attempts to make their entry into the house by breaking open a window but failed inasmuch as a folded table was kept against the broken open place of the window and there was pelting of glasses at the miscreants by the inmates of the house who did so in spite of pelting of stones and throwing of arrows by the miscreants into the house. On hearing the shouts raised by the inmates of the house, when villagers assembled near the spot, the culprits finding themselves to have been outnumbered took to their heels. Before their departure, they could injure the villagers Pratap Chandra Dandpat (P.W.3), Sadasiv Sahu (P.W.4) and Ajay Kumar Dandpat (P.W.12). After departure of the miscreants, F.I.R. (Ext. 2) was lodged at the Police station in the same night at 3 a.m. and investigation commenced. In course of investigation, stones and arrows thrown by the culprits were seized from the house in question and a test identification parade was conducted in which all the six petitioners were identified as the culprits who attempted to have committed dacoity in the house of P.W. 5. Ultimately, the present petitioners along with one Gagan Bhakta, (since acquitted) were tried for the offence Under Section 397, IPC.</p><p>2. At the trial, the prosecution examined 15 witnesses of whom P.W. 1, P.W. 5 and P.W. 14 were the inmates of the house; P.W. 2 Radha Mohan Naik and P.W. 6 Bhagaban Sahu were the witnesses to the seizure of the articles from the house in question. P.W. 4 Sadasiv Sahu, P.W. 7 Ashok Kumar Dandpat and P.W. 12 Ajay Kumar Dandpat were the villagers who along with others saw the culprits and foiled their attempt to committing dacoity; P.W. 8 and 9 are the Medical Officers who examined the injured persons (P.Ws. 3, 4 and 12) and also the first petitioner Karmu Bhakta and found injuries on their persons; P.W. 10 is another Medical Officer who extracted an arrow from the person of P.W. 4 and handed over the same to the Investigating Officer; P.W. 13 is the Magistrate who conducted the test identification parade and P.Ws. 11 and 13 are the Police Officers who took some part or the other in the investigation of the case.</p><p>The trial court found that the first petitioner Karmu, the third petitioner Sarthak and the fifth petitioner Raju Katual had been duly identified by P.Ws. 5, 12 and 14 as the culprits both in the test identification parade as well as in court; the second petitioner Chandra had been duly identified as one of the culprits by P.Ws. 5 and 14 both in the test identification parade as well as in court; the sixth petitioner Jatindra had been duly identified as one of the culprits by P.Ws. 7 and 12 both in test identification parade as well as in court and the fourth petitioner Gopal had been identified only by P.W. 14 as one of the culprits both in test identification parade as well as in court. So, relying on the evidence of P.Ws. 5, 7, 12 and 14, the trial court convicted the six petitioners Under Section 397, IPC and sentenced each of them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years, while acquitting the accused Gagan Bhakta. In appeal, the learned Sessions Judge, Mayurbhanj, Baripada converted the conviction Under Section 397, IPC to one Under Section 395, IPC. and reduced the sentence to five years rigorous imprisonment in respect of each of the petitioners. Being aggrieved by such judgment and order, the present revision has been filed.</p><p>3. The concurrent finding of fact that there was an attempt to commit dacoity in the house of P.W. 5 in the night in question is not assailed before me by Mr. P. K. Dhal, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners. It is, however, contended by him that the identifying witnesses having asserted that they had seen the petitioners with the help of electric light burning in the house of P.W. 5 and also with the aid of flashing of torch lights by the petitioner and their companions hither and thither and as such they could identify them both in the test identification parade as well as in court, their evidence should not have been believed by the courts below because neither electric bulb nor any torch light of the petitioners has been seized, by the Investigating Officer at the time of investigation. This contention relates to appreciation of evidence of the identifying witnesses and since appreciation of evidence is normally not permissible in revision like the one in hand, I refrain myself to evaluate such contention particularly when perversity in appreciation of evidence by the courts below is not brought to my notice. As such, the contention is rejected as unsubstantial.</p><p>4. It is then contended by Mr. Dhal for the petitioners that P.W. 14 having not been examined at the time of investigation, his evidence in court identifying the petitioner Gopal as one of the culprits is inadmissible in evidence and if such evidence is left out of consideration then his evidence of identification in the test identification parade, being not substantive evidence, could not be relied upon for convicting Gopal. There is no pleading in the revision-petition that P.W. 14 had not been examined at the time of investigation. My attention is sought to be invited to the evidence of P.W. 14 himself in support of such factual position, but I am afraid if a court of revision can go through such evidence in the absence of any pleading. Even assuming for the sake of argument that P.W. 14 was not examined at the time of investigation, his evidence cannot be said to be inadmissible in the absence of any provision to that effect in Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 or in the Evidence Act. All that that can be said is that when a witness examined in court whose statement Under Section 161, Cr. P.C. had not been recorded at the time of investigation, the evidentiary value to be attached to the evidence of such witness has to be looked into and if it would be found that prejudice had been caused to the accused then the evidence of such witness may not be acted upon, otherwise not. I am supported in my view by a decision in Tilkeshwar Singh v. The State of Bihar, AIR 1956 SC 238 : (1956 Cri LJ 441). In this case, P.W. 14 had been cited as a witness in the charge-sheet and he was examined in court and both the courts below have relied on his evidence obviously for the reason that no prejudice had been caused to the petitioners: As such, the contention must fail.</p><p>5. It is then contended by Mr. Dhal for the petitioners that the other inmates of the house having not identified the petitioner Gopal as one of the culprits, it would not be safe to rely only on the evidence of P.W. 14 to sustain his conviction. This argument would have carried some force if there would have been evidence to show that all inmates of the house had occasion to see all the petitioners, but no such evidence is brought to my notice. It is not unlikely that when the inmates of the house were seeing the culprits from different angles, the petitioner Gopal seen by P.W. 14 might not have been seen by the other inmates of the house. When both the courts below have found that the evidence of P.W. 14 was thoroughly reliable and they have accordingly acted upon his evidence it is not considered necessary to disturb their finding particularly when their mode of appreciation of evidence is not shown to be perverse.</p><p>6. No other contention having been raised on behalf of the petitioners and the aforesaid contentions having failed, I hold that the revision is without merit and accordingly the same is dismissed.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '73(1992)CLT253; 1992CriLJ2154',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'State',
		'sub' => 'Criminal',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'karmu-bhakta-ors-vs-state'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '536492',
	(int) 1 => 'karmu-bhakta-ors-vs-state'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/536492/karmu-bhakta-ors-vs-state'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$caseref = 'Tilkeshwar Singh v. The State of Bihar<br>'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => 'ORDER<p>B.N. Dash, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. The prosecution case, shortly stated, is that on 9/10-2-1984 at about midnight time while the informant Susil Kumar Dandpat was sleeping in the outer varandah of their house in village Machilapada under Badasahi Police station, District Meyurbhanj and the other inmates of the house including Sirish Chandra Dandpat (P.W. 1) and Sunilkumar Dandpat (P.W. 14) were sleeping inside the house bolting the entrance door from inside, there was barking of dogs for which P.W. 5 woke up and found that there was flashing of torch lights at some distance. After proceeding for some times when P.W. 5 asked in a raised voice as to who were focussing the torch lights, some people rushed at him and at their sight he ran towards his house shouting on the way to open the entrance door. Before the miscreants could approach him, the entrance door was opened and he entered into the house and bolted the door from inside. The miscreants dashed against the entrance door, but the same did not open inasmuch as the inmates of the house kept pressed the door leaves from inside. The miscreants also made attempts to make their entry into the house by breaking open a window but failed inasmuch as a folded table was kept against the broken open place of the window and there was pelting of glasses at the miscreants by the inmates of the house who did so in spite of pelting of stones and throwing of arrows by the miscreants into the house. On hearing the shouts raised by the inmates of the house, when villagers assembled near the spot, the culprits finding themselves to have been outnumbered took to their heels. Before their departure, they could injure the villagers Pratap Chandra Dandpat (P.W.3), Sadasiv Sahu (P.W.4) and Ajay Kumar Dandpat (P.W.12). After departure of the miscreants, F.I.R. (Ext. 2) was lodged at the Police station in the same night at 3 a.m. and investigation commenced. In course of investigation, stones and arrows thrown by the culprits were seized from the house in question and a test identification parade was conducted in which all the six petitioners were identified as the culprits who attempted to have committed dacoity in the house of P.W. 5. Ultimately, the present petitioners along with one Gagan Bhakta, (since acquitted) were tried for the offence Under Section 397, IPC.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. At the trial, the prosecution examined 15 witnesses of whom P.W. 1, P.W. 5 and P.W. 14 were the inmates of the house; P.W. 2 Radha Mohan Naik and P.W. 6 Bhagaban Sahu were the witnesses to the seizure of the articles from the house in question. P.W. 4 Sadasiv Sahu, P.W. 7 Ashok Kumar Dandpat and P.W. 12 Ajay Kumar Dandpat were the villagers who along with others saw the culprits and foiled their attempt to committing dacoity; P.W. 8 and 9 are the Medical Officers who examined the injured persons (P.Ws. 3, 4 and 12) and also the first petitioner Karmu Bhakta and found injuries on their persons; P.W. 10 is another Medical Officer who extracted an arrow from the person of P.W. 4 and handed over the same to the Investigating Officer; P.W. 13 is the Magistrate who conducted the test identification parade and P.Ws. 11 and 13 are the Police Officers who took some part or the other in the investigation of the case.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>The trial court found that the first petitioner Karmu, the third petitioner Sarthak and the fifth petitioner Raju Katual had been duly identified by P.Ws. 5, 12 and 14 as the culprits both in the test identification parade as well as in court; the second petitioner Chandra had been duly identified as one of the culprits by P.Ws. 5 and 14 both in the test identification parade as well as in court; the sixth petitioner Jatindra had been duly identified as one of the culprits by P.Ws. 7 and 12 both in test identification parade as well as in court and the fourth petitioner Gopal had been identified only by P.W. 14 as one of the culprits both in test identification parade as well as in court. So, relying on the evidence of P.Ws. 5, 7, 12 and 14, the trial court convicted the six petitioners Under Section 397, IPC and sentenced each of them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years, while acquitting the accused Gagan Bhakta. In appeal, the learned Sessions Judge, Mayurbhanj, Baripada converted the conviction Under Section 397, IPC to one Under Section 395, IPC. and reduced the sentence to five years rigorous imprisonment in respect of each of the petitioners. Being aggrieved by such judgment and order, the present revision has been filed.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>3. The concurrent finding of fact that there was an attempt to commit dacoity in the house of P.W. 5 in the night in question is not assailed before me by Mr. P. K. Dhal, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners. It is, however, contended by him that the identifying witnesses having asserted that they had seen the petitioners with the help of electric light burning in the house of P.W. 5 and also with the aid of flashing of torch lights by the petitioner and their companions hither and thither and as such they could identify them both in the test identification parade as well as in court, their evidence should not have been believed by the courts below because neither electric bulb nor any torch light of the petitioners has been seized, by the Investigating Officer at the time of investigation. This contention relates to appreciation of evidence of the identifying witnesses and since appreciation of evidence is normally not permissible in revision like the one in hand, I refrain myself to evaluate such contention particularly when perversity in appreciation of evidence by the courts below is not brought to my notice. As such, the contention is rejected as unsubstantial.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>4. It is then contended by Mr. Dhal for the petitioners that P.W. 14 having not been examined at the time of investigation, his evidence in court identifying the petitioner Gopal as one of the culprits is inadmissible in evidence and if such evidence is left out of consideration then his evidence of identification in the test identification parade, being not substantive evidence, could not be relied upon for convicting Gopal. There is no pleading in the revision-petition that P.W. 14 had not been examined at the time of investigation. My attention is sought to be invited to the evidence of P.W. 14 himself in support of such factual position, but I am afraid if a court of revision can go through such evidence in the absence of any pleading. Even assuming for the sake of argument that P.W. 14 was not examined at the time of investigation, his evidence cannot be said to be inadmissible in the absence of any provision to that effect in Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 or in the Evidence Act. All that that can be said is that when a witness examined in court whose statement Under Section 161, Cr. P.C. had not been recorded at the time of investigation, the evidentiary value to be attached to the evidence of such witness has to be looked into and if it would be found that prejudice had been caused to the accused then the evidence of such witness may not be acted upon, otherwise not. I am supported in my view by a decision in Tilkeshwar Singh v. The State of Bihar, AIR 1956 SC 238 : (1956 Cri LJ 441). In this case, P.W. 14 had been cited as a witness in the charge-sheet and he was examined in court and both the courts below have relied on his evidence obviously for the reason that no prejudice had been caused to the petitioners: As such, the contention must fail.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>5. It is then contended by Mr. Dhal for the petitioners that the other inmates of the house having not identified the petitioner Gopal as one of the culprits, it would not be safe to rely only on the evidence of P.W. 14 to sustain his conviction. This argument would have carried some force if there would have been evidence to show that all inmates of the house had occasion to see all the petitioners, but no such evidence is brought to my notice. It is not unlikely that when the inmates of the house were seeing the culprits from different angles, the petitioner Gopal seen by P.W. 14 might not have been seen by the other inmates of the house. When both the courts below have found that the evidence of P.W. 14 was thoroughly reliable and they have accordingly acted upon his evidence it is not considered necessary to disturb their finding particularly when their mode of appreciation of evidence is not shown to be perverse.',
	(int) 7 => '<p>6. No other contention having been raised on behalf of the petitioners and the aforesaid contentions having failed, I hold that the revision is without merit and accordingly the same is dismissed.<p>',
	(int) 8 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 9
$i = (int) 0
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

ORDER

B.N. Dash, J.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Karmu Bhakta and ors Vs State - Citation 536492 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '536492',
			'acts' => 'Evidence Act; <a href="/act/50902/code-of-criminal-procedure-1973-complete-act">Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1973</a> - Sections 161; Indian Penal Code (IPC) - Sections 395 and 397',
			'appealno' => 'Criminal Revision No. 200 of 1988',
			'appellant' => 'Karmu Bhakta and ors.',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Karmu Bhakta and ors. Vs. State',
			'casenote' => ' - Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002], 110 & 104 & Letters Patent, 1865, Clause 10: [Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Letters Patent  Appeal  Order of Single Judge of High Court passed while deciding matters filed under Order 43, Rule1 of C.P.C., -  Held, After introduction of Section 110A in the C.P.C., by 2002 Amendment Act, no Letters Patent Appeal is maintainable against judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge of a High Court. A right of appeal, even though a vested one, can be taken away by law. It is pertinent to note that Section 100-A introduced by 2002 Amendment of the Code starts with a non obstante clause. The purpose of such clause is to give the enacting part of an overriding effect in the case of a conflict with laws mentioned with the non obstante clause. The legislative intention is thus very clear that the law enacted shall have full operation and there would be no impediment. It is well settled that the definition of judgment in Section 2(9) of C.P.C., is much wider and more liberal, Intermediary or interlocutory judgment fall in the category of orders referred to Clause (a) to (w) of Order 43, Rule 1 and also such other orders which poses the characteristic and trapping of finality and may adversely affect a valuable right of a party or decide an important aspect of a trial in an ancillary proceeding. Amended Section 100-A of the Code clearly stipulates that where any appeal from an original or appellate decree or order is heard and decided by a Single Judge of a High Court, no further appeal shall lie. Even otherwise, the word judgment as defined under Section 2(9) means a statement given by a Judge on the grounds of a decree or order. Thus the contention that against an order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal filed under Section 104 C.P.C., a further appeal lies to a Division Bench cannot be accepted. The newly incorporated Section 100A in clear and specific terms prohibits further appeal against the decree and judgment or order of a Single Judge to a Division Bench notwithstanding anything contained in the Letters Patent. The Letters Patent which provides for further appeal to a Division Bench remains intact, but the right to prefer a further appeal is taken away even in respect of the matters arising under the special enactments or other instruments having the force of law be it against original/appellate decree or order heard and decided by a Single Judge. It has to be kept in mind that the special statute only provide for an Appeal to the High Court. It has not made any provision for filing appeal to a Division Bench against the judgment or decree or order of a Single Judge. No Letters Patent Appeal shall lie against a judgment/order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal arising out of a proceeding under a Special Act.

Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002] & 104:[Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Writ Appeal  Held, A Writ Appeal shall lie against judgment/orders passed by Single Judge in a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In a writ application filed under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution, if any order/judgment/decree is passed in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226, a writ appeal will lie. But, no writ appeal will lie against a judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge in exercising powers of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution. 
 -  The miscreants also made attempts to make their entry into the house by breaking open a window but failed inasmuch as a folded table was kept against the broken open place of the window and there was pelting of glasses at the miscreants by the inmates of the house who did so in spite of pelting of stones and throwing of arrows by the miscreants into the house. 5, 12 and 14 as the culprits both in the test identification parade as well as in court; 5 and 14 both in the test identification parade as well as in court; 7 and 12 both in test identification parade as well as in court and the fourth petitioner Gopal had been identified only by P. 14 as one of the culprits both in test identification parade as well as in court. 5 and also with the aid of flashing of torch lights by the petitioner and their companions hither and thither and as such they could identify them both in the test identification parade as well as in court, their evidence should not have been believed by the courts below because neither electric bulb nor any torch light of the petitioners has been seized, by the Investigating Officer at the time of investigation. This contention relates to appreciation of evidence of the identifying witnesses and since appreciation of evidence is normally not permissible in revision like the one in hand, I refrain myself to evaluate such contention particularly when perversity in appreciation of evidence by the courts below is not brought to my notice. As such, the contention must fail. Dhal for the petitioners that the other inmates of the house having not identified the petitioner Gopal as one of the culprits, it would not be safe to rely only on the evidence of P. 14 was thoroughly reliable and they have accordingly acted upon his evidence it is not considered necessary to disturb their finding particularly when their mode of appreciation of evidence is not shown to be perverse. 6. No other contention having been raised on behalf of the petitioners and the aforesaid contentions having failed, I hold that the revision is without merit and accordingly the same is dismissed.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => 'Tilkeshwar Singh v. The State of Bihar;',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => 'D.P. Dhal, ;P.K. Dhal and ;P.K. Panda, Advs.',
			'counseldef' => 'J. Mahanty, Standing Counsel',
			'court' => 'Orissa',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '1991-09-25',
			'deposition' => 'Petition dismissed',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'B.N. Dash, J.',
			'judgement' => 'ORDER<p style="text-align: justify;">B.N. Dash, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. The prosecution case, shortly stated, is that on 9/10-2-1984 at about midnight time while the informant Susil Kumar Dandpat was sleeping in the outer varandah of their house in village Machilapada under Badasahi Police station, District Meyurbhanj and the other inmates of the house including Sirish Chandra Dandpat (P.W. 1) and Sunilkumar Dandpat (P.W. 14) were sleeping inside the house bolting the entrance door from inside, there was barking of dogs for which P.W. 5 woke up and found that there was flashing of torch lights at some distance. After proceeding for some times when P.W. 5 asked in a raised voice as to who were focussing the torch lights, some people rushed at him and at their sight he ran towards his house shouting on the way to open the entrance door. Before the miscreants could approach him, the entrance door was opened and he entered into the house and bolted the door from inside. The miscreants dashed against the entrance door, but the same did not open inasmuch as the inmates of the house kept pressed the door leaves from inside. The miscreants also made attempts to make their entry into the house by breaking open a window but failed inasmuch as a folded table was kept against the broken open place of the window and there was pelting of glasses at the miscreants by the inmates of the house who did so in spite of pelting of stones and throwing of arrows by the miscreants into the house. On hearing the shouts raised by the inmates of the house, when villagers assembled near the spot, the culprits finding themselves to have been outnumbered took to their heels. Before their departure, they could injure the villagers Pratap Chandra Dandpat (P.W.3), Sadasiv Sahu (P.W.4) and Ajay Kumar Dandpat (P.W.12). After departure of the miscreants, F.I.R. (Ext. 2) was lodged at the Police station in the same night at 3 a.m. and investigation commenced. In course of investigation, stones and arrows thrown by the culprits were seized from the house in question and a test identification parade was conducted in which all the six petitioners were identified as the culprits who attempted to have committed dacoity in the house of P.W. 5. Ultimately, the present petitioners along with one Gagan Bhakta, (since acquitted) were tried for the offence Under Section 397, IPC.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. At the trial, the prosecution examined 15 witnesses of whom P.W. 1, P.W. 5 and P.W. 14 were the inmates of the house; P.W. 2 Radha Mohan Naik and P.W. 6 Bhagaban Sahu were the witnesses to the seizure of the articles from the house in question. P.W. 4 Sadasiv Sahu, P.W. 7 Ashok Kumar Dandpat and P.W. 12 Ajay Kumar Dandpat were the villagers who along with others saw the culprits and foiled their attempt to committing dacoity; P.W. 8 and 9 are the Medical Officers who examined the injured persons (P.Ws. 3, 4 and 12) and also the first petitioner Karmu Bhakta and found injuries on their persons; P.W. 10 is another Medical Officer who extracted an arrow from the person of P.W. 4 and handed over the same to the Investigating Officer; P.W. 13 is the Magistrate who conducted the test identification parade and P.Ws. 11 and 13 are the Police Officers who took some part or the other in the investigation of the case.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The trial court found that the first petitioner Karmu, the third petitioner Sarthak and the fifth petitioner Raju Katual had been duly identified by P.Ws. 5, 12 and 14 as the culprits both in the test identification parade as well as in court; the second petitioner Chandra had been duly identified as one of the culprits by P.Ws. 5 and 14 both in the test identification parade as well as in court; the sixth petitioner Jatindra had been duly identified as one of the culprits by P.Ws. 7 and 12 both in test identification parade as well as in court and the fourth petitioner Gopal had been identified only by P.W. 14 as one of the culprits both in test identification parade as well as in court. So, relying on the evidence of P.Ws. 5, 7, 12 and 14, the trial court convicted the six petitioners Under Section 397, IPC and sentenced each of them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years, while acquitting the accused Gagan Bhakta. In appeal, the learned Sessions Judge, Mayurbhanj, Baripada converted the conviction Under Section 397, IPC to one Under Section 395, IPC. and reduced the sentence to five years rigorous imprisonment in respect of each of the petitioners. Being aggrieved by such judgment and order, the present revision has been filed.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. The concurrent finding of fact that there was an attempt to commit dacoity in the house of P.W. 5 in the night in question is not assailed before me by Mr. P. K. Dhal, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners. It is, however, contended by him that the identifying witnesses having asserted that they had seen the petitioners with the help of electric light burning in the house of P.W. 5 and also with the aid of flashing of torch lights by the petitioner and their companions hither and thither and as such they could identify them both in the test identification parade as well as in court, their evidence should not have been believed by the courts below because neither electric bulb nor any torch light of the petitioners has been seized, by the Investigating Officer at the time of investigation. This contention relates to appreciation of evidence of the identifying witnesses and since appreciation of evidence is normally not permissible in revision like the one in hand, I refrain myself to evaluate such contention particularly when perversity in appreciation of evidence by the courts below is not brought to my notice. As such, the contention is rejected as unsubstantial.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. It is then contended by Mr. Dhal for the petitioners that P.W. 14 having not been examined at the time of investigation, his evidence in court identifying the petitioner Gopal as one of the culprits is inadmissible in evidence and if such evidence is left out of consideration then his evidence of identification in the test identification parade, being not substantive evidence, could not be relied upon for convicting Gopal. There is no pleading in the revision-petition that P.W. 14 had not been examined at the time of investigation. My attention is sought to be invited to the evidence of P.W. 14 himself in support of such factual position, but I am afraid if a court of revision can go through such evidence in the absence of any pleading. Even assuming for the sake of argument that P.W. 14 was not examined at the time of investigation, his evidence cannot be said to be inadmissible in the absence of any provision to that effect in Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 or in the Evidence Act. All that that can be said is that when a witness examined in court whose statement Under Section 161, Cr. P.C. had not been recorded at the time of investigation, the evidentiary value to be attached to the evidence of such witness has to be looked into and if it would be found that prejudice had been caused to the accused then the evidence of such witness may not be acted upon, otherwise not. I am supported in my view by a decision in Tilkeshwar Singh v. The State of Bihar, AIR 1956 SC 238 : (1956 Cri LJ 441). In this case, P.W. 14 had been cited as a witness in the charge-sheet and he was examined in court and both the courts below have relied on his evidence obviously for the reason that no prejudice had been caused to the petitioners: As such, the contention must fail.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. It is then contended by Mr. Dhal for the petitioners that the other inmates of the house having not identified the petitioner Gopal as one of the culprits, it would not be safe to rely only on the evidence of P.W. 14 to sustain his conviction. This argument would have carried some force if there would have been evidence to show that all inmates of the house had occasion to see all the petitioners, but no such evidence is brought to my notice. It is not unlikely that when the inmates of the house were seeing the culprits from different angles, the petitioner Gopal seen by P.W. 14 might not have been seen by the other inmates of the house. When both the courts below have found that the evidence of P.W. 14 was thoroughly reliable and they have accordingly acted upon his evidence it is not considered necessary to disturb their finding particularly when their mode of appreciation of evidence is not shown to be perverse.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. No other contention having been raised on behalf of the petitioners and the aforesaid contentions having failed, I hold that the revision is without merit and accordingly the same is dismissed.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '73(1992)CLT253; 1992CriLJ2154',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'State',
			'sub' => 'Criminal',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'karmu-bhakta-ors-vs-state',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '536492',
		(int) 1 => 'karmu-bhakta-ors-vs-state'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Karmu Bhakta and ors Vs State - Citation 536492 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '536492',
		'acts' => 'Evidence Act; <a href="/act/50902/code-of-criminal-procedure-1973-complete-act">Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1973</a> - Sections 161; Indian Penal Code (IPC) - Sections 395 and 397',
		'appealno' => 'Criminal Revision No. 200 of 1988',
		'appellant' => 'Karmu Bhakta and ors.',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Karmu Bhakta and ors. Vs. State',
		'casenote' => ' - Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002], 110 & 104 & Letters Patent, 1865, Clause 10: [Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Letters Patent  Appeal  Order of Single Judge of High Court passed while deciding matters filed under Order 43, Rule1 of C.P.C., -  Held, After introduction of Section 110A in the C.P.C., by 2002 Amendment Act, no Letters Patent Appeal is maintainable against judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge of a High Court. A right of appeal, even though a vested one, can be taken away by law. It is pertinent to note that Section 100-A introduced by 2002 Amendment of the Code starts with a non obstante clause. The purpose of such clause is to give the enacting part of an overriding effect in the case of a conflict with laws mentioned with the non obstante clause. The legislative intention is thus very clear that the law enacted shall have full operation and there would be no impediment. It is well settled that the definition of judgment in Section 2(9) of C.P.C., is much wider and more liberal, Intermediary or interlocutory judgment fall in the category of orders referred to Clause (a) to (w) of Order 43, Rule 1 and also such other orders which poses the characteristic and trapping of finality and may adversely affect a valuable right of a party or decide an important aspect of a trial in an ancillary proceeding. Amended Section 100-A of the Code clearly stipulates that where any appeal from an original or appellate decree or order is heard and decided by a Single Judge of a High Court, no further appeal shall lie. Even otherwise, the word judgment as defined under Section 2(9) means a statement given by a Judge on the grounds of a decree or order. Thus the contention that against an order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal filed under Section 104 C.P.C., a further appeal lies to a Division Bench cannot be accepted. The newly incorporated Section 100A in clear and specific terms prohibits further appeal against the decree and judgment or order of a Single Judge to a Division Bench notwithstanding anything contained in the Letters Patent. The Letters Patent which provides for further appeal to a Division Bench remains intact, but the right to prefer a further appeal is taken away even in respect of the matters arising under the special enactments or other instruments having the force of law be it against original/appellate decree or order heard and decided by a Single Judge. It has to be kept in mind that the special statute only provide for an Appeal to the High Court. It has not made any provision for filing appeal to a Division Bench against the judgment or decree or order of a Single Judge. No Letters Patent Appeal shall lie against a judgment/order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal arising out of a proceeding under a Special Act.

Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002] & 104:[Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Writ Appeal  Held, A Writ Appeal shall lie against judgment/orders passed by Single Judge in a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In a writ application filed under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution, if any order/judgment/decree is passed in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226, a writ appeal will lie. But, no writ appeal will lie against a judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge in exercising powers of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution. 
 -  The miscreants also made attempts to make their entry into the house by breaking open a window but failed inasmuch as a folded table was kept against the broken open place of the window and there was pelting of glasses at the miscreants by the inmates of the house who did so in spite of pelting of stones and throwing of arrows by the miscreants into the house. 5, 12 and 14 as the culprits both in the test identification parade as well as in court; 5 and 14 both in the test identification parade as well as in court; 7 and 12 both in test identification parade as well as in court and the fourth petitioner Gopal had been identified only by P. 14 as one of the culprits both in test identification parade as well as in court. 5 and also with the aid of flashing of torch lights by the petitioner and their companions hither and thither and as such they could identify them both in the test identification parade as well as in court, their evidence should not have been believed by the courts below because neither electric bulb nor any torch light of the petitioners has been seized, by the Investigating Officer at the time of investigation. This contention relates to appreciation of evidence of the identifying witnesses and since appreciation of evidence is normally not permissible in revision like the one in hand, I refrain myself to evaluate such contention particularly when perversity in appreciation of evidence by the courts below is not brought to my notice. As such, the contention must fail. Dhal for the petitioners that the other inmates of the house having not identified the petitioner Gopal as one of the culprits, it would not be safe to rely only on the evidence of P. 14 was thoroughly reliable and they have accordingly acted upon his evidence it is not considered necessary to disturb their finding particularly when their mode of appreciation of evidence is not shown to be perverse. 6. No other contention having been raised on behalf of the petitioners and the aforesaid contentions having failed, I hold that the revision is without merit and accordingly the same is dismissed.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => 'Tilkeshwar Singh v. The State of Bihar;',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => 'D.P. Dhal, ;P.K. Dhal and ;P.K. Panda, Advs.',
		'counseldef' => 'J. Mahanty, Standing Counsel',
		'court' => 'Orissa',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '1991-09-25',
		'deposition' => 'Petition dismissed',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'B.N. Dash, J.',
		'judgement' => 'ORDER<p>B.N. Dash, J.</p><p>1. The prosecution case, shortly stated, is that on 9/10-2-1984 at about midnight time while the informant Susil Kumar Dandpat was sleeping in the outer varandah of their house in village Machilapada under Badasahi Police station, District Meyurbhanj and the other inmates of the house including Sirish Chandra Dandpat (P.W. 1) and Sunilkumar Dandpat (P.W. 14) were sleeping inside the house bolting the entrance door from inside, there was barking of dogs for which P.W. 5 woke up and found that there was flashing of torch lights at some distance. After proceeding for some times when P.W. 5 asked in a raised voice as to who were focussing the torch lights, some people rushed at him and at their sight he ran towards his house shouting on the way to open the entrance door. Before the miscreants could approach him, the entrance door was opened and he entered into the house and bolted the door from inside. The miscreants dashed against the entrance door, but the same did not open inasmuch as the inmates of the house kept pressed the door leaves from inside. The miscreants also made attempts to make their entry into the house by breaking open a window but failed inasmuch as a folded table was kept against the broken open place of the window and there was pelting of glasses at the miscreants by the inmates of the house who did so in spite of pelting of stones and throwing of arrows by the miscreants into the house. On hearing the shouts raised by the inmates of the house, when villagers assembled near the spot, the culprits finding themselves to have been outnumbered took to their heels. Before their departure, they could injure the villagers Pratap Chandra Dandpat (P.W.3), Sadasiv Sahu (P.W.4) and Ajay Kumar Dandpat (P.W.12). After departure of the miscreants, F.I.R. (Ext. 2) was lodged at the Police station in the same night at 3 a.m. and investigation commenced. In course of investigation, stones and arrows thrown by the culprits were seized from the house in question and a test identification parade was conducted in which all the six petitioners were identified as the culprits who attempted to have committed dacoity in the house of P.W. 5. Ultimately, the present petitioners along with one Gagan Bhakta, (since acquitted) were tried for the offence Under Section 397, IPC.</p><p>2. At the trial, the prosecution examined 15 witnesses of whom P.W. 1, P.W. 5 and P.W. 14 were the inmates of the house; P.W. 2 Radha Mohan Naik and P.W. 6 Bhagaban Sahu were the witnesses to the seizure of the articles from the house in question. P.W. 4 Sadasiv Sahu, P.W. 7 Ashok Kumar Dandpat and P.W. 12 Ajay Kumar Dandpat were the villagers who along with others saw the culprits and foiled their attempt to committing dacoity; P.W. 8 and 9 are the Medical Officers who examined the injured persons (P.Ws. 3, 4 and 12) and also the first petitioner Karmu Bhakta and found injuries on their persons; P.W. 10 is another Medical Officer who extracted an arrow from the person of P.W. 4 and handed over the same to the Investigating Officer; P.W. 13 is the Magistrate who conducted the test identification parade and P.Ws. 11 and 13 are the Police Officers who took some part or the other in the investigation of the case.</p><p>The trial court found that the first petitioner Karmu, the third petitioner Sarthak and the fifth petitioner Raju Katual had been duly identified by P.Ws. 5, 12 and 14 as the culprits both in the test identification parade as well as in court; the second petitioner Chandra had been duly identified as one of the culprits by P.Ws. 5 and 14 both in the test identification parade as well as in court; the sixth petitioner Jatindra had been duly identified as one of the culprits by P.Ws. 7 and 12 both in test identification parade as well as in court and the fourth petitioner Gopal had been identified only by P.W. 14 as one of the culprits both in test identification parade as well as in court. So, relying on the evidence of P.Ws. 5, 7, 12 and 14, the trial court convicted the six petitioners Under Section 397, IPC and sentenced each of them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years, while acquitting the accused Gagan Bhakta. In appeal, the learned Sessions Judge, Mayurbhanj, Baripada converted the conviction Under Section 397, IPC to one Under Section 395, IPC. and reduced the sentence to five years rigorous imprisonment in respect of each of the petitioners. Being aggrieved by such judgment and order, the present revision has been filed.</p><p>3. The concurrent finding of fact that there was an attempt to commit dacoity in the house of P.W. 5 in the night in question is not assailed before me by Mr. P. K. Dhal, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners. It is, however, contended by him that the identifying witnesses having asserted that they had seen the petitioners with the help of electric light burning in the house of P.W. 5 and also with the aid of flashing of torch lights by the petitioner and their companions hither and thither and as such they could identify them both in the test identification parade as well as in court, their evidence should not have been believed by the courts below because neither electric bulb nor any torch light of the petitioners has been seized, by the Investigating Officer at the time of investigation. This contention relates to appreciation of evidence of the identifying witnesses and since appreciation of evidence is normally not permissible in revision like the one in hand, I refrain myself to evaluate such contention particularly when perversity in appreciation of evidence by the courts below is not brought to my notice. As such, the contention is rejected as unsubstantial.</p><p>4. It is then contended by Mr. Dhal for the petitioners that P.W. 14 having not been examined at the time of investigation, his evidence in court identifying the petitioner Gopal as one of the culprits is inadmissible in evidence and if such evidence is left out of consideration then his evidence of identification in the test identification parade, being not substantive evidence, could not be relied upon for convicting Gopal. There is no pleading in the revision-petition that P.W. 14 had not been examined at the time of investigation. My attention is sought to be invited to the evidence of P.W. 14 himself in support of such factual position, but I am afraid if a court of revision can go through such evidence in the absence of any pleading. Even assuming for the sake of argument that P.W. 14 was not examined at the time of investigation, his evidence cannot be said to be inadmissible in the absence of any provision to that effect in Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 or in the Evidence Act. All that that can be said is that when a witness examined in court whose statement Under Section 161, Cr. P.C. had not been recorded at the time of investigation, the evidentiary value to be attached to the evidence of such witness has to be looked into and if it would be found that prejudice had been caused to the accused then the evidence of such witness may not be acted upon, otherwise not. I am supported in my view by a decision in Tilkeshwar Singh v. The State of Bihar, AIR 1956 SC 238 : (1956 Cri LJ 441). In this case, P.W. 14 had been cited as a witness in the charge-sheet and he was examined in court and both the courts below have relied on his evidence obviously for the reason that no prejudice had been caused to the petitioners: As such, the contention must fail.</p><p>5. It is then contended by Mr. Dhal for the petitioners that the other inmates of the house having not identified the petitioner Gopal as one of the culprits, it would not be safe to rely only on the evidence of P.W. 14 to sustain his conviction. This argument would have carried some force if there would have been evidence to show that all inmates of the house had occasion to see all the petitioners, but no such evidence is brought to my notice. It is not unlikely that when the inmates of the house were seeing the culprits from different angles, the petitioner Gopal seen by P.W. 14 might not have been seen by the other inmates of the house. When both the courts below have found that the evidence of P.W. 14 was thoroughly reliable and they have accordingly acted upon his evidence it is not considered necessary to disturb their finding particularly when their mode of appreciation of evidence is not shown to be perverse.</p><p>6. No other contention having been raised on behalf of the petitioners and the aforesaid contentions having failed, I hold that the revision is without merit and accordingly the same is dismissed.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '73(1992)CLT253; 1992CriLJ2154',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'State',
		'sub' => 'Criminal',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'karmu-bhakta-ors-vs-state'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '536492',
	(int) 1 => 'karmu-bhakta-ors-vs-state'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/536492/karmu-bhakta-ors-vs-state'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$caseref = 'Tilkeshwar Singh v. The State of Bihar<br>'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => 'ORDER<p>B.N. Dash, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. The prosecution case, shortly stated, is that on 9/10-2-1984 at about midnight time while the informant Susil Kumar Dandpat was sleeping in the outer varandah of their house in village Machilapada under Badasahi Police station, District Meyurbhanj and the other inmates of the house including Sirish Chandra Dandpat (P.W. 1) and Sunilkumar Dandpat (P.W. 14) were sleeping inside the house bolting the entrance door from inside, there was barking of dogs for which P.W. 5 woke up and found that there was flashing of torch lights at some distance. After proceeding for some times when P.W. 5 asked in a raised voice as to who were focussing the torch lights, some people rushed at him and at their sight he ran towards his house shouting on the way to open the entrance door. Before the miscreants could approach him, the entrance door was opened and he entered into the house and bolted the door from inside. The miscreants dashed against the entrance door, but the same did not open inasmuch as the inmates of the house kept pressed the door leaves from inside. The miscreants also made attempts to make their entry into the house by breaking open a window but failed inasmuch as a folded table was kept against the broken open place of the window and there was pelting of glasses at the miscreants by the inmates of the house who did so in spite of pelting of stones and throwing of arrows by the miscreants into the house. On hearing the shouts raised by the inmates of the house, when villagers assembled near the spot, the culprits finding themselves to have been outnumbered took to their heels. Before their departure, they could injure the villagers Pratap Chandra Dandpat (P.W.3), Sadasiv Sahu (P.W.4) and Ajay Kumar Dandpat (P.W.12). After departure of the miscreants, F.I.R. (Ext. 2) was lodged at the Police station in the same night at 3 a.m. and investigation commenced. In course of investigation, stones and arrows thrown by the culprits were seized from the house in question and a test identification parade was conducted in which all the six petitioners were identified as the culprits who attempted to have committed dacoity in the house of P.W. 5. Ultimately, the present petitioners along with one Gagan Bhakta, (since acquitted) were tried for the offence Under Section 397, IPC.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. At the trial, the prosecution examined 15 witnesses of whom P.W. 1, P.W. 5 and P.W. 14 were the inmates of the house; P.W. 2 Radha Mohan Naik and P.W. 6 Bhagaban Sahu were the witnesses to the seizure of the articles from the house in question. P.W. 4 Sadasiv Sahu, P.W. 7 Ashok Kumar Dandpat and P.W. 12 Ajay Kumar Dandpat were the villagers who along with others saw the culprits and foiled their attempt to committing dacoity; P.W. 8 and 9 are the Medical Officers who examined the injured persons (P.Ws. 3, 4 and 12) and also the first petitioner Karmu Bhakta and found injuries on their persons; P.W. 10 is another Medical Officer who extracted an arrow from the person of P.W. 4 and handed over the same to the Investigating Officer; P.W. 13 is the Magistrate who conducted the test identification parade and P.Ws. 11 and 13 are the Police Officers who took some part or the other in the investigation of the case.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>The trial court found that the first petitioner Karmu, the third petitioner Sarthak and the fifth petitioner Raju Katual had been duly identified by P.Ws. 5, 12 and 14 as the culprits both in the test identification parade as well as in court; the second petitioner Chandra had been duly identified as one of the culprits by P.Ws. 5 and 14 both in the test identification parade as well as in court; the sixth petitioner Jatindra had been duly identified as one of the culprits by P.Ws. 7 and 12 both in test identification parade as well as in court and the fourth petitioner Gopal had been identified only by P.W. 14 as one of the culprits both in test identification parade as well as in court. So, relying on the evidence of P.Ws. 5, 7, 12 and 14, the trial court convicted the six petitioners Under Section 397, IPC and sentenced each of them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years, while acquitting the accused Gagan Bhakta. In appeal, the learned Sessions Judge, Mayurbhanj, Baripada converted the conviction Under Section 397, IPC to one Under Section 395, IPC. and reduced the sentence to five years rigorous imprisonment in respect of each of the petitioners. Being aggrieved by such judgment and order, the present revision has been filed.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>3. The concurrent finding of fact that there was an attempt to commit dacoity in the house of P.W. 5 in the night in question is not assailed before me by Mr. P. K. Dhal, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners. It is, however, contended by him that the identifying witnesses having asserted that they had seen the petitioners with the help of electric light burning in the house of P.W. 5 and also with the aid of flashing of torch lights by the petitioner and their companions hither and thither and as such they could identify them both in the test identification parade as well as in court, their evidence should not have been believed by the courts below because neither electric bulb nor any torch light of the petitioners has been seized, by the Investigating Officer at the time of investigation. This contention relates to appreciation of evidence of the identifying witnesses and since appreciation of evidence is normally not permissible in revision like the one in hand, I refrain myself to evaluate such contention particularly when perversity in appreciation of evidence by the courts below is not brought to my notice. As such, the contention is rejected as unsubstantial.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>4. It is then contended by Mr. Dhal for the petitioners that P.W. 14 having not been examined at the time of investigation, his evidence in court identifying the petitioner Gopal as one of the culprits is inadmissible in evidence and if such evidence is left out of consideration then his evidence of identification in the test identification parade, being not substantive evidence, could not be relied upon for convicting Gopal. There is no pleading in the revision-petition that P.W. 14 had not been examined at the time of investigation. My attention is sought to be invited to the evidence of P.W. 14 himself in support of such factual position, but I am afraid if a court of revision can go through such evidence in the absence of any pleading. Even assuming for the sake of argument that P.W. 14 was not examined at the time of investigation, his evidence cannot be said to be inadmissible in the absence of any provision to that effect in Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 or in the Evidence Act. All that that can be said is that when a witness examined in court whose statement Under Section 161, Cr. P.C. had not been recorded at the time of investigation, the evidentiary value to be attached to the evidence of such witness has to be looked into and if it would be found that prejudice had been caused to the accused then the evidence of such witness may not be acted upon, otherwise not. I am supported in my view by a decision in Tilkeshwar Singh v. The State of Bihar, AIR 1956 SC 238 : (1956 Cri LJ 441). In this case, P.W. 14 had been cited as a witness in the charge-sheet and he was examined in court and both the courts below have relied on his evidence obviously for the reason that no prejudice had been caused to the petitioners: As such, the contention must fail.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>5. It is then contended by Mr. Dhal for the petitioners that the other inmates of the house having not identified the petitioner Gopal as one of the culprits, it would not be safe to rely only on the evidence of P.W. 14 to sustain his conviction. This argument would have carried some force if there would have been evidence to show that all inmates of the house had occasion to see all the petitioners, but no such evidence is brought to my notice. It is not unlikely that when the inmates of the house were seeing the culprits from different angles, the petitioner Gopal seen by P.W. 14 might not have been seen by the other inmates of the house. When both the courts below have found that the evidence of P.W. 14 was thoroughly reliable and they have accordingly acted upon his evidence it is not considered necessary to disturb their finding particularly when their mode of appreciation of evidence is not shown to be perverse.',
	(int) 7 => '<p>6. No other contention having been raised on behalf of the petitioners and the aforesaid contentions having failed, I hold that the revision is without merit and accordingly the same is dismissed.<p>',
	(int) 8 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 9
$i = (int) 1
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

1. The prosecution case, shortly stated, is that on 9/10-2-1984 at about midnight time while the informant Susil Kumar Dandpat was sleeping in the outer varandah of their house in village Machilapada under Badasahi Police station, District Meyurbhanj and the other inmates of the house including Sirish Chandra Dandpat (P.W. 1) and Sunilkumar Dandpat (P.W. 14) were sleeping inside the house bolting the entrance door from inside, there was barking of dogs for which P.W. 5 woke up and found that there was flashing of torch lights at some distance. After proceeding for some times when P.W. 5 asked in a raised voice as to who were focussing the torch lights, some people rushed at him and at their sight he ran towards his house shouting on the way to open the entrance door. Before the miscreants could approach him, the entrance door was opened and he entered into the house and bolted the door from inside. The miscreants dashed against the entrance door, but the same did not open inasmuch as the inmates of the house kept pressed the door leaves from inside. The miscreants also made attempts to make their entry into the house by breaking open a window but failed inasmuch as a folded table was kept against the broken open place of the window and there was pelting of glasses at the miscreants by the inmates of the house who did so in spite of pelting of stones and throwing of arrows by the miscreants into the house. On hearing the shouts raised by the inmates of the house, when villagers assembled near the spot, the culprits finding themselves to have been outnumbered took to their heels. Before their departure, they could injure the villagers Pratap Chandra Dandpat (P.W.3), Sadasiv Sahu (P.W.4) and Ajay Kumar Dandpat (P.W.12). After departure of the miscreants, F.I.R. (Ext. 2) was lodged at the Police station in the same night at 3 a.m. and investigation commenced. In course of investigation, stones and arrows thrown by the culprits were seized from the house in question and a test identification parade was conducted in which all the six petitioners were identified as the culprits who attempted to have committed dacoity in the house of P.W. 5. Ultimately, the present petitioners along with one Gagan Bhakta, (since acquitted) were tried for the offence Under Section 397, IPC.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Karmu Bhakta and ors Vs State - Citation 536492 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '536492',
			'acts' => 'Evidence Act; <a href="/act/50902/code-of-criminal-procedure-1973-complete-act">Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1973</a> - Sections 161; Indian Penal Code (IPC) - Sections 395 and 397',
			'appealno' => 'Criminal Revision No. 200 of 1988',
			'appellant' => 'Karmu Bhakta and ors.',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Karmu Bhakta and ors. Vs. State',
			'casenote' => ' - Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002], 110 & 104 & Letters Patent, 1865, Clause 10: [Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Letters Patent  Appeal  Order of Single Judge of High Court passed while deciding matters filed under Order 43, Rule1 of C.P.C., -  Held, After introduction of Section 110A in the C.P.C., by 2002 Amendment Act, no Letters Patent Appeal is maintainable against judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge of a High Court. A right of appeal, even though a vested one, can be taken away by law. It is pertinent to note that Section 100-A introduced by 2002 Amendment of the Code starts with a non obstante clause. The purpose of such clause is to give the enacting part of an overriding effect in the case of a conflict with laws mentioned with the non obstante clause. The legislative intention is thus very clear that the law enacted shall have full operation and there would be no impediment. It is well settled that the definition of judgment in Section 2(9) of C.P.C., is much wider and more liberal, Intermediary or interlocutory judgment fall in the category of orders referred to Clause (a) to (w) of Order 43, Rule 1 and also such other orders which poses the characteristic and trapping of finality and may adversely affect a valuable right of a party or decide an important aspect of a trial in an ancillary proceeding. Amended Section 100-A of the Code clearly stipulates that where any appeal from an original or appellate decree or order is heard and decided by a Single Judge of a High Court, no further appeal shall lie. Even otherwise, the word judgment as defined under Section 2(9) means a statement given by a Judge on the grounds of a decree or order. Thus the contention that against an order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal filed under Section 104 C.P.C., a further appeal lies to a Division Bench cannot be accepted. The newly incorporated Section 100A in clear and specific terms prohibits further appeal against the decree and judgment or order of a Single Judge to a Division Bench notwithstanding anything contained in the Letters Patent. The Letters Patent which provides for further appeal to a Division Bench remains intact, but the right to prefer a further appeal is taken away even in respect of the matters arising under the special enactments or other instruments having the force of law be it against original/appellate decree or order heard and decided by a Single Judge. It has to be kept in mind that the special statute only provide for an Appeal to the High Court. It has not made any provision for filing appeal to a Division Bench against the judgment or decree or order of a Single Judge. No Letters Patent Appeal shall lie against a judgment/order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal arising out of a proceeding under a Special Act.

Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002] & 104:[Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Writ Appeal  Held, A Writ Appeal shall lie against judgment/orders passed by Single Judge in a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In a writ application filed under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution, if any order/judgment/decree is passed in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226, a writ appeal will lie. But, no writ appeal will lie against a judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge in exercising powers of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution. 
 -  The miscreants also made attempts to make their entry into the house by breaking open a window but failed inasmuch as a folded table was kept against the broken open place of the window and there was pelting of glasses at the miscreants by the inmates of the house who did so in spite of pelting of stones and throwing of arrows by the miscreants into the house. 5, 12 and 14 as the culprits both in the test identification parade as well as in court; 5 and 14 both in the test identification parade as well as in court; 7 and 12 both in test identification parade as well as in court and the fourth petitioner Gopal had been identified only by P. 14 as one of the culprits both in test identification parade as well as in court. 5 and also with the aid of flashing of torch lights by the petitioner and their companions hither and thither and as such they could identify them both in the test identification parade as well as in court, their evidence should not have been believed by the courts below because neither electric bulb nor any torch light of the petitioners has been seized, by the Investigating Officer at the time of investigation. This contention relates to appreciation of evidence of the identifying witnesses and since appreciation of evidence is normally not permissible in revision like the one in hand, I refrain myself to evaluate such contention particularly when perversity in appreciation of evidence by the courts below is not brought to my notice. As such, the contention must fail. Dhal for the petitioners that the other inmates of the house having not identified the petitioner Gopal as one of the culprits, it would not be safe to rely only on the evidence of P. 14 was thoroughly reliable and they have accordingly acted upon his evidence it is not considered necessary to disturb their finding particularly when their mode of appreciation of evidence is not shown to be perverse. 6. No other contention having been raised on behalf of the petitioners and the aforesaid contentions having failed, I hold that the revision is without merit and accordingly the same is dismissed.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => 'Tilkeshwar Singh v. The State of Bihar;',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => 'D.P. Dhal, ;P.K. Dhal and ;P.K. Panda, Advs.',
			'counseldef' => 'J. Mahanty, Standing Counsel',
			'court' => 'Orissa',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '1991-09-25',
			'deposition' => 'Petition dismissed',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'B.N. Dash, J.',
			'judgement' => 'ORDER<p style="text-align: justify;">B.N. Dash, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. The prosecution case, shortly stated, is that on 9/10-2-1984 at about midnight time while the informant Susil Kumar Dandpat was sleeping in the outer varandah of their house in village Machilapada under Badasahi Police station, District Meyurbhanj and the other inmates of the house including Sirish Chandra Dandpat (P.W. 1) and Sunilkumar Dandpat (P.W. 14) were sleeping inside the house bolting the entrance door from inside, there was barking of dogs for which P.W. 5 woke up and found that there was flashing of torch lights at some distance. After proceeding for some times when P.W. 5 asked in a raised voice as to who were focussing the torch lights, some people rushed at him and at their sight he ran towards his house shouting on the way to open the entrance door. Before the miscreants could approach him, the entrance door was opened and he entered into the house and bolted the door from inside. The miscreants dashed against the entrance door, but the same did not open inasmuch as the inmates of the house kept pressed the door leaves from inside. The miscreants also made attempts to make their entry into the house by breaking open a window but failed inasmuch as a folded table was kept against the broken open place of the window and there was pelting of glasses at the miscreants by the inmates of the house who did so in spite of pelting of stones and throwing of arrows by the miscreants into the house. On hearing the shouts raised by the inmates of the house, when villagers assembled near the spot, the culprits finding themselves to have been outnumbered took to their heels. Before their departure, they could injure the villagers Pratap Chandra Dandpat (P.W.3), Sadasiv Sahu (P.W.4) and Ajay Kumar Dandpat (P.W.12). After departure of the miscreants, F.I.R. (Ext. 2) was lodged at the Police station in the same night at 3 a.m. and investigation commenced. In course of investigation, stones and arrows thrown by the culprits were seized from the house in question and a test identification parade was conducted in which all the six petitioners were identified as the culprits who attempted to have committed dacoity in the house of P.W. 5. Ultimately, the present petitioners along with one Gagan Bhakta, (since acquitted) were tried for the offence Under Section 397, IPC.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. At the trial, the prosecution examined 15 witnesses of whom P.W. 1, P.W. 5 and P.W. 14 were the inmates of the house; P.W. 2 Radha Mohan Naik and P.W. 6 Bhagaban Sahu were the witnesses to the seizure of the articles from the house in question. P.W. 4 Sadasiv Sahu, P.W. 7 Ashok Kumar Dandpat and P.W. 12 Ajay Kumar Dandpat were the villagers who along with others saw the culprits and foiled their attempt to committing dacoity; P.W. 8 and 9 are the Medical Officers who examined the injured persons (P.Ws. 3, 4 and 12) and also the first petitioner Karmu Bhakta and found injuries on their persons; P.W. 10 is another Medical Officer who extracted an arrow from the person of P.W. 4 and handed over the same to the Investigating Officer; P.W. 13 is the Magistrate who conducted the test identification parade and P.Ws. 11 and 13 are the Police Officers who took some part or the other in the investigation of the case.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The trial court found that the first petitioner Karmu, the third petitioner Sarthak and the fifth petitioner Raju Katual had been duly identified by P.Ws. 5, 12 and 14 as the culprits both in the test identification parade as well as in court; the second petitioner Chandra had been duly identified as one of the culprits by P.Ws. 5 and 14 both in the test identification parade as well as in court; the sixth petitioner Jatindra had been duly identified as one of the culprits by P.Ws. 7 and 12 both in test identification parade as well as in court and the fourth petitioner Gopal had been identified only by P.W. 14 as one of the culprits both in test identification parade as well as in court. So, relying on the evidence of P.Ws. 5, 7, 12 and 14, the trial court convicted the six petitioners Under Section 397, IPC and sentenced each of them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years, while acquitting the accused Gagan Bhakta. In appeal, the learned Sessions Judge, Mayurbhanj, Baripada converted the conviction Under Section 397, IPC to one Under Section 395, IPC. and reduced the sentence to five years rigorous imprisonment in respect of each of the petitioners. Being aggrieved by such judgment and order, the present revision has been filed.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. The concurrent finding of fact that there was an attempt to commit dacoity in the house of P.W. 5 in the night in question is not assailed before me by Mr. P. K. Dhal, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners. It is, however, contended by him that the identifying witnesses having asserted that they had seen the petitioners with the help of electric light burning in the house of P.W. 5 and also with the aid of flashing of torch lights by the petitioner and their companions hither and thither and as such they could identify them both in the test identification parade as well as in court, their evidence should not have been believed by the courts below because neither electric bulb nor any torch light of the petitioners has been seized, by the Investigating Officer at the time of investigation. This contention relates to appreciation of evidence of the identifying witnesses and since appreciation of evidence is normally not permissible in revision like the one in hand, I refrain myself to evaluate such contention particularly when perversity in appreciation of evidence by the courts below is not brought to my notice. As such, the contention is rejected as unsubstantial.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. It is then contended by Mr. Dhal for the petitioners that P.W. 14 having not been examined at the time of investigation, his evidence in court identifying the petitioner Gopal as one of the culprits is inadmissible in evidence and if such evidence is left out of consideration then his evidence of identification in the test identification parade, being not substantive evidence, could not be relied upon for convicting Gopal. There is no pleading in the revision-petition that P.W. 14 had not been examined at the time of investigation. My attention is sought to be invited to the evidence of P.W. 14 himself in support of such factual position, but I am afraid if a court of revision can go through such evidence in the absence of any pleading. Even assuming for the sake of argument that P.W. 14 was not examined at the time of investigation, his evidence cannot be said to be inadmissible in the absence of any provision to that effect in Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 or in the Evidence Act. All that that can be said is that when a witness examined in court whose statement Under Section 161, Cr. P.C. had not been recorded at the time of investigation, the evidentiary value to be attached to the evidence of such witness has to be looked into and if it would be found that prejudice had been caused to the accused then the evidence of such witness may not be acted upon, otherwise not. I am supported in my view by a decision in Tilkeshwar Singh v. The State of Bihar, AIR 1956 SC 238 : (1956 Cri LJ 441). In this case, P.W. 14 had been cited as a witness in the charge-sheet and he was examined in court and both the courts below have relied on his evidence obviously for the reason that no prejudice had been caused to the petitioners: As such, the contention must fail.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. It is then contended by Mr. Dhal for the petitioners that the other inmates of the house having not identified the petitioner Gopal as one of the culprits, it would not be safe to rely only on the evidence of P.W. 14 to sustain his conviction. This argument would have carried some force if there would have been evidence to show that all inmates of the house had occasion to see all the petitioners, but no such evidence is brought to my notice. It is not unlikely that when the inmates of the house were seeing the culprits from different angles, the petitioner Gopal seen by P.W. 14 might not have been seen by the other inmates of the house. When both the courts below have found that the evidence of P.W. 14 was thoroughly reliable and they have accordingly acted upon his evidence it is not considered necessary to disturb their finding particularly when their mode of appreciation of evidence is not shown to be perverse.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. No other contention having been raised on behalf of the petitioners and the aforesaid contentions having failed, I hold that the revision is without merit and accordingly the same is dismissed.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '73(1992)CLT253; 1992CriLJ2154',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'State',
			'sub' => 'Criminal',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'karmu-bhakta-ors-vs-state',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '536492',
		(int) 1 => 'karmu-bhakta-ors-vs-state'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Karmu Bhakta and ors Vs State - Citation 536492 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '536492',
		'acts' => 'Evidence Act; <a href="/act/50902/code-of-criminal-procedure-1973-complete-act">Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1973</a> - Sections 161; Indian Penal Code (IPC) - Sections 395 and 397',
		'appealno' => 'Criminal Revision No. 200 of 1988',
		'appellant' => 'Karmu Bhakta and ors.',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Karmu Bhakta and ors. Vs. State',
		'casenote' => ' - Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002], 110 & 104 & Letters Patent, 1865, Clause 10: [Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Letters Patent  Appeal  Order of Single Judge of High Court passed while deciding matters filed under Order 43, Rule1 of C.P.C., -  Held, After introduction of Section 110A in the C.P.C., by 2002 Amendment Act, no Letters Patent Appeal is maintainable against judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge of a High Court. A right of appeal, even though a vested one, can be taken away by law. It is pertinent to note that Section 100-A introduced by 2002 Amendment of the Code starts with a non obstante clause. The purpose of such clause is to give the enacting part of an overriding effect in the case of a conflict with laws mentioned with the non obstante clause. The legislative intention is thus very clear that the law enacted shall have full operation and there would be no impediment. It is well settled that the definition of judgment in Section 2(9) of C.P.C., is much wider and more liberal, Intermediary or interlocutory judgment fall in the category of orders referred to Clause (a) to (w) of Order 43, Rule 1 and also such other orders which poses the characteristic and trapping of finality and may adversely affect a valuable right of a party or decide an important aspect of a trial in an ancillary proceeding. Amended Section 100-A of the Code clearly stipulates that where any appeal from an original or appellate decree or order is heard and decided by a Single Judge of a High Court, no further appeal shall lie. Even otherwise, the word judgment as defined under Section 2(9) means a statement given by a Judge on the grounds of a decree or order. Thus the contention that against an order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal filed under Section 104 C.P.C., a further appeal lies to a Division Bench cannot be accepted. The newly incorporated Section 100A in clear and specific terms prohibits further appeal against the decree and judgment or order of a Single Judge to a Division Bench notwithstanding anything contained in the Letters Patent. The Letters Patent which provides for further appeal to a Division Bench remains intact, but the right to prefer a further appeal is taken away even in respect of the matters arising under the special enactments or other instruments having the force of law be it against original/appellate decree or order heard and decided by a Single Judge. It has to be kept in mind that the special statute only provide for an Appeal to the High Court. It has not made any provision for filing appeal to a Division Bench against the judgment or decree or order of a Single Judge. No Letters Patent Appeal shall lie against a judgment/order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal arising out of a proceeding under a Special Act.

Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002] & 104:[Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Writ Appeal  Held, A Writ Appeal shall lie against judgment/orders passed by Single Judge in a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In a writ application filed under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution, if any order/judgment/decree is passed in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226, a writ appeal will lie. But, no writ appeal will lie against a judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge in exercising powers of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution. 
 -  The miscreants also made attempts to make their entry into the house by breaking open a window but failed inasmuch as a folded table was kept against the broken open place of the window and there was pelting of glasses at the miscreants by the inmates of the house who did so in spite of pelting of stones and throwing of arrows by the miscreants into the house. 5, 12 and 14 as the culprits both in the test identification parade as well as in court; 5 and 14 both in the test identification parade as well as in court; 7 and 12 both in test identification parade as well as in court and the fourth petitioner Gopal had been identified only by P. 14 as one of the culprits both in test identification parade as well as in court. 5 and also with the aid of flashing of torch lights by the petitioner and their companions hither and thither and as such they could identify them both in the test identification parade as well as in court, their evidence should not have been believed by the courts below because neither electric bulb nor any torch light of the petitioners has been seized, by the Investigating Officer at the time of investigation. This contention relates to appreciation of evidence of the identifying witnesses and since appreciation of evidence is normally not permissible in revision like the one in hand, I refrain myself to evaluate such contention particularly when perversity in appreciation of evidence by the courts below is not brought to my notice. As such, the contention must fail. Dhal for the petitioners that the other inmates of the house having not identified the petitioner Gopal as one of the culprits, it would not be safe to rely only on the evidence of P. 14 was thoroughly reliable and they have accordingly acted upon his evidence it is not considered necessary to disturb their finding particularly when their mode of appreciation of evidence is not shown to be perverse. 6. No other contention having been raised on behalf of the petitioners and the aforesaid contentions having failed, I hold that the revision is without merit and accordingly the same is dismissed.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => 'Tilkeshwar Singh v. The State of Bihar;',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => 'D.P. Dhal, ;P.K. Dhal and ;P.K. Panda, Advs.',
		'counseldef' => 'J. Mahanty, Standing Counsel',
		'court' => 'Orissa',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '1991-09-25',
		'deposition' => 'Petition dismissed',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'B.N. Dash, J.',
		'judgement' => 'ORDER<p>B.N. Dash, J.</p><p>1. The prosecution case, shortly stated, is that on 9/10-2-1984 at about midnight time while the informant Susil Kumar Dandpat was sleeping in the outer varandah of their house in village Machilapada under Badasahi Police station, District Meyurbhanj and the other inmates of the house including Sirish Chandra Dandpat (P.W. 1) and Sunilkumar Dandpat (P.W. 14) were sleeping inside the house bolting the entrance door from inside, there was barking of dogs for which P.W. 5 woke up and found that there was flashing of torch lights at some distance. After proceeding for some times when P.W. 5 asked in a raised voice as to who were focussing the torch lights, some people rushed at him and at their sight he ran towards his house shouting on the way to open the entrance door. Before the miscreants could approach him, the entrance door was opened and he entered into the house and bolted the door from inside. The miscreants dashed against the entrance door, but the same did not open inasmuch as the inmates of the house kept pressed the door leaves from inside. The miscreants also made attempts to make their entry into the house by breaking open a window but failed inasmuch as a folded table was kept against the broken open place of the window and there was pelting of glasses at the miscreants by the inmates of the house who did so in spite of pelting of stones and throwing of arrows by the miscreants into the house. On hearing the shouts raised by the inmates of the house, when villagers assembled near the spot, the culprits finding themselves to have been outnumbered took to their heels. Before their departure, they could injure the villagers Pratap Chandra Dandpat (P.W.3), Sadasiv Sahu (P.W.4) and Ajay Kumar Dandpat (P.W.12). After departure of the miscreants, F.I.R. (Ext. 2) was lodged at the Police station in the same night at 3 a.m. and investigation commenced. In course of investigation, stones and arrows thrown by the culprits were seized from the house in question and a test identification parade was conducted in which all the six petitioners were identified as the culprits who attempted to have committed dacoity in the house of P.W. 5. Ultimately, the present petitioners along with one Gagan Bhakta, (since acquitted) were tried for the offence Under Section 397, IPC.</p><p>2. At the trial, the prosecution examined 15 witnesses of whom P.W. 1, P.W. 5 and P.W. 14 were the inmates of the house; P.W. 2 Radha Mohan Naik and P.W. 6 Bhagaban Sahu were the witnesses to the seizure of the articles from the house in question. P.W. 4 Sadasiv Sahu, P.W. 7 Ashok Kumar Dandpat and P.W. 12 Ajay Kumar Dandpat were the villagers who along with others saw the culprits and foiled their attempt to committing dacoity; P.W. 8 and 9 are the Medical Officers who examined the injured persons (P.Ws. 3, 4 and 12) and also the first petitioner Karmu Bhakta and found injuries on their persons; P.W. 10 is another Medical Officer who extracted an arrow from the person of P.W. 4 and handed over the same to the Investigating Officer; P.W. 13 is the Magistrate who conducted the test identification parade and P.Ws. 11 and 13 are the Police Officers who took some part or the other in the investigation of the case.</p><p>The trial court found that the first petitioner Karmu, the third petitioner Sarthak and the fifth petitioner Raju Katual had been duly identified by P.Ws. 5, 12 and 14 as the culprits both in the test identification parade as well as in court; the second petitioner Chandra had been duly identified as one of the culprits by P.Ws. 5 and 14 both in the test identification parade as well as in court; the sixth petitioner Jatindra had been duly identified as one of the culprits by P.Ws. 7 and 12 both in test identification parade as well as in court and the fourth petitioner Gopal had been identified only by P.W. 14 as one of the culprits both in test identification parade as well as in court. So, relying on the evidence of P.Ws. 5, 7, 12 and 14, the trial court convicted the six petitioners Under Section 397, IPC and sentenced each of them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years, while acquitting the accused Gagan Bhakta. In appeal, the learned Sessions Judge, Mayurbhanj, Baripada converted the conviction Under Section 397, IPC to one Under Section 395, IPC. and reduced the sentence to five years rigorous imprisonment in respect of each of the petitioners. Being aggrieved by such judgment and order, the present revision has been filed.</p><p>3. The concurrent finding of fact that there was an attempt to commit dacoity in the house of P.W. 5 in the night in question is not assailed before me by Mr. P. K. Dhal, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners. It is, however, contended by him that the identifying witnesses having asserted that they had seen the petitioners with the help of electric light burning in the house of P.W. 5 and also with the aid of flashing of torch lights by the petitioner and their companions hither and thither and as such they could identify them both in the test identification parade as well as in court, their evidence should not have been believed by the courts below because neither electric bulb nor any torch light of the petitioners has been seized, by the Investigating Officer at the time of investigation. This contention relates to appreciation of evidence of the identifying witnesses and since appreciation of evidence is normally not permissible in revision like the one in hand, I refrain myself to evaluate such contention particularly when perversity in appreciation of evidence by the courts below is not brought to my notice. As such, the contention is rejected as unsubstantial.</p><p>4. It is then contended by Mr. Dhal for the petitioners that P.W. 14 having not been examined at the time of investigation, his evidence in court identifying the petitioner Gopal as one of the culprits is inadmissible in evidence and if such evidence is left out of consideration then his evidence of identification in the test identification parade, being not substantive evidence, could not be relied upon for convicting Gopal. There is no pleading in the revision-petition that P.W. 14 had not been examined at the time of investigation. My attention is sought to be invited to the evidence of P.W. 14 himself in support of such factual position, but I am afraid if a court of revision can go through such evidence in the absence of any pleading. Even assuming for the sake of argument that P.W. 14 was not examined at the time of investigation, his evidence cannot be said to be inadmissible in the absence of any provision to that effect in Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 or in the Evidence Act. All that that can be said is that when a witness examined in court whose statement Under Section 161, Cr. P.C. had not been recorded at the time of investigation, the evidentiary value to be attached to the evidence of such witness has to be looked into and if it would be found that prejudice had been caused to the accused then the evidence of such witness may not be acted upon, otherwise not. I am supported in my view by a decision in Tilkeshwar Singh v. The State of Bihar, AIR 1956 SC 238 : (1956 Cri LJ 441). In this case, P.W. 14 had been cited as a witness in the charge-sheet and he was examined in court and both the courts below have relied on his evidence obviously for the reason that no prejudice had been caused to the petitioners: As such, the contention must fail.</p><p>5. It is then contended by Mr. Dhal for the petitioners that the other inmates of the house having not identified the petitioner Gopal as one of the culprits, it would not be safe to rely only on the evidence of P.W. 14 to sustain his conviction. This argument would have carried some force if there would have been evidence to show that all inmates of the house had occasion to see all the petitioners, but no such evidence is brought to my notice. It is not unlikely that when the inmates of the house were seeing the culprits from different angles, the petitioner Gopal seen by P.W. 14 might not have been seen by the other inmates of the house. When both the courts below have found that the evidence of P.W. 14 was thoroughly reliable and they have accordingly acted upon his evidence it is not considered necessary to disturb their finding particularly when their mode of appreciation of evidence is not shown to be perverse.</p><p>6. No other contention having been raised on behalf of the petitioners and the aforesaid contentions having failed, I hold that the revision is without merit and accordingly the same is dismissed.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '73(1992)CLT253; 1992CriLJ2154',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'State',
		'sub' => 'Criminal',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'karmu-bhakta-ors-vs-state'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '536492',
	(int) 1 => 'karmu-bhakta-ors-vs-state'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/536492/karmu-bhakta-ors-vs-state'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$caseref = 'Tilkeshwar Singh v. The State of Bihar<br>'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => 'ORDER<p>B.N. Dash, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. The prosecution case, shortly stated, is that on 9/10-2-1984 at about midnight time while the informant Susil Kumar Dandpat was sleeping in the outer varandah of their house in village Machilapada under Badasahi Police station, District Meyurbhanj and the other inmates of the house including Sirish Chandra Dandpat (P.W. 1) and Sunilkumar Dandpat (P.W. 14) were sleeping inside the house bolting the entrance door from inside, there was barking of dogs for which P.W. 5 woke up and found that there was flashing of torch lights at some distance. After proceeding for some times when P.W. 5 asked in a raised voice as to who were focussing the torch lights, some people rushed at him and at their sight he ran towards his house shouting on the way to open the entrance door. Before the miscreants could approach him, the entrance door was opened and he entered into the house and bolted the door from inside. The miscreants dashed against the entrance door, but the same did not open inasmuch as the inmates of the house kept pressed the door leaves from inside. The miscreants also made attempts to make their entry into the house by breaking open a window but failed inasmuch as a folded table was kept against the broken open place of the window and there was pelting of glasses at the miscreants by the inmates of the house who did so in spite of pelting of stones and throwing of arrows by the miscreants into the house. On hearing the shouts raised by the inmates of the house, when villagers assembled near the spot, the culprits finding themselves to have been outnumbered took to their heels. Before their departure, they could injure the villagers Pratap Chandra Dandpat (P.W.3), Sadasiv Sahu (P.W.4) and Ajay Kumar Dandpat (P.W.12). After departure of the miscreants, F.I.R. (Ext. 2) was lodged at the Police station in the same night at 3 a.m. and investigation commenced. In course of investigation, stones and arrows thrown by the culprits were seized from the house in question and a test identification parade was conducted in which all the six petitioners were identified as the culprits who attempted to have committed dacoity in the house of P.W. 5. Ultimately, the present petitioners along with one Gagan Bhakta, (since acquitted) were tried for the offence Under Section 397, IPC.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. At the trial, the prosecution examined 15 witnesses of whom P.W. 1, P.W. 5 and P.W. 14 were the inmates of the house; P.W. 2 Radha Mohan Naik and P.W. 6 Bhagaban Sahu were the witnesses to the seizure of the articles from the house in question. P.W. 4 Sadasiv Sahu, P.W. 7 Ashok Kumar Dandpat and P.W. 12 Ajay Kumar Dandpat were the villagers who along with others saw the culprits and foiled their attempt to committing dacoity; P.W. 8 and 9 are the Medical Officers who examined the injured persons (P.Ws. 3, 4 and 12) and also the first petitioner Karmu Bhakta and found injuries on their persons; P.W. 10 is another Medical Officer who extracted an arrow from the person of P.W. 4 and handed over the same to the Investigating Officer; P.W. 13 is the Magistrate who conducted the test identification parade and P.Ws. 11 and 13 are the Police Officers who took some part or the other in the investigation of the case.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>The trial court found that the first petitioner Karmu, the third petitioner Sarthak and the fifth petitioner Raju Katual had been duly identified by P.Ws. 5, 12 and 14 as the culprits both in the test identification parade as well as in court; the second petitioner Chandra had been duly identified as one of the culprits by P.Ws. 5 and 14 both in the test identification parade as well as in court; the sixth petitioner Jatindra had been duly identified as one of the culprits by P.Ws. 7 and 12 both in test identification parade as well as in court and the fourth petitioner Gopal had been identified only by P.W. 14 as one of the culprits both in test identification parade as well as in court. So, relying on the evidence of P.Ws. 5, 7, 12 and 14, the trial court convicted the six petitioners Under Section 397, IPC and sentenced each of them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years, while acquitting the accused Gagan Bhakta. In appeal, the learned Sessions Judge, Mayurbhanj, Baripada converted the conviction Under Section 397, IPC to one Under Section 395, IPC. and reduced the sentence to five years rigorous imprisonment in respect of each of the petitioners. Being aggrieved by such judgment and order, the present revision has been filed.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>3. The concurrent finding of fact that there was an attempt to commit dacoity in the house of P.W. 5 in the night in question is not assailed before me by Mr. P. K. Dhal, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners. It is, however, contended by him that the identifying witnesses having asserted that they had seen the petitioners with the help of electric light burning in the house of P.W. 5 and also with the aid of flashing of torch lights by the petitioner and their companions hither and thither and as such they could identify them both in the test identification parade as well as in court, their evidence should not have been believed by the courts below because neither electric bulb nor any torch light of the petitioners has been seized, by the Investigating Officer at the time of investigation. This contention relates to appreciation of evidence of the identifying witnesses and since appreciation of evidence is normally not permissible in revision like the one in hand, I refrain myself to evaluate such contention particularly when perversity in appreciation of evidence by the courts below is not brought to my notice. As such, the contention is rejected as unsubstantial.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>4. It is then contended by Mr. Dhal for the petitioners that P.W. 14 having not been examined at the time of investigation, his evidence in court identifying the petitioner Gopal as one of the culprits is inadmissible in evidence and if such evidence is left out of consideration then his evidence of identification in the test identification parade, being not substantive evidence, could not be relied upon for convicting Gopal. There is no pleading in the revision-petition that P.W. 14 had not been examined at the time of investigation. My attention is sought to be invited to the evidence of P.W. 14 himself in support of such factual position, but I am afraid if a court of revision can go through such evidence in the absence of any pleading. Even assuming for the sake of argument that P.W. 14 was not examined at the time of investigation, his evidence cannot be said to be inadmissible in the absence of any provision to that effect in Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 or in the Evidence Act. All that that can be said is that when a witness examined in court whose statement Under Section 161, Cr. P.C. had not been recorded at the time of investigation, the evidentiary value to be attached to the evidence of such witness has to be looked into and if it would be found that prejudice had been caused to the accused then the evidence of such witness may not be acted upon, otherwise not. I am supported in my view by a decision in Tilkeshwar Singh v. The State of Bihar, AIR 1956 SC 238 : (1956 Cri LJ 441). In this case, P.W. 14 had been cited as a witness in the charge-sheet and he was examined in court and both the courts below have relied on his evidence obviously for the reason that no prejudice had been caused to the petitioners: As such, the contention must fail.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>5. It is then contended by Mr. Dhal for the petitioners that the other inmates of the house having not identified the petitioner Gopal as one of the culprits, it would not be safe to rely only on the evidence of P.W. 14 to sustain his conviction. This argument would have carried some force if there would have been evidence to show that all inmates of the house had occasion to see all the petitioners, but no such evidence is brought to my notice. It is not unlikely that when the inmates of the house were seeing the culprits from different angles, the petitioner Gopal seen by P.W. 14 might not have been seen by the other inmates of the house. When both the courts below have found that the evidence of P.W. 14 was thoroughly reliable and they have accordingly acted upon his evidence it is not considered necessary to disturb their finding particularly when their mode of appreciation of evidence is not shown to be perverse.',
	(int) 7 => '<p>6. No other contention having been raised on behalf of the petitioners and the aforesaid contentions having failed, I hold that the revision is without merit and accordingly the same is dismissed.<p>',
	(int) 8 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 9
$i = (int) 2
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

2. At the trial, the prosecution examined 15 witnesses of whom P.W. 1, P.W. 5 and P.W. 14 were the inmates of the house; P.W. 2 Radha Mohan Naik and P.W. 6 Bhagaban Sahu were the witnesses to the seizure of the articles from the house in question. P.W. 4 Sadasiv Sahu, P.W. 7 Ashok Kumar Dandpat and P.W. 12 Ajay Kumar Dandpat were the villagers who along with others saw the culprits and foiled their attempt to committing dacoity; P.W. 8 and 9 are the Medical Officers who examined the injured persons (P.Ws. 3, 4 and 12) and also the first petitioner Karmu Bhakta and found injuries on their persons; P.W. 10 is another Medical Officer who extracted an arrow from the person of P.W. 4 and handed over the same to the Investigating Officer; P.W. 13 is the Magistrate who conducted the test identification parade and P.Ws. 11 and 13 are the Police Officers who took some part or the other in the investigation of the case.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Karmu Bhakta and ors Vs State - Citation 536492 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '536492',
			'acts' => 'Evidence Act; <a href="/act/50902/code-of-criminal-procedure-1973-complete-act">Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1973</a> - Sections 161; Indian Penal Code (IPC) - Sections 395 and 397',
			'appealno' => 'Criminal Revision No. 200 of 1988',
			'appellant' => 'Karmu Bhakta and ors.',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Karmu Bhakta and ors. Vs. State',
			'casenote' => ' - Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002], 110 & 104 & Letters Patent, 1865, Clause 10: [Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Letters Patent  Appeal  Order of Single Judge of High Court passed while deciding matters filed under Order 43, Rule1 of C.P.C., -  Held, After introduction of Section 110A in the C.P.C., by 2002 Amendment Act, no Letters Patent Appeal is maintainable against judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge of a High Court. A right of appeal, even though a vested one, can be taken away by law. It is pertinent to note that Section 100-A introduced by 2002 Amendment of the Code starts with a non obstante clause. The purpose of such clause is to give the enacting part of an overriding effect in the case of a conflict with laws mentioned with the non obstante clause. The legislative intention is thus very clear that the law enacted shall have full operation and there would be no impediment. It is well settled that the definition of judgment in Section 2(9) of C.P.C., is much wider and more liberal, Intermediary or interlocutory judgment fall in the category of orders referred to Clause (a) to (w) of Order 43, Rule 1 and also such other orders which poses the characteristic and trapping of finality and may adversely affect a valuable right of a party or decide an important aspect of a trial in an ancillary proceeding. Amended Section 100-A of the Code clearly stipulates that where any appeal from an original or appellate decree or order is heard and decided by a Single Judge of a High Court, no further appeal shall lie. Even otherwise, the word judgment as defined under Section 2(9) means a statement given by a Judge on the grounds of a decree or order. Thus the contention that against an order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal filed under Section 104 C.P.C., a further appeal lies to a Division Bench cannot be accepted. The newly incorporated Section 100A in clear and specific terms prohibits further appeal against the decree and judgment or order of a Single Judge to a Division Bench notwithstanding anything contained in the Letters Patent. The Letters Patent which provides for further appeal to a Division Bench remains intact, but the right to prefer a further appeal is taken away even in respect of the matters arising under the special enactments or other instruments having the force of law be it against original/appellate decree or order heard and decided by a Single Judge. It has to be kept in mind that the special statute only provide for an Appeal to the High Court. It has not made any provision for filing appeal to a Division Bench against the judgment or decree or order of a Single Judge. No Letters Patent Appeal shall lie against a judgment/order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal arising out of a proceeding under a Special Act.

Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002] & 104:[Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Writ Appeal  Held, A Writ Appeal shall lie against judgment/orders passed by Single Judge in a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In a writ application filed under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution, if any order/judgment/decree is passed in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226, a writ appeal will lie. But, no writ appeal will lie against a judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge in exercising powers of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution. 
 -  The miscreants also made attempts to make their entry into the house by breaking open a window but failed inasmuch as a folded table was kept against the broken open place of the window and there was pelting of glasses at the miscreants by the inmates of the house who did so in spite of pelting of stones and throwing of arrows by the miscreants into the house. 5, 12 and 14 as the culprits both in the test identification parade as well as in court; 5 and 14 both in the test identification parade as well as in court; 7 and 12 both in test identification parade as well as in court and the fourth petitioner Gopal had been identified only by P. 14 as one of the culprits both in test identification parade as well as in court. 5 and also with the aid of flashing of torch lights by the petitioner and their companions hither and thither and as such they could identify them both in the test identification parade as well as in court, their evidence should not have been believed by the courts below because neither electric bulb nor any torch light of the petitioners has been seized, by the Investigating Officer at the time of investigation. This contention relates to appreciation of evidence of the identifying witnesses and since appreciation of evidence is normally not permissible in revision like the one in hand, I refrain myself to evaluate such contention particularly when perversity in appreciation of evidence by the courts below is not brought to my notice. As such, the contention must fail. Dhal for the petitioners that the other inmates of the house having not identified the petitioner Gopal as one of the culprits, it would not be safe to rely only on the evidence of P. 14 was thoroughly reliable and they have accordingly acted upon his evidence it is not considered necessary to disturb their finding particularly when their mode of appreciation of evidence is not shown to be perverse. 6. No other contention having been raised on behalf of the petitioners and the aforesaid contentions having failed, I hold that the revision is without merit and accordingly the same is dismissed.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => 'Tilkeshwar Singh v. The State of Bihar;',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => 'D.P. Dhal, ;P.K. Dhal and ;P.K. Panda, Advs.',
			'counseldef' => 'J. Mahanty, Standing Counsel',
			'court' => 'Orissa',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '1991-09-25',
			'deposition' => 'Petition dismissed',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'B.N. Dash, J.',
			'judgement' => 'ORDER<p style="text-align: justify;">B.N. Dash, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. The prosecution case, shortly stated, is that on 9/10-2-1984 at about midnight time while the informant Susil Kumar Dandpat was sleeping in the outer varandah of their house in village Machilapada under Badasahi Police station, District Meyurbhanj and the other inmates of the house including Sirish Chandra Dandpat (P.W. 1) and Sunilkumar Dandpat (P.W. 14) were sleeping inside the house bolting the entrance door from inside, there was barking of dogs for which P.W. 5 woke up and found that there was flashing of torch lights at some distance. After proceeding for some times when P.W. 5 asked in a raised voice as to who were focussing the torch lights, some people rushed at him and at their sight he ran towards his house shouting on the way to open the entrance door. Before the miscreants could approach him, the entrance door was opened and he entered into the house and bolted the door from inside. The miscreants dashed against the entrance door, but the same did not open inasmuch as the inmates of the house kept pressed the door leaves from inside. The miscreants also made attempts to make their entry into the house by breaking open a window but failed inasmuch as a folded table was kept against the broken open place of the window and there was pelting of glasses at the miscreants by the inmates of the house who did so in spite of pelting of stones and throwing of arrows by the miscreants into the house. On hearing the shouts raised by the inmates of the house, when villagers assembled near the spot, the culprits finding themselves to have been outnumbered took to their heels. Before their departure, they could injure the villagers Pratap Chandra Dandpat (P.W.3), Sadasiv Sahu (P.W.4) and Ajay Kumar Dandpat (P.W.12). After departure of the miscreants, F.I.R. (Ext. 2) was lodged at the Police station in the same night at 3 a.m. and investigation commenced. In course of investigation, stones and arrows thrown by the culprits were seized from the house in question and a test identification parade was conducted in which all the six petitioners were identified as the culprits who attempted to have committed dacoity in the house of P.W. 5. Ultimately, the present petitioners along with one Gagan Bhakta, (since acquitted) were tried for the offence Under Section 397, IPC.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. At the trial, the prosecution examined 15 witnesses of whom P.W. 1, P.W. 5 and P.W. 14 were the inmates of the house; P.W. 2 Radha Mohan Naik and P.W. 6 Bhagaban Sahu were the witnesses to the seizure of the articles from the house in question. P.W. 4 Sadasiv Sahu, P.W. 7 Ashok Kumar Dandpat and P.W. 12 Ajay Kumar Dandpat were the villagers who along with others saw the culprits and foiled their attempt to committing dacoity; P.W. 8 and 9 are the Medical Officers who examined the injured persons (P.Ws. 3, 4 and 12) and also the first petitioner Karmu Bhakta and found injuries on their persons; P.W. 10 is another Medical Officer who extracted an arrow from the person of P.W. 4 and handed over the same to the Investigating Officer; P.W. 13 is the Magistrate who conducted the test identification parade and P.Ws. 11 and 13 are the Police Officers who took some part or the other in the investigation of the case.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The trial court found that the first petitioner Karmu, the third petitioner Sarthak and the fifth petitioner Raju Katual had been duly identified by P.Ws. 5, 12 and 14 as the culprits both in the test identification parade as well as in court; the second petitioner Chandra had been duly identified as one of the culprits by P.Ws. 5 and 14 both in the test identification parade as well as in court; the sixth petitioner Jatindra had been duly identified as one of the culprits by P.Ws. 7 and 12 both in test identification parade as well as in court and the fourth petitioner Gopal had been identified only by P.W. 14 as one of the culprits both in test identification parade as well as in court. So, relying on the evidence of P.Ws. 5, 7, 12 and 14, the trial court convicted the six petitioners Under Section 397, IPC and sentenced each of them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years, while acquitting the accused Gagan Bhakta. In appeal, the learned Sessions Judge, Mayurbhanj, Baripada converted the conviction Under Section 397, IPC to one Under Section 395, IPC. and reduced the sentence to five years rigorous imprisonment in respect of each of the petitioners. Being aggrieved by such judgment and order, the present revision has been filed.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. The concurrent finding of fact that there was an attempt to commit dacoity in the house of P.W. 5 in the night in question is not assailed before me by Mr. P. K. Dhal, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners. It is, however, contended by him that the identifying witnesses having asserted that they had seen the petitioners with the help of electric light burning in the house of P.W. 5 and also with the aid of flashing of torch lights by the petitioner and their companions hither and thither and as such they could identify them both in the test identification parade as well as in court, their evidence should not have been believed by the courts below because neither electric bulb nor any torch light of the petitioners has been seized, by the Investigating Officer at the time of investigation. This contention relates to appreciation of evidence of the identifying witnesses and since appreciation of evidence is normally not permissible in revision like the one in hand, I refrain myself to evaluate such contention particularly when perversity in appreciation of evidence by the courts below is not brought to my notice. As such, the contention is rejected as unsubstantial.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. It is then contended by Mr. Dhal for the petitioners that P.W. 14 having not been examined at the time of investigation, his evidence in court identifying the petitioner Gopal as one of the culprits is inadmissible in evidence and if such evidence is left out of consideration then his evidence of identification in the test identification parade, being not substantive evidence, could not be relied upon for convicting Gopal. There is no pleading in the revision-petition that P.W. 14 had not been examined at the time of investigation. My attention is sought to be invited to the evidence of P.W. 14 himself in support of such factual position, but I am afraid if a court of revision can go through such evidence in the absence of any pleading. Even assuming for the sake of argument that P.W. 14 was not examined at the time of investigation, his evidence cannot be said to be inadmissible in the absence of any provision to that effect in Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 or in the Evidence Act. All that that can be said is that when a witness examined in court whose statement Under Section 161, Cr. P.C. had not been recorded at the time of investigation, the evidentiary value to be attached to the evidence of such witness has to be looked into and if it would be found that prejudice had been caused to the accused then the evidence of such witness may not be acted upon, otherwise not. I am supported in my view by a decision in Tilkeshwar Singh v. The State of Bihar, AIR 1956 SC 238 : (1956 Cri LJ 441). In this case, P.W. 14 had been cited as a witness in the charge-sheet and he was examined in court and both the courts below have relied on his evidence obviously for the reason that no prejudice had been caused to the petitioners: As such, the contention must fail.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. It is then contended by Mr. Dhal for the petitioners that the other inmates of the house having not identified the petitioner Gopal as one of the culprits, it would not be safe to rely only on the evidence of P.W. 14 to sustain his conviction. This argument would have carried some force if there would have been evidence to show that all inmates of the house had occasion to see all the petitioners, but no such evidence is brought to my notice. It is not unlikely that when the inmates of the house were seeing the culprits from different angles, the petitioner Gopal seen by P.W. 14 might not have been seen by the other inmates of the house. When both the courts below have found that the evidence of P.W. 14 was thoroughly reliable and they have accordingly acted upon his evidence it is not considered necessary to disturb their finding particularly when their mode of appreciation of evidence is not shown to be perverse.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. No other contention having been raised on behalf of the petitioners and the aforesaid contentions having failed, I hold that the revision is without merit and accordingly the same is dismissed.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '73(1992)CLT253; 1992CriLJ2154',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'State',
			'sub' => 'Criminal',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'karmu-bhakta-ors-vs-state',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '536492',
		(int) 1 => 'karmu-bhakta-ors-vs-state'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Karmu Bhakta and ors Vs State - Citation 536492 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '536492',
		'acts' => 'Evidence Act; <a href="/act/50902/code-of-criminal-procedure-1973-complete-act">Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1973</a> - Sections 161; Indian Penal Code (IPC) - Sections 395 and 397',
		'appealno' => 'Criminal Revision No. 200 of 1988',
		'appellant' => 'Karmu Bhakta and ors.',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Karmu Bhakta and ors. Vs. State',
		'casenote' => ' - Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002], 110 & 104 & Letters Patent, 1865, Clause 10: [Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Letters Patent  Appeal  Order of Single Judge of High Court passed while deciding matters filed under Order 43, Rule1 of C.P.C., -  Held, After introduction of Section 110A in the C.P.C., by 2002 Amendment Act, no Letters Patent Appeal is maintainable against judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge of a High Court. A right of appeal, even though a vested one, can be taken away by law. It is pertinent to note that Section 100-A introduced by 2002 Amendment of the Code starts with a non obstante clause. The purpose of such clause is to give the enacting part of an overriding effect in the case of a conflict with laws mentioned with the non obstante clause. The legislative intention is thus very clear that the law enacted shall have full operation and there would be no impediment. It is well settled that the definition of judgment in Section 2(9) of C.P.C., is much wider and more liberal, Intermediary or interlocutory judgment fall in the category of orders referred to Clause (a) to (w) of Order 43, Rule 1 and also such other orders which poses the characteristic and trapping of finality and may adversely affect a valuable right of a party or decide an important aspect of a trial in an ancillary proceeding. Amended Section 100-A of the Code clearly stipulates that where any appeal from an original or appellate decree or order is heard and decided by a Single Judge of a High Court, no further appeal shall lie. Even otherwise, the word judgment as defined under Section 2(9) means a statement given by a Judge on the grounds of a decree or order. Thus the contention that against an order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal filed under Section 104 C.P.C., a further appeal lies to a Division Bench cannot be accepted. The newly incorporated Section 100A in clear and specific terms prohibits further appeal against the decree and judgment or order of a Single Judge to a Division Bench notwithstanding anything contained in the Letters Patent. The Letters Patent which provides for further appeal to a Division Bench remains intact, but the right to prefer a further appeal is taken away even in respect of the matters arising under the special enactments or other instruments having the force of law be it against original/appellate decree or order heard and decided by a Single Judge. It has to be kept in mind that the special statute only provide for an Appeal to the High Court. It has not made any provision for filing appeal to a Division Bench against the judgment or decree or order of a Single Judge. No Letters Patent Appeal shall lie against a judgment/order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal arising out of a proceeding under a Special Act.

Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002] & 104:[Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Writ Appeal  Held, A Writ Appeal shall lie against judgment/orders passed by Single Judge in a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In a writ application filed under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution, if any order/judgment/decree is passed in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226, a writ appeal will lie. But, no writ appeal will lie against a judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge in exercising powers of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution. 
 -  The miscreants also made attempts to make their entry into the house by breaking open a window but failed inasmuch as a folded table was kept against the broken open place of the window and there was pelting of glasses at the miscreants by the inmates of the house who did so in spite of pelting of stones and throwing of arrows by the miscreants into the house. 5, 12 and 14 as the culprits both in the test identification parade as well as in court; 5 and 14 both in the test identification parade as well as in court; 7 and 12 both in test identification parade as well as in court and the fourth petitioner Gopal had been identified only by P. 14 as one of the culprits both in test identification parade as well as in court. 5 and also with the aid of flashing of torch lights by the petitioner and their companions hither and thither and as such they could identify them both in the test identification parade as well as in court, their evidence should not have been believed by the courts below because neither electric bulb nor any torch light of the petitioners has been seized, by the Investigating Officer at the time of investigation. This contention relates to appreciation of evidence of the identifying witnesses and since appreciation of evidence is normally not permissible in revision like the one in hand, I refrain myself to evaluate such contention particularly when perversity in appreciation of evidence by the courts below is not brought to my notice. As such, the contention must fail. Dhal for the petitioners that the other inmates of the house having not identified the petitioner Gopal as one of the culprits, it would not be safe to rely only on the evidence of P. 14 was thoroughly reliable and they have accordingly acted upon his evidence it is not considered necessary to disturb their finding particularly when their mode of appreciation of evidence is not shown to be perverse. 6. No other contention having been raised on behalf of the petitioners and the aforesaid contentions having failed, I hold that the revision is without merit and accordingly the same is dismissed.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => 'Tilkeshwar Singh v. The State of Bihar;',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => 'D.P. Dhal, ;P.K. Dhal and ;P.K. Panda, Advs.',
		'counseldef' => 'J. Mahanty, Standing Counsel',
		'court' => 'Orissa',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '1991-09-25',
		'deposition' => 'Petition dismissed',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'B.N. Dash, J.',
		'judgement' => 'ORDER<p>B.N. Dash, J.</p><p>1. The prosecution case, shortly stated, is that on 9/10-2-1984 at about midnight time while the informant Susil Kumar Dandpat was sleeping in the outer varandah of their house in village Machilapada under Badasahi Police station, District Meyurbhanj and the other inmates of the house including Sirish Chandra Dandpat (P.W. 1) and Sunilkumar Dandpat (P.W. 14) were sleeping inside the house bolting the entrance door from inside, there was barking of dogs for which P.W. 5 woke up and found that there was flashing of torch lights at some distance. After proceeding for some times when P.W. 5 asked in a raised voice as to who were focussing the torch lights, some people rushed at him and at their sight he ran towards his house shouting on the way to open the entrance door. Before the miscreants could approach him, the entrance door was opened and he entered into the house and bolted the door from inside. The miscreants dashed against the entrance door, but the same did not open inasmuch as the inmates of the house kept pressed the door leaves from inside. The miscreants also made attempts to make their entry into the house by breaking open a window but failed inasmuch as a folded table was kept against the broken open place of the window and there was pelting of glasses at the miscreants by the inmates of the house who did so in spite of pelting of stones and throwing of arrows by the miscreants into the house. On hearing the shouts raised by the inmates of the house, when villagers assembled near the spot, the culprits finding themselves to have been outnumbered took to their heels. Before their departure, they could injure the villagers Pratap Chandra Dandpat (P.W.3), Sadasiv Sahu (P.W.4) and Ajay Kumar Dandpat (P.W.12). After departure of the miscreants, F.I.R. (Ext. 2) was lodged at the Police station in the same night at 3 a.m. and investigation commenced. In course of investigation, stones and arrows thrown by the culprits were seized from the house in question and a test identification parade was conducted in which all the six petitioners were identified as the culprits who attempted to have committed dacoity in the house of P.W. 5. Ultimately, the present petitioners along with one Gagan Bhakta, (since acquitted) were tried for the offence Under Section 397, IPC.</p><p>2. At the trial, the prosecution examined 15 witnesses of whom P.W. 1, P.W. 5 and P.W. 14 were the inmates of the house; P.W. 2 Radha Mohan Naik and P.W. 6 Bhagaban Sahu were the witnesses to the seizure of the articles from the house in question. P.W. 4 Sadasiv Sahu, P.W. 7 Ashok Kumar Dandpat and P.W. 12 Ajay Kumar Dandpat were the villagers who along with others saw the culprits and foiled their attempt to committing dacoity; P.W. 8 and 9 are the Medical Officers who examined the injured persons (P.Ws. 3, 4 and 12) and also the first petitioner Karmu Bhakta and found injuries on their persons; P.W. 10 is another Medical Officer who extracted an arrow from the person of P.W. 4 and handed over the same to the Investigating Officer; P.W. 13 is the Magistrate who conducted the test identification parade and P.Ws. 11 and 13 are the Police Officers who took some part or the other in the investigation of the case.</p><p>The trial court found that the first petitioner Karmu, the third petitioner Sarthak and the fifth petitioner Raju Katual had been duly identified by P.Ws. 5, 12 and 14 as the culprits both in the test identification parade as well as in court; the second petitioner Chandra had been duly identified as one of the culprits by P.Ws. 5 and 14 both in the test identification parade as well as in court; the sixth petitioner Jatindra had been duly identified as one of the culprits by P.Ws. 7 and 12 both in test identification parade as well as in court and the fourth petitioner Gopal had been identified only by P.W. 14 as one of the culprits both in test identification parade as well as in court. So, relying on the evidence of P.Ws. 5, 7, 12 and 14, the trial court convicted the six petitioners Under Section 397, IPC and sentenced each of them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years, while acquitting the accused Gagan Bhakta. In appeal, the learned Sessions Judge, Mayurbhanj, Baripada converted the conviction Under Section 397, IPC to one Under Section 395, IPC. and reduced the sentence to five years rigorous imprisonment in respect of each of the petitioners. Being aggrieved by such judgment and order, the present revision has been filed.</p><p>3. The concurrent finding of fact that there was an attempt to commit dacoity in the house of P.W. 5 in the night in question is not assailed before me by Mr. P. K. Dhal, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners. It is, however, contended by him that the identifying witnesses having asserted that they had seen the petitioners with the help of electric light burning in the house of P.W. 5 and also with the aid of flashing of torch lights by the petitioner and their companions hither and thither and as such they could identify them both in the test identification parade as well as in court, their evidence should not have been believed by the courts below because neither electric bulb nor any torch light of the petitioners has been seized, by the Investigating Officer at the time of investigation. This contention relates to appreciation of evidence of the identifying witnesses and since appreciation of evidence is normally not permissible in revision like the one in hand, I refrain myself to evaluate such contention particularly when perversity in appreciation of evidence by the courts below is not brought to my notice. As such, the contention is rejected as unsubstantial.</p><p>4. It is then contended by Mr. Dhal for the petitioners that P.W. 14 having not been examined at the time of investigation, his evidence in court identifying the petitioner Gopal as one of the culprits is inadmissible in evidence and if such evidence is left out of consideration then his evidence of identification in the test identification parade, being not substantive evidence, could not be relied upon for convicting Gopal. There is no pleading in the revision-petition that P.W. 14 had not been examined at the time of investigation. My attention is sought to be invited to the evidence of P.W. 14 himself in support of such factual position, but I am afraid if a court of revision can go through such evidence in the absence of any pleading. Even assuming for the sake of argument that P.W. 14 was not examined at the time of investigation, his evidence cannot be said to be inadmissible in the absence of any provision to that effect in Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 or in the Evidence Act. All that that can be said is that when a witness examined in court whose statement Under Section 161, Cr. P.C. had not been recorded at the time of investigation, the evidentiary value to be attached to the evidence of such witness has to be looked into and if it would be found that prejudice had been caused to the accused then the evidence of such witness may not be acted upon, otherwise not. I am supported in my view by a decision in Tilkeshwar Singh v. The State of Bihar, AIR 1956 SC 238 : (1956 Cri LJ 441). In this case, P.W. 14 had been cited as a witness in the charge-sheet and he was examined in court and both the courts below have relied on his evidence obviously for the reason that no prejudice had been caused to the petitioners: As such, the contention must fail.</p><p>5. It is then contended by Mr. Dhal for the petitioners that the other inmates of the house having not identified the petitioner Gopal as one of the culprits, it would not be safe to rely only on the evidence of P.W. 14 to sustain his conviction. This argument would have carried some force if there would have been evidence to show that all inmates of the house had occasion to see all the petitioners, but no such evidence is brought to my notice. It is not unlikely that when the inmates of the house were seeing the culprits from different angles, the petitioner Gopal seen by P.W. 14 might not have been seen by the other inmates of the house. When both the courts below have found that the evidence of P.W. 14 was thoroughly reliable and they have accordingly acted upon his evidence it is not considered necessary to disturb their finding particularly when their mode of appreciation of evidence is not shown to be perverse.</p><p>6. No other contention having been raised on behalf of the petitioners and the aforesaid contentions having failed, I hold that the revision is without merit and accordingly the same is dismissed.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '73(1992)CLT253; 1992CriLJ2154',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'State',
		'sub' => 'Criminal',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'karmu-bhakta-ors-vs-state'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '536492',
	(int) 1 => 'karmu-bhakta-ors-vs-state'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/536492/karmu-bhakta-ors-vs-state'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$caseref = 'Tilkeshwar Singh v. The State of Bihar<br>'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => 'ORDER<p>B.N. Dash, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. The prosecution case, shortly stated, is that on 9/10-2-1984 at about midnight time while the informant Susil Kumar Dandpat was sleeping in the outer varandah of their house in village Machilapada under Badasahi Police station, District Meyurbhanj and the other inmates of the house including Sirish Chandra Dandpat (P.W. 1) and Sunilkumar Dandpat (P.W. 14) were sleeping inside the house bolting the entrance door from inside, there was barking of dogs for which P.W. 5 woke up and found that there was flashing of torch lights at some distance. After proceeding for some times when P.W. 5 asked in a raised voice as to who were focussing the torch lights, some people rushed at him and at their sight he ran towards his house shouting on the way to open the entrance door. Before the miscreants could approach him, the entrance door was opened and he entered into the house and bolted the door from inside. The miscreants dashed against the entrance door, but the same did not open inasmuch as the inmates of the house kept pressed the door leaves from inside. The miscreants also made attempts to make their entry into the house by breaking open a window but failed inasmuch as a folded table was kept against the broken open place of the window and there was pelting of glasses at the miscreants by the inmates of the house who did so in spite of pelting of stones and throwing of arrows by the miscreants into the house. On hearing the shouts raised by the inmates of the house, when villagers assembled near the spot, the culprits finding themselves to have been outnumbered took to their heels. Before their departure, they could injure the villagers Pratap Chandra Dandpat (P.W.3), Sadasiv Sahu (P.W.4) and Ajay Kumar Dandpat (P.W.12). After departure of the miscreants, F.I.R. (Ext. 2) was lodged at the Police station in the same night at 3 a.m. and investigation commenced. In course of investigation, stones and arrows thrown by the culprits were seized from the house in question and a test identification parade was conducted in which all the six petitioners were identified as the culprits who attempted to have committed dacoity in the house of P.W. 5. Ultimately, the present petitioners along with one Gagan Bhakta, (since acquitted) were tried for the offence Under Section 397, IPC.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. At the trial, the prosecution examined 15 witnesses of whom P.W. 1, P.W. 5 and P.W. 14 were the inmates of the house; P.W. 2 Radha Mohan Naik and P.W. 6 Bhagaban Sahu were the witnesses to the seizure of the articles from the house in question. P.W. 4 Sadasiv Sahu, P.W. 7 Ashok Kumar Dandpat and P.W. 12 Ajay Kumar Dandpat were the villagers who along with others saw the culprits and foiled their attempt to committing dacoity; P.W. 8 and 9 are the Medical Officers who examined the injured persons (P.Ws. 3, 4 and 12) and also the first petitioner Karmu Bhakta and found injuries on their persons; P.W. 10 is another Medical Officer who extracted an arrow from the person of P.W. 4 and handed over the same to the Investigating Officer; P.W. 13 is the Magistrate who conducted the test identification parade and P.Ws. 11 and 13 are the Police Officers who took some part or the other in the investigation of the case.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>The trial court found that the first petitioner Karmu, the third petitioner Sarthak and the fifth petitioner Raju Katual had been duly identified by P.Ws. 5, 12 and 14 as the culprits both in the test identification parade as well as in court; the second petitioner Chandra had been duly identified as one of the culprits by P.Ws. 5 and 14 both in the test identification parade as well as in court; the sixth petitioner Jatindra had been duly identified as one of the culprits by P.Ws. 7 and 12 both in test identification parade as well as in court and the fourth petitioner Gopal had been identified only by P.W. 14 as one of the culprits both in test identification parade as well as in court. So, relying on the evidence of P.Ws. 5, 7, 12 and 14, the trial court convicted the six petitioners Under Section 397, IPC and sentenced each of them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years, while acquitting the accused Gagan Bhakta. In appeal, the learned Sessions Judge, Mayurbhanj, Baripada converted the conviction Under Section 397, IPC to one Under Section 395, IPC. and reduced the sentence to five years rigorous imprisonment in respect of each of the petitioners. Being aggrieved by such judgment and order, the present revision has been filed.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>3. The concurrent finding of fact that there was an attempt to commit dacoity in the house of P.W. 5 in the night in question is not assailed before me by Mr. P. K. Dhal, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners. It is, however, contended by him that the identifying witnesses having asserted that they had seen the petitioners with the help of electric light burning in the house of P.W. 5 and also with the aid of flashing of torch lights by the petitioner and their companions hither and thither and as such they could identify them both in the test identification parade as well as in court, their evidence should not have been believed by the courts below because neither electric bulb nor any torch light of the petitioners has been seized, by the Investigating Officer at the time of investigation. This contention relates to appreciation of evidence of the identifying witnesses and since appreciation of evidence is normally not permissible in revision like the one in hand, I refrain myself to evaluate such contention particularly when perversity in appreciation of evidence by the courts below is not brought to my notice. As such, the contention is rejected as unsubstantial.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>4. It is then contended by Mr. Dhal for the petitioners that P.W. 14 having not been examined at the time of investigation, his evidence in court identifying the petitioner Gopal as one of the culprits is inadmissible in evidence and if such evidence is left out of consideration then his evidence of identification in the test identification parade, being not substantive evidence, could not be relied upon for convicting Gopal. There is no pleading in the revision-petition that P.W. 14 had not been examined at the time of investigation. My attention is sought to be invited to the evidence of P.W. 14 himself in support of such factual position, but I am afraid if a court of revision can go through such evidence in the absence of any pleading. Even assuming for the sake of argument that P.W. 14 was not examined at the time of investigation, his evidence cannot be said to be inadmissible in the absence of any provision to that effect in Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 or in the Evidence Act. All that that can be said is that when a witness examined in court whose statement Under Section 161, Cr. P.C. had not been recorded at the time of investigation, the evidentiary value to be attached to the evidence of such witness has to be looked into and if it would be found that prejudice had been caused to the accused then the evidence of such witness may not be acted upon, otherwise not. I am supported in my view by a decision in Tilkeshwar Singh v. The State of Bihar, AIR 1956 SC 238 : (1956 Cri LJ 441). In this case, P.W. 14 had been cited as a witness in the charge-sheet and he was examined in court and both the courts below have relied on his evidence obviously for the reason that no prejudice had been caused to the petitioners: As such, the contention must fail.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>5. It is then contended by Mr. Dhal for the petitioners that the other inmates of the house having not identified the petitioner Gopal as one of the culprits, it would not be safe to rely only on the evidence of P.W. 14 to sustain his conviction. This argument would have carried some force if there would have been evidence to show that all inmates of the house had occasion to see all the petitioners, but no such evidence is brought to my notice. It is not unlikely that when the inmates of the house were seeing the culprits from different angles, the petitioner Gopal seen by P.W. 14 might not have been seen by the other inmates of the house. When both the courts below have found that the evidence of P.W. 14 was thoroughly reliable and they have accordingly acted upon his evidence it is not considered necessary to disturb their finding particularly when their mode of appreciation of evidence is not shown to be perverse.',
	(int) 7 => '<p>6. No other contention having been raised on behalf of the petitioners and the aforesaid contentions having failed, I hold that the revision is without merit and accordingly the same is dismissed.<p>',
	(int) 8 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 9
$i = (int) 3
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

The trial court found that the first petitioner Karmu, the third petitioner Sarthak and the fifth petitioner Raju Katual had been duly identified by P.Ws. 5, 12 and 14 as the culprits both in the test identification parade as well as in court; the second petitioner Chandra had been duly identified as one of the culprits by P.Ws. 5 and 14 both in the test identification parade as well as in court; the sixth petitioner Jatindra had been duly identified as one of the culprits by P.Ws. 7 and 12 both in test identification parade as well as in court and the fourth petitioner Gopal had been identified only by P.W. 14 as one of the culprits both in test identification parade as well as in court. So, relying on the evidence of P.Ws. 5, 7, 12 and 14, the trial court convicted the six petitioners Under Section 397, IPC and sentenced each of them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years, while acquitting the accused Gagan Bhakta. In appeal, the learned Sessions Judge, Mayurbhanj, Baripada converted the conviction Under Section 397, IPC to one Under Section 395, IPC. and reduced the sentence to five years rigorous imprisonment in respect of each of the petitioners. Being aggrieved by such judgment and order, the present revision has been filed.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Karmu Bhakta and ors Vs State - Citation 536492 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '536492',
			'acts' => 'Evidence Act; <a href="/act/50902/code-of-criminal-procedure-1973-complete-act">Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1973</a> - Sections 161; Indian Penal Code (IPC) - Sections 395 and 397',
			'appealno' => 'Criminal Revision No. 200 of 1988',
			'appellant' => 'Karmu Bhakta and ors.',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Karmu Bhakta and ors. Vs. State',
			'casenote' => ' - Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002], 110 & 104 & Letters Patent, 1865, Clause 10: [Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Letters Patent  Appeal  Order of Single Judge of High Court passed while deciding matters filed under Order 43, Rule1 of C.P.C., -  Held, After introduction of Section 110A in the C.P.C., by 2002 Amendment Act, no Letters Patent Appeal is maintainable against judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge of a High Court. A right of appeal, even though a vested one, can be taken away by law. It is pertinent to note that Section 100-A introduced by 2002 Amendment of the Code starts with a non obstante clause. The purpose of such clause is to give the enacting part of an overriding effect in the case of a conflict with laws mentioned with the non obstante clause. The legislative intention is thus very clear that the law enacted shall have full operation and there would be no impediment. It is well settled that the definition of judgment in Section 2(9) of C.P.C., is much wider and more liberal, Intermediary or interlocutory judgment fall in the category of orders referred to Clause (a) to (w) of Order 43, Rule 1 and also such other orders which poses the characteristic and trapping of finality and may adversely affect a valuable right of a party or decide an important aspect of a trial in an ancillary proceeding. Amended Section 100-A of the Code clearly stipulates that where any appeal from an original or appellate decree or order is heard and decided by a Single Judge of a High Court, no further appeal shall lie. Even otherwise, the word judgment as defined under Section 2(9) means a statement given by a Judge on the grounds of a decree or order. Thus the contention that against an order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal filed under Section 104 C.P.C., a further appeal lies to a Division Bench cannot be accepted. The newly incorporated Section 100A in clear and specific terms prohibits further appeal against the decree and judgment or order of a Single Judge to a Division Bench notwithstanding anything contained in the Letters Patent. The Letters Patent which provides for further appeal to a Division Bench remains intact, but the right to prefer a further appeal is taken away even in respect of the matters arising under the special enactments or other instruments having the force of law be it against original/appellate decree or order heard and decided by a Single Judge. It has to be kept in mind that the special statute only provide for an Appeal to the High Court. It has not made any provision for filing appeal to a Division Bench against the judgment or decree or order of a Single Judge. No Letters Patent Appeal shall lie against a judgment/order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal arising out of a proceeding under a Special Act.

Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002] & 104:[Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Writ Appeal  Held, A Writ Appeal shall lie against judgment/orders passed by Single Judge in a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In a writ application filed under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution, if any order/judgment/decree is passed in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226, a writ appeal will lie. But, no writ appeal will lie against a judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge in exercising powers of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution. 
 -  The miscreants also made attempts to make their entry into the house by breaking open a window but failed inasmuch as a folded table was kept against the broken open place of the window and there was pelting of glasses at the miscreants by the inmates of the house who did so in spite of pelting of stones and throwing of arrows by the miscreants into the house. 5, 12 and 14 as the culprits both in the test identification parade as well as in court; 5 and 14 both in the test identification parade as well as in court; 7 and 12 both in test identification parade as well as in court and the fourth petitioner Gopal had been identified only by P. 14 as one of the culprits both in test identification parade as well as in court. 5 and also with the aid of flashing of torch lights by the petitioner and their companions hither and thither and as such they could identify them both in the test identification parade as well as in court, their evidence should not have been believed by the courts below because neither electric bulb nor any torch light of the petitioners has been seized, by the Investigating Officer at the time of investigation. This contention relates to appreciation of evidence of the identifying witnesses and since appreciation of evidence is normally not permissible in revision like the one in hand, I refrain myself to evaluate such contention particularly when perversity in appreciation of evidence by the courts below is not brought to my notice. As such, the contention must fail. Dhal for the petitioners that the other inmates of the house having not identified the petitioner Gopal as one of the culprits, it would not be safe to rely only on the evidence of P. 14 was thoroughly reliable and they have accordingly acted upon his evidence it is not considered necessary to disturb their finding particularly when their mode of appreciation of evidence is not shown to be perverse. 6. No other contention having been raised on behalf of the petitioners and the aforesaid contentions having failed, I hold that the revision is without merit and accordingly the same is dismissed.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => 'Tilkeshwar Singh v. The State of Bihar;',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => 'D.P. Dhal, ;P.K. Dhal and ;P.K. Panda, Advs.',
			'counseldef' => 'J. Mahanty, Standing Counsel',
			'court' => 'Orissa',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '1991-09-25',
			'deposition' => 'Petition dismissed',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'B.N. Dash, J.',
			'judgement' => 'ORDER<p style="text-align: justify;">B.N. Dash, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. The prosecution case, shortly stated, is that on 9/10-2-1984 at about midnight time while the informant Susil Kumar Dandpat was sleeping in the outer varandah of their house in village Machilapada under Badasahi Police station, District Meyurbhanj and the other inmates of the house including Sirish Chandra Dandpat (P.W. 1) and Sunilkumar Dandpat (P.W. 14) were sleeping inside the house bolting the entrance door from inside, there was barking of dogs for which P.W. 5 woke up and found that there was flashing of torch lights at some distance. After proceeding for some times when P.W. 5 asked in a raised voice as to who were focussing the torch lights, some people rushed at him and at their sight he ran towards his house shouting on the way to open the entrance door. Before the miscreants could approach him, the entrance door was opened and he entered into the house and bolted the door from inside. The miscreants dashed against the entrance door, but the same did not open inasmuch as the inmates of the house kept pressed the door leaves from inside. The miscreants also made attempts to make their entry into the house by breaking open a window but failed inasmuch as a folded table was kept against the broken open place of the window and there was pelting of glasses at the miscreants by the inmates of the house who did so in spite of pelting of stones and throwing of arrows by the miscreants into the house. On hearing the shouts raised by the inmates of the house, when villagers assembled near the spot, the culprits finding themselves to have been outnumbered took to their heels. Before their departure, they could injure the villagers Pratap Chandra Dandpat (P.W.3), Sadasiv Sahu (P.W.4) and Ajay Kumar Dandpat (P.W.12). After departure of the miscreants, F.I.R. (Ext. 2) was lodged at the Police station in the same night at 3 a.m. and investigation commenced. In course of investigation, stones and arrows thrown by the culprits were seized from the house in question and a test identification parade was conducted in which all the six petitioners were identified as the culprits who attempted to have committed dacoity in the house of P.W. 5. Ultimately, the present petitioners along with one Gagan Bhakta, (since acquitted) were tried for the offence Under Section 397, IPC.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. At the trial, the prosecution examined 15 witnesses of whom P.W. 1, P.W. 5 and P.W. 14 were the inmates of the house; P.W. 2 Radha Mohan Naik and P.W. 6 Bhagaban Sahu were the witnesses to the seizure of the articles from the house in question. P.W. 4 Sadasiv Sahu, P.W. 7 Ashok Kumar Dandpat and P.W. 12 Ajay Kumar Dandpat were the villagers who along with others saw the culprits and foiled their attempt to committing dacoity; P.W. 8 and 9 are the Medical Officers who examined the injured persons (P.Ws. 3, 4 and 12) and also the first petitioner Karmu Bhakta and found injuries on their persons; P.W. 10 is another Medical Officer who extracted an arrow from the person of P.W. 4 and handed over the same to the Investigating Officer; P.W. 13 is the Magistrate who conducted the test identification parade and P.Ws. 11 and 13 are the Police Officers who took some part or the other in the investigation of the case.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The trial court found that the first petitioner Karmu, the third petitioner Sarthak and the fifth petitioner Raju Katual had been duly identified by P.Ws. 5, 12 and 14 as the culprits both in the test identification parade as well as in court; the second petitioner Chandra had been duly identified as one of the culprits by P.Ws. 5 and 14 both in the test identification parade as well as in court; the sixth petitioner Jatindra had been duly identified as one of the culprits by P.Ws. 7 and 12 both in test identification parade as well as in court and the fourth petitioner Gopal had been identified only by P.W. 14 as one of the culprits both in test identification parade as well as in court. So, relying on the evidence of P.Ws. 5, 7, 12 and 14, the trial court convicted the six petitioners Under Section 397, IPC and sentenced each of them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years, while acquitting the accused Gagan Bhakta. In appeal, the learned Sessions Judge, Mayurbhanj, Baripada converted the conviction Under Section 397, IPC to one Under Section 395, IPC. and reduced the sentence to five years rigorous imprisonment in respect of each of the petitioners. Being aggrieved by such judgment and order, the present revision has been filed.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. The concurrent finding of fact that there was an attempt to commit dacoity in the house of P.W. 5 in the night in question is not assailed before me by Mr. P. K. Dhal, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners. It is, however, contended by him that the identifying witnesses having asserted that they had seen the petitioners with the help of electric light burning in the house of P.W. 5 and also with the aid of flashing of torch lights by the petitioner and their companions hither and thither and as such they could identify them both in the test identification parade as well as in court, their evidence should not have been believed by the courts below because neither electric bulb nor any torch light of the petitioners has been seized, by the Investigating Officer at the time of investigation. This contention relates to appreciation of evidence of the identifying witnesses and since appreciation of evidence is normally not permissible in revision like the one in hand, I refrain myself to evaluate such contention particularly when perversity in appreciation of evidence by the courts below is not brought to my notice. As such, the contention is rejected as unsubstantial.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. It is then contended by Mr. Dhal for the petitioners that P.W. 14 having not been examined at the time of investigation, his evidence in court identifying the petitioner Gopal as one of the culprits is inadmissible in evidence and if such evidence is left out of consideration then his evidence of identification in the test identification parade, being not substantive evidence, could not be relied upon for convicting Gopal. There is no pleading in the revision-petition that P.W. 14 had not been examined at the time of investigation. My attention is sought to be invited to the evidence of P.W. 14 himself in support of such factual position, but I am afraid if a court of revision can go through such evidence in the absence of any pleading. Even assuming for the sake of argument that P.W. 14 was not examined at the time of investigation, his evidence cannot be said to be inadmissible in the absence of any provision to that effect in Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 or in the Evidence Act. All that that can be said is that when a witness examined in court whose statement Under Section 161, Cr. P.C. had not been recorded at the time of investigation, the evidentiary value to be attached to the evidence of such witness has to be looked into and if it would be found that prejudice had been caused to the accused then the evidence of such witness may not be acted upon, otherwise not. I am supported in my view by a decision in Tilkeshwar Singh v. The State of Bihar, AIR 1956 SC 238 : (1956 Cri LJ 441). In this case, P.W. 14 had been cited as a witness in the charge-sheet and he was examined in court and both the courts below have relied on his evidence obviously for the reason that no prejudice had been caused to the petitioners: As such, the contention must fail.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. It is then contended by Mr. Dhal for the petitioners that the other inmates of the house having not identified the petitioner Gopal as one of the culprits, it would not be safe to rely only on the evidence of P.W. 14 to sustain his conviction. This argument would have carried some force if there would have been evidence to show that all inmates of the house had occasion to see all the petitioners, but no such evidence is brought to my notice. It is not unlikely that when the inmates of the house were seeing the culprits from different angles, the petitioner Gopal seen by P.W. 14 might not have been seen by the other inmates of the house. When both the courts below have found that the evidence of P.W. 14 was thoroughly reliable and they have accordingly acted upon his evidence it is not considered necessary to disturb their finding particularly when their mode of appreciation of evidence is not shown to be perverse.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. No other contention having been raised on behalf of the petitioners and the aforesaid contentions having failed, I hold that the revision is without merit and accordingly the same is dismissed.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '73(1992)CLT253; 1992CriLJ2154',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'State',
			'sub' => 'Criminal',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'karmu-bhakta-ors-vs-state',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '536492',
		(int) 1 => 'karmu-bhakta-ors-vs-state'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Karmu Bhakta and ors Vs State - Citation 536492 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '536492',
		'acts' => 'Evidence Act; <a href="/act/50902/code-of-criminal-procedure-1973-complete-act">Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1973</a> - Sections 161; Indian Penal Code (IPC) - Sections 395 and 397',
		'appealno' => 'Criminal Revision No. 200 of 1988',
		'appellant' => 'Karmu Bhakta and ors.',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Karmu Bhakta and ors. Vs. State',
		'casenote' => ' - Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002], 110 & 104 & Letters Patent, 1865, Clause 10: [Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Letters Patent  Appeal  Order of Single Judge of High Court passed while deciding matters filed under Order 43, Rule1 of C.P.C., -  Held, After introduction of Section 110A in the C.P.C., by 2002 Amendment Act, no Letters Patent Appeal is maintainable against judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge of a High Court. A right of appeal, even though a vested one, can be taken away by law. It is pertinent to note that Section 100-A introduced by 2002 Amendment of the Code starts with a non obstante clause. The purpose of such clause is to give the enacting part of an overriding effect in the case of a conflict with laws mentioned with the non obstante clause. The legislative intention is thus very clear that the law enacted shall have full operation and there would be no impediment. It is well settled that the definition of judgment in Section 2(9) of C.P.C., is much wider and more liberal, Intermediary or interlocutory judgment fall in the category of orders referred to Clause (a) to (w) of Order 43, Rule 1 and also such other orders which poses the characteristic and trapping of finality and may adversely affect a valuable right of a party or decide an important aspect of a trial in an ancillary proceeding. Amended Section 100-A of the Code clearly stipulates that where any appeal from an original or appellate decree or order is heard and decided by a Single Judge of a High Court, no further appeal shall lie. Even otherwise, the word judgment as defined under Section 2(9) means a statement given by a Judge on the grounds of a decree or order. Thus the contention that against an order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal filed under Section 104 C.P.C., a further appeal lies to a Division Bench cannot be accepted. The newly incorporated Section 100A in clear and specific terms prohibits further appeal against the decree and judgment or order of a Single Judge to a Division Bench notwithstanding anything contained in the Letters Patent. The Letters Patent which provides for further appeal to a Division Bench remains intact, but the right to prefer a further appeal is taken away even in respect of the matters arising under the special enactments or other instruments having the force of law be it against original/appellate decree or order heard and decided by a Single Judge. It has to be kept in mind that the special statute only provide for an Appeal to the High Court. It has not made any provision for filing appeal to a Division Bench against the judgment or decree or order of a Single Judge. No Letters Patent Appeal shall lie against a judgment/order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal arising out of a proceeding under a Special Act.

Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002] & 104:[Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Writ Appeal  Held, A Writ Appeal shall lie against judgment/orders passed by Single Judge in a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In a writ application filed under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution, if any order/judgment/decree is passed in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226, a writ appeal will lie. But, no writ appeal will lie against a judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge in exercising powers of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution. 
 -  The miscreants also made attempts to make their entry into the house by breaking open a window but failed inasmuch as a folded table was kept against the broken open place of the window and there was pelting of glasses at the miscreants by the inmates of the house who did so in spite of pelting of stones and throwing of arrows by the miscreants into the house. 5, 12 and 14 as the culprits both in the test identification parade as well as in court; 5 and 14 both in the test identification parade as well as in court; 7 and 12 both in test identification parade as well as in court and the fourth petitioner Gopal had been identified only by P. 14 as one of the culprits both in test identification parade as well as in court. 5 and also with the aid of flashing of torch lights by the petitioner and their companions hither and thither and as such they could identify them both in the test identification parade as well as in court, their evidence should not have been believed by the courts below because neither electric bulb nor any torch light of the petitioners has been seized, by the Investigating Officer at the time of investigation. This contention relates to appreciation of evidence of the identifying witnesses and since appreciation of evidence is normally not permissible in revision like the one in hand, I refrain myself to evaluate such contention particularly when perversity in appreciation of evidence by the courts below is not brought to my notice. As such, the contention must fail. Dhal for the petitioners that the other inmates of the house having not identified the petitioner Gopal as one of the culprits, it would not be safe to rely only on the evidence of P. 14 was thoroughly reliable and they have accordingly acted upon his evidence it is not considered necessary to disturb their finding particularly when their mode of appreciation of evidence is not shown to be perverse. 6. No other contention having been raised on behalf of the petitioners and the aforesaid contentions having failed, I hold that the revision is without merit and accordingly the same is dismissed.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => 'Tilkeshwar Singh v. The State of Bihar;',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => 'D.P. Dhal, ;P.K. Dhal and ;P.K. Panda, Advs.',
		'counseldef' => 'J. Mahanty, Standing Counsel',
		'court' => 'Orissa',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '1991-09-25',
		'deposition' => 'Petition dismissed',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'B.N. Dash, J.',
		'judgement' => 'ORDER<p>B.N. Dash, J.</p><p>1. The prosecution case, shortly stated, is that on 9/10-2-1984 at about midnight time while the informant Susil Kumar Dandpat was sleeping in the outer varandah of their house in village Machilapada under Badasahi Police station, District Meyurbhanj and the other inmates of the house including Sirish Chandra Dandpat (P.W. 1) and Sunilkumar Dandpat (P.W. 14) were sleeping inside the house bolting the entrance door from inside, there was barking of dogs for which P.W. 5 woke up and found that there was flashing of torch lights at some distance. After proceeding for some times when P.W. 5 asked in a raised voice as to who were focussing the torch lights, some people rushed at him and at their sight he ran towards his house shouting on the way to open the entrance door. Before the miscreants could approach him, the entrance door was opened and he entered into the house and bolted the door from inside. The miscreants dashed against the entrance door, but the same did not open inasmuch as the inmates of the house kept pressed the door leaves from inside. The miscreants also made attempts to make their entry into the house by breaking open a window but failed inasmuch as a folded table was kept against the broken open place of the window and there was pelting of glasses at the miscreants by the inmates of the house who did so in spite of pelting of stones and throwing of arrows by the miscreants into the house. On hearing the shouts raised by the inmates of the house, when villagers assembled near the spot, the culprits finding themselves to have been outnumbered took to their heels. Before their departure, they could injure the villagers Pratap Chandra Dandpat (P.W.3), Sadasiv Sahu (P.W.4) and Ajay Kumar Dandpat (P.W.12). After departure of the miscreants, F.I.R. (Ext. 2) was lodged at the Police station in the same night at 3 a.m. and investigation commenced. In course of investigation, stones and arrows thrown by the culprits were seized from the house in question and a test identification parade was conducted in which all the six petitioners were identified as the culprits who attempted to have committed dacoity in the house of P.W. 5. Ultimately, the present petitioners along with one Gagan Bhakta, (since acquitted) were tried for the offence Under Section 397, IPC.</p><p>2. At the trial, the prosecution examined 15 witnesses of whom P.W. 1, P.W. 5 and P.W. 14 were the inmates of the house; P.W. 2 Radha Mohan Naik and P.W. 6 Bhagaban Sahu were the witnesses to the seizure of the articles from the house in question. P.W. 4 Sadasiv Sahu, P.W. 7 Ashok Kumar Dandpat and P.W. 12 Ajay Kumar Dandpat were the villagers who along with others saw the culprits and foiled their attempt to committing dacoity; P.W. 8 and 9 are the Medical Officers who examined the injured persons (P.Ws. 3, 4 and 12) and also the first petitioner Karmu Bhakta and found injuries on their persons; P.W. 10 is another Medical Officer who extracted an arrow from the person of P.W. 4 and handed over the same to the Investigating Officer; P.W. 13 is the Magistrate who conducted the test identification parade and P.Ws. 11 and 13 are the Police Officers who took some part or the other in the investigation of the case.</p><p>The trial court found that the first petitioner Karmu, the third petitioner Sarthak and the fifth petitioner Raju Katual had been duly identified by P.Ws. 5, 12 and 14 as the culprits both in the test identification parade as well as in court; the second petitioner Chandra had been duly identified as one of the culprits by P.Ws. 5 and 14 both in the test identification parade as well as in court; the sixth petitioner Jatindra had been duly identified as one of the culprits by P.Ws. 7 and 12 both in test identification parade as well as in court and the fourth petitioner Gopal had been identified only by P.W. 14 as one of the culprits both in test identification parade as well as in court. So, relying on the evidence of P.Ws. 5, 7, 12 and 14, the trial court convicted the six petitioners Under Section 397, IPC and sentenced each of them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years, while acquitting the accused Gagan Bhakta. In appeal, the learned Sessions Judge, Mayurbhanj, Baripada converted the conviction Under Section 397, IPC to one Under Section 395, IPC. and reduced the sentence to five years rigorous imprisonment in respect of each of the petitioners. Being aggrieved by such judgment and order, the present revision has been filed.</p><p>3. The concurrent finding of fact that there was an attempt to commit dacoity in the house of P.W. 5 in the night in question is not assailed before me by Mr. P. K. Dhal, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners. It is, however, contended by him that the identifying witnesses having asserted that they had seen the petitioners with the help of electric light burning in the house of P.W. 5 and also with the aid of flashing of torch lights by the petitioner and their companions hither and thither and as such they could identify them both in the test identification parade as well as in court, their evidence should not have been believed by the courts below because neither electric bulb nor any torch light of the petitioners has been seized, by the Investigating Officer at the time of investigation. This contention relates to appreciation of evidence of the identifying witnesses and since appreciation of evidence is normally not permissible in revision like the one in hand, I refrain myself to evaluate such contention particularly when perversity in appreciation of evidence by the courts below is not brought to my notice. As such, the contention is rejected as unsubstantial.</p><p>4. It is then contended by Mr. Dhal for the petitioners that P.W. 14 having not been examined at the time of investigation, his evidence in court identifying the petitioner Gopal as one of the culprits is inadmissible in evidence and if such evidence is left out of consideration then his evidence of identification in the test identification parade, being not substantive evidence, could not be relied upon for convicting Gopal. There is no pleading in the revision-petition that P.W. 14 had not been examined at the time of investigation. My attention is sought to be invited to the evidence of P.W. 14 himself in support of such factual position, but I am afraid if a court of revision can go through such evidence in the absence of any pleading. Even assuming for the sake of argument that P.W. 14 was not examined at the time of investigation, his evidence cannot be said to be inadmissible in the absence of any provision to that effect in Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 or in the Evidence Act. All that that can be said is that when a witness examined in court whose statement Under Section 161, Cr. P.C. had not been recorded at the time of investigation, the evidentiary value to be attached to the evidence of such witness has to be looked into and if it would be found that prejudice had been caused to the accused then the evidence of such witness may not be acted upon, otherwise not. I am supported in my view by a decision in Tilkeshwar Singh v. The State of Bihar, AIR 1956 SC 238 : (1956 Cri LJ 441). In this case, P.W. 14 had been cited as a witness in the charge-sheet and he was examined in court and both the courts below have relied on his evidence obviously for the reason that no prejudice had been caused to the petitioners: As such, the contention must fail.</p><p>5. It is then contended by Mr. Dhal for the petitioners that the other inmates of the house having not identified the petitioner Gopal as one of the culprits, it would not be safe to rely only on the evidence of P.W. 14 to sustain his conviction. This argument would have carried some force if there would have been evidence to show that all inmates of the house had occasion to see all the petitioners, but no such evidence is brought to my notice. It is not unlikely that when the inmates of the house were seeing the culprits from different angles, the petitioner Gopal seen by P.W. 14 might not have been seen by the other inmates of the house. When both the courts below have found that the evidence of P.W. 14 was thoroughly reliable and they have accordingly acted upon his evidence it is not considered necessary to disturb their finding particularly when their mode of appreciation of evidence is not shown to be perverse.</p><p>6. No other contention having been raised on behalf of the petitioners and the aforesaid contentions having failed, I hold that the revision is without merit and accordingly the same is dismissed.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '73(1992)CLT253; 1992CriLJ2154',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'State',
		'sub' => 'Criminal',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'karmu-bhakta-ors-vs-state'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '536492',
	(int) 1 => 'karmu-bhakta-ors-vs-state'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/536492/karmu-bhakta-ors-vs-state'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$caseref = 'Tilkeshwar Singh v. The State of Bihar<br>'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => 'ORDER<p>B.N. Dash, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. The prosecution case, shortly stated, is that on 9/10-2-1984 at about midnight time while the informant Susil Kumar Dandpat was sleeping in the outer varandah of their house in village Machilapada under Badasahi Police station, District Meyurbhanj and the other inmates of the house including Sirish Chandra Dandpat (P.W. 1) and Sunilkumar Dandpat (P.W. 14) were sleeping inside the house bolting the entrance door from inside, there was barking of dogs for which P.W. 5 woke up and found that there was flashing of torch lights at some distance. After proceeding for some times when P.W. 5 asked in a raised voice as to who were focussing the torch lights, some people rushed at him and at their sight he ran towards his house shouting on the way to open the entrance door. Before the miscreants could approach him, the entrance door was opened and he entered into the house and bolted the door from inside. The miscreants dashed against the entrance door, but the same did not open inasmuch as the inmates of the house kept pressed the door leaves from inside. The miscreants also made attempts to make their entry into the house by breaking open a window but failed inasmuch as a folded table was kept against the broken open place of the window and there was pelting of glasses at the miscreants by the inmates of the house who did so in spite of pelting of stones and throwing of arrows by the miscreants into the house. On hearing the shouts raised by the inmates of the house, when villagers assembled near the spot, the culprits finding themselves to have been outnumbered took to their heels. Before their departure, they could injure the villagers Pratap Chandra Dandpat (P.W.3), Sadasiv Sahu (P.W.4) and Ajay Kumar Dandpat (P.W.12). After departure of the miscreants, F.I.R. (Ext. 2) was lodged at the Police station in the same night at 3 a.m. and investigation commenced. In course of investigation, stones and arrows thrown by the culprits were seized from the house in question and a test identification parade was conducted in which all the six petitioners were identified as the culprits who attempted to have committed dacoity in the house of P.W. 5. Ultimately, the present petitioners along with one Gagan Bhakta, (since acquitted) were tried for the offence Under Section 397, IPC.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. At the trial, the prosecution examined 15 witnesses of whom P.W. 1, P.W. 5 and P.W. 14 were the inmates of the house; P.W. 2 Radha Mohan Naik and P.W. 6 Bhagaban Sahu were the witnesses to the seizure of the articles from the house in question. P.W. 4 Sadasiv Sahu, P.W. 7 Ashok Kumar Dandpat and P.W. 12 Ajay Kumar Dandpat were the villagers who along with others saw the culprits and foiled their attempt to committing dacoity; P.W. 8 and 9 are the Medical Officers who examined the injured persons (P.Ws. 3, 4 and 12) and also the first petitioner Karmu Bhakta and found injuries on their persons; P.W. 10 is another Medical Officer who extracted an arrow from the person of P.W. 4 and handed over the same to the Investigating Officer; P.W. 13 is the Magistrate who conducted the test identification parade and P.Ws. 11 and 13 are the Police Officers who took some part or the other in the investigation of the case.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>The trial court found that the first petitioner Karmu, the third petitioner Sarthak and the fifth petitioner Raju Katual had been duly identified by P.Ws. 5, 12 and 14 as the culprits both in the test identification parade as well as in court; the second petitioner Chandra had been duly identified as one of the culprits by P.Ws. 5 and 14 both in the test identification parade as well as in court; the sixth petitioner Jatindra had been duly identified as one of the culprits by P.Ws. 7 and 12 both in test identification parade as well as in court and the fourth petitioner Gopal had been identified only by P.W. 14 as one of the culprits both in test identification parade as well as in court. So, relying on the evidence of P.Ws. 5, 7, 12 and 14, the trial court convicted the six petitioners Under Section 397, IPC and sentenced each of them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years, while acquitting the accused Gagan Bhakta. In appeal, the learned Sessions Judge, Mayurbhanj, Baripada converted the conviction Under Section 397, IPC to one Under Section 395, IPC. and reduced the sentence to five years rigorous imprisonment in respect of each of the petitioners. Being aggrieved by such judgment and order, the present revision has been filed.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>3. The concurrent finding of fact that there was an attempt to commit dacoity in the house of P.W. 5 in the night in question is not assailed before me by Mr. P. K. Dhal, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners. It is, however, contended by him that the identifying witnesses having asserted that they had seen the petitioners with the help of electric light burning in the house of P.W. 5 and also with the aid of flashing of torch lights by the petitioner and their companions hither and thither and as such they could identify them both in the test identification parade as well as in court, their evidence should not have been believed by the courts below because neither electric bulb nor any torch light of the petitioners has been seized, by the Investigating Officer at the time of investigation. This contention relates to appreciation of evidence of the identifying witnesses and since appreciation of evidence is normally not permissible in revision like the one in hand, I refrain myself to evaluate such contention particularly when perversity in appreciation of evidence by the courts below is not brought to my notice. As such, the contention is rejected as unsubstantial.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>4. It is then contended by Mr. Dhal for the petitioners that P.W. 14 having not been examined at the time of investigation, his evidence in court identifying the petitioner Gopal as one of the culprits is inadmissible in evidence and if such evidence is left out of consideration then his evidence of identification in the test identification parade, being not substantive evidence, could not be relied upon for convicting Gopal. There is no pleading in the revision-petition that P.W. 14 had not been examined at the time of investigation. My attention is sought to be invited to the evidence of P.W. 14 himself in support of such factual position, but I am afraid if a court of revision can go through such evidence in the absence of any pleading. Even assuming for the sake of argument that P.W. 14 was not examined at the time of investigation, his evidence cannot be said to be inadmissible in the absence of any provision to that effect in Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 or in the Evidence Act. All that that can be said is that when a witness examined in court whose statement Under Section 161, Cr. P.C. had not been recorded at the time of investigation, the evidentiary value to be attached to the evidence of such witness has to be looked into and if it would be found that prejudice had been caused to the accused then the evidence of such witness may not be acted upon, otherwise not. I am supported in my view by a decision in Tilkeshwar Singh v. The State of Bihar, AIR 1956 SC 238 : (1956 Cri LJ 441). In this case, P.W. 14 had been cited as a witness in the charge-sheet and he was examined in court and both the courts below have relied on his evidence obviously for the reason that no prejudice had been caused to the petitioners: As such, the contention must fail.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>5. It is then contended by Mr. Dhal for the petitioners that the other inmates of the house having not identified the petitioner Gopal as one of the culprits, it would not be safe to rely only on the evidence of P.W. 14 to sustain his conviction. This argument would have carried some force if there would have been evidence to show that all inmates of the house had occasion to see all the petitioners, but no such evidence is brought to my notice. It is not unlikely that when the inmates of the house were seeing the culprits from different angles, the petitioner Gopal seen by P.W. 14 might not have been seen by the other inmates of the house. When both the courts below have found that the evidence of P.W. 14 was thoroughly reliable and they have accordingly acted upon his evidence it is not considered necessary to disturb their finding particularly when their mode of appreciation of evidence is not shown to be perverse.',
	(int) 7 => '<p>6. No other contention having been raised on behalf of the petitioners and the aforesaid contentions having failed, I hold that the revision is without merit and accordingly the same is dismissed.<p>',
	(int) 8 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 9
$i = (int) 4
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

3. The concurrent finding of fact that there was an attempt to commit dacoity in the house of P.W. 5 in the night in question is not assailed before me by Mr. P. K. Dhal, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners. It is, however, contended by him that the identifying witnesses having asserted that they had seen the petitioners with the help of electric light burning in the house of P.W. 5 and also with the aid of flashing of torch lights by the petitioner and their companions hither and thither and as such they could identify them both in the test identification parade as well as in court, their evidence should not have been believed by the courts below because neither electric bulb nor any torch light of the petitioners has been seized, by the Investigating Officer at the time of investigation. This contention relates to appreciation of evidence of the identifying witnesses and since appreciation of evidence is normally not permissible in revision like the one in hand, I refrain myself to evaluate such contention particularly when perversity in appreciation of evidence by the courts below is not brought to my notice. As such, the contention is rejected as unsubstantial.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Karmu Bhakta and ors Vs State - Citation 536492 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '536492',
			'acts' => 'Evidence Act; <a href="/act/50902/code-of-criminal-procedure-1973-complete-act">Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1973</a> - Sections 161; Indian Penal Code (IPC) - Sections 395 and 397',
			'appealno' => 'Criminal Revision No. 200 of 1988',
			'appellant' => 'Karmu Bhakta and ors.',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Karmu Bhakta and ors. Vs. State',
			'casenote' => ' - Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002], 110 & 104 & Letters Patent, 1865, Clause 10: [Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Letters Patent  Appeal  Order of Single Judge of High Court passed while deciding matters filed under Order 43, Rule1 of C.P.C., -  Held, After introduction of Section 110A in the C.P.C., by 2002 Amendment Act, no Letters Patent Appeal is maintainable against judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge of a High Court. A right of appeal, even though a vested one, can be taken away by law. It is pertinent to note that Section 100-A introduced by 2002 Amendment of the Code starts with a non obstante clause. The purpose of such clause is to give the enacting part of an overriding effect in the case of a conflict with laws mentioned with the non obstante clause. The legislative intention is thus very clear that the law enacted shall have full operation and there would be no impediment. It is well settled that the definition of judgment in Section 2(9) of C.P.C., is much wider and more liberal, Intermediary or interlocutory judgment fall in the category of orders referred to Clause (a) to (w) of Order 43, Rule 1 and also such other orders which poses the characteristic and trapping of finality and may adversely affect a valuable right of a party or decide an important aspect of a trial in an ancillary proceeding. Amended Section 100-A of the Code clearly stipulates that where any appeal from an original or appellate decree or order is heard and decided by a Single Judge of a High Court, no further appeal shall lie. Even otherwise, the word judgment as defined under Section 2(9) means a statement given by a Judge on the grounds of a decree or order. Thus the contention that against an order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal filed under Section 104 C.P.C., a further appeal lies to a Division Bench cannot be accepted. The newly incorporated Section 100A in clear and specific terms prohibits further appeal against the decree and judgment or order of a Single Judge to a Division Bench notwithstanding anything contained in the Letters Patent. The Letters Patent which provides for further appeal to a Division Bench remains intact, but the right to prefer a further appeal is taken away even in respect of the matters arising under the special enactments or other instruments having the force of law be it against original/appellate decree or order heard and decided by a Single Judge. It has to be kept in mind that the special statute only provide for an Appeal to the High Court. It has not made any provision for filing appeal to a Division Bench against the judgment or decree or order of a Single Judge. No Letters Patent Appeal shall lie against a judgment/order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal arising out of a proceeding under a Special Act.

Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002] & 104:[Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Writ Appeal  Held, A Writ Appeal shall lie against judgment/orders passed by Single Judge in a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In a writ application filed under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution, if any order/judgment/decree is passed in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226, a writ appeal will lie. But, no writ appeal will lie against a judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge in exercising powers of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution. 
 -  The miscreants also made attempts to make their entry into the house by breaking open a window but failed inasmuch as a folded table was kept against the broken open place of the window and there was pelting of glasses at the miscreants by the inmates of the house who did so in spite of pelting of stones and throwing of arrows by the miscreants into the house. 5, 12 and 14 as the culprits both in the test identification parade as well as in court; 5 and 14 both in the test identification parade as well as in court; 7 and 12 both in test identification parade as well as in court and the fourth petitioner Gopal had been identified only by P. 14 as one of the culprits both in test identification parade as well as in court. 5 and also with the aid of flashing of torch lights by the petitioner and their companions hither and thither and as such they could identify them both in the test identification parade as well as in court, their evidence should not have been believed by the courts below because neither electric bulb nor any torch light of the petitioners has been seized, by the Investigating Officer at the time of investigation. This contention relates to appreciation of evidence of the identifying witnesses and since appreciation of evidence is normally not permissible in revision like the one in hand, I refrain myself to evaluate such contention particularly when perversity in appreciation of evidence by the courts below is not brought to my notice. As such, the contention must fail. Dhal for the petitioners that the other inmates of the house having not identified the petitioner Gopal as one of the culprits, it would not be safe to rely only on the evidence of P. 14 was thoroughly reliable and they have accordingly acted upon his evidence it is not considered necessary to disturb their finding particularly when their mode of appreciation of evidence is not shown to be perverse. 6. No other contention having been raised on behalf of the petitioners and the aforesaid contentions having failed, I hold that the revision is without merit and accordingly the same is dismissed.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => 'Tilkeshwar Singh v. The State of Bihar;',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => 'D.P. Dhal, ;P.K. Dhal and ;P.K. Panda, Advs.',
			'counseldef' => 'J. Mahanty, Standing Counsel',
			'court' => 'Orissa',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '1991-09-25',
			'deposition' => 'Petition dismissed',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'B.N. Dash, J.',
			'judgement' => 'ORDER<p style="text-align: justify;">B.N. Dash, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. The prosecution case, shortly stated, is that on 9/10-2-1984 at about midnight time while the informant Susil Kumar Dandpat was sleeping in the outer varandah of their house in village Machilapada under Badasahi Police station, District Meyurbhanj and the other inmates of the house including Sirish Chandra Dandpat (P.W. 1) and Sunilkumar Dandpat (P.W. 14) were sleeping inside the house bolting the entrance door from inside, there was barking of dogs for which P.W. 5 woke up and found that there was flashing of torch lights at some distance. After proceeding for some times when P.W. 5 asked in a raised voice as to who were focussing the torch lights, some people rushed at him and at their sight he ran towards his house shouting on the way to open the entrance door. Before the miscreants could approach him, the entrance door was opened and he entered into the house and bolted the door from inside. The miscreants dashed against the entrance door, but the same did not open inasmuch as the inmates of the house kept pressed the door leaves from inside. The miscreants also made attempts to make their entry into the house by breaking open a window but failed inasmuch as a folded table was kept against the broken open place of the window and there was pelting of glasses at the miscreants by the inmates of the house who did so in spite of pelting of stones and throwing of arrows by the miscreants into the house. On hearing the shouts raised by the inmates of the house, when villagers assembled near the spot, the culprits finding themselves to have been outnumbered took to their heels. Before their departure, they could injure the villagers Pratap Chandra Dandpat (P.W.3), Sadasiv Sahu (P.W.4) and Ajay Kumar Dandpat (P.W.12). After departure of the miscreants, F.I.R. (Ext. 2) was lodged at the Police station in the same night at 3 a.m. and investigation commenced. In course of investigation, stones and arrows thrown by the culprits were seized from the house in question and a test identification parade was conducted in which all the six petitioners were identified as the culprits who attempted to have committed dacoity in the house of P.W. 5. Ultimately, the present petitioners along with one Gagan Bhakta, (since acquitted) were tried for the offence Under Section 397, IPC.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. At the trial, the prosecution examined 15 witnesses of whom P.W. 1, P.W. 5 and P.W. 14 were the inmates of the house; P.W. 2 Radha Mohan Naik and P.W. 6 Bhagaban Sahu were the witnesses to the seizure of the articles from the house in question. P.W. 4 Sadasiv Sahu, P.W. 7 Ashok Kumar Dandpat and P.W. 12 Ajay Kumar Dandpat were the villagers who along with others saw the culprits and foiled their attempt to committing dacoity; P.W. 8 and 9 are the Medical Officers who examined the injured persons (P.Ws. 3, 4 and 12) and also the first petitioner Karmu Bhakta and found injuries on their persons; P.W. 10 is another Medical Officer who extracted an arrow from the person of P.W. 4 and handed over the same to the Investigating Officer; P.W. 13 is the Magistrate who conducted the test identification parade and P.Ws. 11 and 13 are the Police Officers who took some part or the other in the investigation of the case.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The trial court found that the first petitioner Karmu, the third petitioner Sarthak and the fifth petitioner Raju Katual had been duly identified by P.Ws. 5, 12 and 14 as the culprits both in the test identification parade as well as in court; the second petitioner Chandra had been duly identified as one of the culprits by P.Ws. 5 and 14 both in the test identification parade as well as in court; the sixth petitioner Jatindra had been duly identified as one of the culprits by P.Ws. 7 and 12 both in test identification parade as well as in court and the fourth petitioner Gopal had been identified only by P.W. 14 as one of the culprits both in test identification parade as well as in court. So, relying on the evidence of P.Ws. 5, 7, 12 and 14, the trial court convicted the six petitioners Under Section 397, IPC and sentenced each of them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years, while acquitting the accused Gagan Bhakta. In appeal, the learned Sessions Judge, Mayurbhanj, Baripada converted the conviction Under Section 397, IPC to one Under Section 395, IPC. and reduced the sentence to five years rigorous imprisonment in respect of each of the petitioners. Being aggrieved by such judgment and order, the present revision has been filed.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. The concurrent finding of fact that there was an attempt to commit dacoity in the house of P.W. 5 in the night in question is not assailed before me by Mr. P. K. Dhal, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners. It is, however, contended by him that the identifying witnesses having asserted that they had seen the petitioners with the help of electric light burning in the house of P.W. 5 and also with the aid of flashing of torch lights by the petitioner and their companions hither and thither and as such they could identify them both in the test identification parade as well as in court, their evidence should not have been believed by the courts below because neither electric bulb nor any torch light of the petitioners has been seized, by the Investigating Officer at the time of investigation. This contention relates to appreciation of evidence of the identifying witnesses and since appreciation of evidence is normally not permissible in revision like the one in hand, I refrain myself to evaluate such contention particularly when perversity in appreciation of evidence by the courts below is not brought to my notice. As such, the contention is rejected as unsubstantial.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. It is then contended by Mr. Dhal for the petitioners that P.W. 14 having not been examined at the time of investigation, his evidence in court identifying the petitioner Gopal as one of the culprits is inadmissible in evidence and if such evidence is left out of consideration then his evidence of identification in the test identification parade, being not substantive evidence, could not be relied upon for convicting Gopal. There is no pleading in the revision-petition that P.W. 14 had not been examined at the time of investigation. My attention is sought to be invited to the evidence of P.W. 14 himself in support of such factual position, but I am afraid if a court of revision can go through such evidence in the absence of any pleading. Even assuming for the sake of argument that P.W. 14 was not examined at the time of investigation, his evidence cannot be said to be inadmissible in the absence of any provision to that effect in Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 or in the Evidence Act. All that that can be said is that when a witness examined in court whose statement Under Section 161, Cr. P.C. had not been recorded at the time of investigation, the evidentiary value to be attached to the evidence of such witness has to be looked into and if it would be found that prejudice had been caused to the accused then the evidence of such witness may not be acted upon, otherwise not. I am supported in my view by a decision in Tilkeshwar Singh v. The State of Bihar, AIR 1956 SC 238 : (1956 Cri LJ 441). In this case, P.W. 14 had been cited as a witness in the charge-sheet and he was examined in court and both the courts below have relied on his evidence obviously for the reason that no prejudice had been caused to the petitioners: As such, the contention must fail.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. It is then contended by Mr. Dhal for the petitioners that the other inmates of the house having not identified the petitioner Gopal as one of the culprits, it would not be safe to rely only on the evidence of P.W. 14 to sustain his conviction. This argument would have carried some force if there would have been evidence to show that all inmates of the house had occasion to see all the petitioners, but no such evidence is brought to my notice. It is not unlikely that when the inmates of the house were seeing the culprits from different angles, the petitioner Gopal seen by P.W. 14 might not have been seen by the other inmates of the house. When both the courts below have found that the evidence of P.W. 14 was thoroughly reliable and they have accordingly acted upon his evidence it is not considered necessary to disturb their finding particularly when their mode of appreciation of evidence is not shown to be perverse.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. No other contention having been raised on behalf of the petitioners and the aforesaid contentions having failed, I hold that the revision is without merit and accordingly the same is dismissed.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '73(1992)CLT253; 1992CriLJ2154',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'State',
			'sub' => 'Criminal',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'karmu-bhakta-ors-vs-state',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '536492',
		(int) 1 => 'karmu-bhakta-ors-vs-state'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Karmu Bhakta and ors Vs State - Citation 536492 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '536492',
		'acts' => 'Evidence Act; <a href="/act/50902/code-of-criminal-procedure-1973-complete-act">Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1973</a> - Sections 161; Indian Penal Code (IPC) - Sections 395 and 397',
		'appealno' => 'Criminal Revision No. 200 of 1988',
		'appellant' => 'Karmu Bhakta and ors.',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Karmu Bhakta and ors. Vs. State',
		'casenote' => ' - Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002], 110 & 104 & Letters Patent, 1865, Clause 10: [Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Letters Patent  Appeal  Order of Single Judge of High Court passed while deciding matters filed under Order 43, Rule1 of C.P.C., -  Held, After introduction of Section 110A in the C.P.C., by 2002 Amendment Act, no Letters Patent Appeal is maintainable against judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge of a High Court. A right of appeal, even though a vested one, can be taken away by law. It is pertinent to note that Section 100-A introduced by 2002 Amendment of the Code starts with a non obstante clause. The purpose of such clause is to give the enacting part of an overriding effect in the case of a conflict with laws mentioned with the non obstante clause. The legislative intention is thus very clear that the law enacted shall have full operation and there would be no impediment. It is well settled that the definition of judgment in Section 2(9) of C.P.C., is much wider and more liberal, Intermediary or interlocutory judgment fall in the category of orders referred to Clause (a) to (w) of Order 43, Rule 1 and also such other orders which poses the characteristic and trapping of finality and may adversely affect a valuable right of a party or decide an important aspect of a trial in an ancillary proceeding. Amended Section 100-A of the Code clearly stipulates that where any appeal from an original or appellate decree or order is heard and decided by a Single Judge of a High Court, no further appeal shall lie. Even otherwise, the word judgment as defined under Section 2(9) means a statement given by a Judge on the grounds of a decree or order. Thus the contention that against an order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal filed under Section 104 C.P.C., a further appeal lies to a Division Bench cannot be accepted. The newly incorporated Section 100A in clear and specific terms prohibits further appeal against the decree and judgment or order of a Single Judge to a Division Bench notwithstanding anything contained in the Letters Patent. The Letters Patent which provides for further appeal to a Division Bench remains intact, but the right to prefer a further appeal is taken away even in respect of the matters arising under the special enactments or other instruments having the force of law be it against original/appellate decree or order heard and decided by a Single Judge. It has to be kept in mind that the special statute only provide for an Appeal to the High Court. It has not made any provision for filing appeal to a Division Bench against the judgment or decree or order of a Single Judge. No Letters Patent Appeal shall lie against a judgment/order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal arising out of a proceeding under a Special Act.

Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002] & 104:[Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Writ Appeal  Held, A Writ Appeal shall lie against judgment/orders passed by Single Judge in a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In a writ application filed under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution, if any order/judgment/decree is passed in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226, a writ appeal will lie. But, no writ appeal will lie against a judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge in exercising powers of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution. 
 -  The miscreants also made attempts to make their entry into the house by breaking open a window but failed inasmuch as a folded table was kept against the broken open place of the window and there was pelting of glasses at the miscreants by the inmates of the house who did so in spite of pelting of stones and throwing of arrows by the miscreants into the house. 5, 12 and 14 as the culprits both in the test identification parade as well as in court; 5 and 14 both in the test identification parade as well as in court; 7 and 12 both in test identification parade as well as in court and the fourth petitioner Gopal had been identified only by P. 14 as one of the culprits both in test identification parade as well as in court. 5 and also with the aid of flashing of torch lights by the petitioner and their companions hither and thither and as such they could identify them both in the test identification parade as well as in court, their evidence should not have been believed by the courts below because neither electric bulb nor any torch light of the petitioners has been seized, by the Investigating Officer at the time of investigation. This contention relates to appreciation of evidence of the identifying witnesses and since appreciation of evidence is normally not permissible in revision like the one in hand, I refrain myself to evaluate such contention particularly when perversity in appreciation of evidence by the courts below is not brought to my notice. As such, the contention must fail. Dhal for the petitioners that the other inmates of the house having not identified the petitioner Gopal as one of the culprits, it would not be safe to rely only on the evidence of P. 14 was thoroughly reliable and they have accordingly acted upon his evidence it is not considered necessary to disturb their finding particularly when their mode of appreciation of evidence is not shown to be perverse. 6. No other contention having been raised on behalf of the petitioners and the aforesaid contentions having failed, I hold that the revision is without merit and accordingly the same is dismissed.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => 'Tilkeshwar Singh v. The State of Bihar;',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => 'D.P. Dhal, ;P.K. Dhal and ;P.K. Panda, Advs.',
		'counseldef' => 'J. Mahanty, Standing Counsel',
		'court' => 'Orissa',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '1991-09-25',
		'deposition' => 'Petition dismissed',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'B.N. Dash, J.',
		'judgement' => 'ORDER<p>B.N. Dash, J.</p><p>1. The prosecution case, shortly stated, is that on 9/10-2-1984 at about midnight time while the informant Susil Kumar Dandpat was sleeping in the outer varandah of their house in village Machilapada under Badasahi Police station, District Meyurbhanj and the other inmates of the house including Sirish Chandra Dandpat (P.W. 1) and Sunilkumar Dandpat (P.W. 14) were sleeping inside the house bolting the entrance door from inside, there was barking of dogs for which P.W. 5 woke up and found that there was flashing of torch lights at some distance. After proceeding for some times when P.W. 5 asked in a raised voice as to who were focussing the torch lights, some people rushed at him and at their sight he ran towards his house shouting on the way to open the entrance door. Before the miscreants could approach him, the entrance door was opened and he entered into the house and bolted the door from inside. The miscreants dashed against the entrance door, but the same did not open inasmuch as the inmates of the house kept pressed the door leaves from inside. The miscreants also made attempts to make their entry into the house by breaking open a window but failed inasmuch as a folded table was kept against the broken open place of the window and there was pelting of glasses at the miscreants by the inmates of the house who did so in spite of pelting of stones and throwing of arrows by the miscreants into the house. On hearing the shouts raised by the inmates of the house, when villagers assembled near the spot, the culprits finding themselves to have been outnumbered took to their heels. Before their departure, they could injure the villagers Pratap Chandra Dandpat (P.W.3), Sadasiv Sahu (P.W.4) and Ajay Kumar Dandpat (P.W.12). After departure of the miscreants, F.I.R. (Ext. 2) was lodged at the Police station in the same night at 3 a.m. and investigation commenced. In course of investigation, stones and arrows thrown by the culprits were seized from the house in question and a test identification parade was conducted in which all the six petitioners were identified as the culprits who attempted to have committed dacoity in the house of P.W. 5. Ultimately, the present petitioners along with one Gagan Bhakta, (since acquitted) were tried for the offence Under Section 397, IPC.</p><p>2. At the trial, the prosecution examined 15 witnesses of whom P.W. 1, P.W. 5 and P.W. 14 were the inmates of the house; P.W. 2 Radha Mohan Naik and P.W. 6 Bhagaban Sahu were the witnesses to the seizure of the articles from the house in question. P.W. 4 Sadasiv Sahu, P.W. 7 Ashok Kumar Dandpat and P.W. 12 Ajay Kumar Dandpat were the villagers who along with others saw the culprits and foiled their attempt to committing dacoity; P.W. 8 and 9 are the Medical Officers who examined the injured persons (P.Ws. 3, 4 and 12) and also the first petitioner Karmu Bhakta and found injuries on their persons; P.W. 10 is another Medical Officer who extracted an arrow from the person of P.W. 4 and handed over the same to the Investigating Officer; P.W. 13 is the Magistrate who conducted the test identification parade and P.Ws. 11 and 13 are the Police Officers who took some part or the other in the investigation of the case.</p><p>The trial court found that the first petitioner Karmu, the third petitioner Sarthak and the fifth petitioner Raju Katual had been duly identified by P.Ws. 5, 12 and 14 as the culprits both in the test identification parade as well as in court; the second petitioner Chandra had been duly identified as one of the culprits by P.Ws. 5 and 14 both in the test identification parade as well as in court; the sixth petitioner Jatindra had been duly identified as one of the culprits by P.Ws. 7 and 12 both in test identification parade as well as in court and the fourth petitioner Gopal had been identified only by P.W. 14 as one of the culprits both in test identification parade as well as in court. So, relying on the evidence of P.Ws. 5, 7, 12 and 14, the trial court convicted the six petitioners Under Section 397, IPC and sentenced each of them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years, while acquitting the accused Gagan Bhakta. In appeal, the learned Sessions Judge, Mayurbhanj, Baripada converted the conviction Under Section 397, IPC to one Under Section 395, IPC. and reduced the sentence to five years rigorous imprisonment in respect of each of the petitioners. Being aggrieved by such judgment and order, the present revision has been filed.</p><p>3. The concurrent finding of fact that there was an attempt to commit dacoity in the house of P.W. 5 in the night in question is not assailed before me by Mr. P. K. Dhal, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners. It is, however, contended by him that the identifying witnesses having asserted that they had seen the petitioners with the help of electric light burning in the house of P.W. 5 and also with the aid of flashing of torch lights by the petitioner and their companions hither and thither and as such they could identify them both in the test identification parade as well as in court, their evidence should not have been believed by the courts below because neither electric bulb nor any torch light of the petitioners has been seized, by the Investigating Officer at the time of investigation. This contention relates to appreciation of evidence of the identifying witnesses and since appreciation of evidence is normally not permissible in revision like the one in hand, I refrain myself to evaluate such contention particularly when perversity in appreciation of evidence by the courts below is not brought to my notice. As such, the contention is rejected as unsubstantial.</p><p>4. It is then contended by Mr. Dhal for the petitioners that P.W. 14 having not been examined at the time of investigation, his evidence in court identifying the petitioner Gopal as one of the culprits is inadmissible in evidence and if such evidence is left out of consideration then his evidence of identification in the test identification parade, being not substantive evidence, could not be relied upon for convicting Gopal. There is no pleading in the revision-petition that P.W. 14 had not been examined at the time of investigation. My attention is sought to be invited to the evidence of P.W. 14 himself in support of such factual position, but I am afraid if a court of revision can go through such evidence in the absence of any pleading. Even assuming for the sake of argument that P.W. 14 was not examined at the time of investigation, his evidence cannot be said to be inadmissible in the absence of any provision to that effect in Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 or in the Evidence Act. All that that can be said is that when a witness examined in court whose statement Under Section 161, Cr. P.C. had not been recorded at the time of investigation, the evidentiary value to be attached to the evidence of such witness has to be looked into and if it would be found that prejudice had been caused to the accused then the evidence of such witness may not be acted upon, otherwise not. I am supported in my view by a decision in Tilkeshwar Singh v. The State of Bihar, AIR 1956 SC 238 : (1956 Cri LJ 441). In this case, P.W. 14 had been cited as a witness in the charge-sheet and he was examined in court and both the courts below have relied on his evidence obviously for the reason that no prejudice had been caused to the petitioners: As such, the contention must fail.</p><p>5. It is then contended by Mr. Dhal for the petitioners that the other inmates of the house having not identified the petitioner Gopal as one of the culprits, it would not be safe to rely only on the evidence of P.W. 14 to sustain his conviction. This argument would have carried some force if there would have been evidence to show that all inmates of the house had occasion to see all the petitioners, but no such evidence is brought to my notice. It is not unlikely that when the inmates of the house were seeing the culprits from different angles, the petitioner Gopal seen by P.W. 14 might not have been seen by the other inmates of the house. When both the courts below have found that the evidence of P.W. 14 was thoroughly reliable and they have accordingly acted upon his evidence it is not considered necessary to disturb their finding particularly when their mode of appreciation of evidence is not shown to be perverse.</p><p>6. No other contention having been raised on behalf of the petitioners and the aforesaid contentions having failed, I hold that the revision is without merit and accordingly the same is dismissed.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '73(1992)CLT253; 1992CriLJ2154',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'State',
		'sub' => 'Criminal',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'karmu-bhakta-ors-vs-state'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '536492',
	(int) 1 => 'karmu-bhakta-ors-vs-state'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/536492/karmu-bhakta-ors-vs-state'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$caseref = 'Tilkeshwar Singh v. The State of Bihar<br>'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => 'ORDER<p>B.N. Dash, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. The prosecution case, shortly stated, is that on 9/10-2-1984 at about midnight time while the informant Susil Kumar Dandpat was sleeping in the outer varandah of their house in village Machilapada under Badasahi Police station, District Meyurbhanj and the other inmates of the house including Sirish Chandra Dandpat (P.W. 1) and Sunilkumar Dandpat (P.W. 14) were sleeping inside the house bolting the entrance door from inside, there was barking of dogs for which P.W. 5 woke up and found that there was flashing of torch lights at some distance. After proceeding for some times when P.W. 5 asked in a raised voice as to who were focussing the torch lights, some people rushed at him and at their sight he ran towards his house shouting on the way to open the entrance door. Before the miscreants could approach him, the entrance door was opened and he entered into the house and bolted the door from inside. The miscreants dashed against the entrance door, but the same did not open inasmuch as the inmates of the house kept pressed the door leaves from inside. The miscreants also made attempts to make their entry into the house by breaking open a window but failed inasmuch as a folded table was kept against the broken open place of the window and there was pelting of glasses at the miscreants by the inmates of the house who did so in spite of pelting of stones and throwing of arrows by the miscreants into the house. On hearing the shouts raised by the inmates of the house, when villagers assembled near the spot, the culprits finding themselves to have been outnumbered took to their heels. Before their departure, they could injure the villagers Pratap Chandra Dandpat (P.W.3), Sadasiv Sahu (P.W.4) and Ajay Kumar Dandpat (P.W.12). After departure of the miscreants, F.I.R. (Ext. 2) was lodged at the Police station in the same night at 3 a.m. and investigation commenced. In course of investigation, stones and arrows thrown by the culprits were seized from the house in question and a test identification parade was conducted in which all the six petitioners were identified as the culprits who attempted to have committed dacoity in the house of P.W. 5. Ultimately, the present petitioners along with one Gagan Bhakta, (since acquitted) were tried for the offence Under Section 397, IPC.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. At the trial, the prosecution examined 15 witnesses of whom P.W. 1, P.W. 5 and P.W. 14 were the inmates of the house; P.W. 2 Radha Mohan Naik and P.W. 6 Bhagaban Sahu were the witnesses to the seizure of the articles from the house in question. P.W. 4 Sadasiv Sahu, P.W. 7 Ashok Kumar Dandpat and P.W. 12 Ajay Kumar Dandpat were the villagers who along with others saw the culprits and foiled their attempt to committing dacoity; P.W. 8 and 9 are the Medical Officers who examined the injured persons (P.Ws. 3, 4 and 12) and also the first petitioner Karmu Bhakta and found injuries on their persons; P.W. 10 is another Medical Officer who extracted an arrow from the person of P.W. 4 and handed over the same to the Investigating Officer; P.W. 13 is the Magistrate who conducted the test identification parade and P.Ws. 11 and 13 are the Police Officers who took some part or the other in the investigation of the case.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>The trial court found that the first petitioner Karmu, the third petitioner Sarthak and the fifth petitioner Raju Katual had been duly identified by P.Ws. 5, 12 and 14 as the culprits both in the test identification parade as well as in court; the second petitioner Chandra had been duly identified as one of the culprits by P.Ws. 5 and 14 both in the test identification parade as well as in court; the sixth petitioner Jatindra had been duly identified as one of the culprits by P.Ws. 7 and 12 both in test identification parade as well as in court and the fourth petitioner Gopal had been identified only by P.W. 14 as one of the culprits both in test identification parade as well as in court. So, relying on the evidence of P.Ws. 5, 7, 12 and 14, the trial court convicted the six petitioners Under Section 397, IPC and sentenced each of them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years, while acquitting the accused Gagan Bhakta. In appeal, the learned Sessions Judge, Mayurbhanj, Baripada converted the conviction Under Section 397, IPC to one Under Section 395, IPC. and reduced the sentence to five years rigorous imprisonment in respect of each of the petitioners. Being aggrieved by such judgment and order, the present revision has been filed.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>3. The concurrent finding of fact that there was an attempt to commit dacoity in the house of P.W. 5 in the night in question is not assailed before me by Mr. P. K. Dhal, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners. It is, however, contended by him that the identifying witnesses having asserted that they had seen the petitioners with the help of electric light burning in the house of P.W. 5 and also with the aid of flashing of torch lights by the petitioner and their companions hither and thither and as such they could identify them both in the test identification parade as well as in court, their evidence should not have been believed by the courts below because neither electric bulb nor any torch light of the petitioners has been seized, by the Investigating Officer at the time of investigation. This contention relates to appreciation of evidence of the identifying witnesses and since appreciation of evidence is normally not permissible in revision like the one in hand, I refrain myself to evaluate such contention particularly when perversity in appreciation of evidence by the courts below is not brought to my notice. As such, the contention is rejected as unsubstantial.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>4. It is then contended by Mr. Dhal for the petitioners that P.W. 14 having not been examined at the time of investigation, his evidence in court identifying the petitioner Gopal as one of the culprits is inadmissible in evidence and if such evidence is left out of consideration then his evidence of identification in the test identification parade, being not substantive evidence, could not be relied upon for convicting Gopal. There is no pleading in the revision-petition that P.W. 14 had not been examined at the time of investigation. My attention is sought to be invited to the evidence of P.W. 14 himself in support of such factual position, but I am afraid if a court of revision can go through such evidence in the absence of any pleading. Even assuming for the sake of argument that P.W. 14 was not examined at the time of investigation, his evidence cannot be said to be inadmissible in the absence of any provision to that effect in Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 or in the Evidence Act. All that that can be said is that when a witness examined in court whose statement Under Section 161, Cr. P.C. had not been recorded at the time of investigation, the evidentiary value to be attached to the evidence of such witness has to be looked into and if it would be found that prejudice had been caused to the accused then the evidence of such witness may not be acted upon, otherwise not. I am supported in my view by a decision in Tilkeshwar Singh v. The State of Bihar, AIR 1956 SC 238 : (1956 Cri LJ 441). In this case, P.W. 14 had been cited as a witness in the charge-sheet and he was examined in court and both the courts below have relied on his evidence obviously for the reason that no prejudice had been caused to the petitioners: As such, the contention must fail.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>5. It is then contended by Mr. Dhal for the petitioners that the other inmates of the house having not identified the petitioner Gopal as one of the culprits, it would not be safe to rely only on the evidence of P.W. 14 to sustain his conviction. This argument would have carried some force if there would have been evidence to show that all inmates of the house had occasion to see all the petitioners, but no such evidence is brought to my notice. It is not unlikely that when the inmates of the house were seeing the culprits from different angles, the petitioner Gopal seen by P.W. 14 might not have been seen by the other inmates of the house. When both the courts below have found that the evidence of P.W. 14 was thoroughly reliable and they have accordingly acted upon his evidence it is not considered necessary to disturb their finding particularly when their mode of appreciation of evidence is not shown to be perverse.',
	(int) 7 => '<p>6. No other contention having been raised on behalf of the petitioners and the aforesaid contentions having failed, I hold that the revision is without merit and accordingly the same is dismissed.<p>',
	(int) 8 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 9
$i = (int) 5
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

4. It is then contended by Mr. Dhal for the petitioners that P.W. 14 having not been examined at the time of investigation, his evidence in court identifying the petitioner Gopal as one of the culprits is inadmissible in evidence and if such evidence is left out of consideration then his evidence of identification in the test identification parade, being not substantive evidence, could not be relied upon for convicting Gopal. There is no pleading in the revision-petition that P.W. 14 had not been examined at the time of investigation. My attention is sought to be invited to the evidence of P.W. 14 himself in support of such factual position, but I am afraid if a court of revision can go through such evidence in the absence of any pleading. Even assuming for the sake of argument that P.W. 14 was not examined at the time of investigation, his evidence cannot be said to be inadmissible in the absence of any provision to that effect in Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 or in the Evidence Act. All that that can be said is that when a witness examined in court whose statement Under Section 161, Cr. P.C. had not been recorded at the time of investigation, the evidentiary value to be attached to the evidence of such witness has to be looked into and if it would be found that prejudice had been caused to the accused then the evidence of such witness may not be acted upon, otherwise not. I am supported in my view by a decision in Tilkeshwar Singh v. The State of Bihar, AIR 1956 SC 238 : (1956 Cri LJ 441). In this case, P.W. 14 had been cited as a witness in the charge-sheet and he was examined in court and both the courts below have relied on his evidence obviously for the reason that no prejudice had been caused to the petitioners: As such, the contention must fail.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Karmu Bhakta and ors Vs State - Citation 536492 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '536492',
			'acts' => 'Evidence Act; <a href="/act/50902/code-of-criminal-procedure-1973-complete-act">Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1973</a> - Sections 161; Indian Penal Code (IPC) - Sections 395 and 397',
			'appealno' => 'Criminal Revision No. 200 of 1988',
			'appellant' => 'Karmu Bhakta and ors.',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Karmu Bhakta and ors. Vs. State',
			'casenote' => ' - Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002], 110 & 104 & Letters Patent, 1865, Clause 10: [Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Letters Patent  Appeal  Order of Single Judge of High Court passed while deciding matters filed under Order 43, Rule1 of C.P.C., -  Held, After introduction of Section 110A in the C.P.C., by 2002 Amendment Act, no Letters Patent Appeal is maintainable against judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge of a High Court. A right of appeal, even though a vested one, can be taken away by law. It is pertinent to note that Section 100-A introduced by 2002 Amendment of the Code starts with a non obstante clause. The purpose of such clause is to give the enacting part of an overriding effect in the case of a conflict with laws mentioned with the non obstante clause. The legislative intention is thus very clear that the law enacted shall have full operation and there would be no impediment. It is well settled that the definition of judgment in Section 2(9) of C.P.C., is much wider and more liberal, Intermediary or interlocutory judgment fall in the category of orders referred to Clause (a) to (w) of Order 43, Rule 1 and also such other orders which poses the characteristic and trapping of finality and may adversely affect a valuable right of a party or decide an important aspect of a trial in an ancillary proceeding. Amended Section 100-A of the Code clearly stipulates that where any appeal from an original or appellate decree or order is heard and decided by a Single Judge of a High Court, no further appeal shall lie. Even otherwise, the word judgment as defined under Section 2(9) means a statement given by a Judge on the grounds of a decree or order. Thus the contention that against an order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal filed under Section 104 C.P.C., a further appeal lies to a Division Bench cannot be accepted. The newly incorporated Section 100A in clear and specific terms prohibits further appeal against the decree and judgment or order of a Single Judge to a Division Bench notwithstanding anything contained in the Letters Patent. The Letters Patent which provides for further appeal to a Division Bench remains intact, but the right to prefer a further appeal is taken away even in respect of the matters arising under the special enactments or other instruments having the force of law be it against original/appellate decree or order heard and decided by a Single Judge. It has to be kept in mind that the special statute only provide for an Appeal to the High Court. It has not made any provision for filing appeal to a Division Bench against the judgment or decree or order of a Single Judge. No Letters Patent Appeal shall lie against a judgment/order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal arising out of a proceeding under a Special Act.

Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002] & 104:[Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Writ Appeal  Held, A Writ Appeal shall lie against judgment/orders passed by Single Judge in a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In a writ application filed under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution, if any order/judgment/decree is passed in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226, a writ appeal will lie. But, no writ appeal will lie against a judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge in exercising powers of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution. 
 -  The miscreants also made attempts to make their entry into the house by breaking open a window but failed inasmuch as a folded table was kept against the broken open place of the window and there was pelting of glasses at the miscreants by the inmates of the house who did so in spite of pelting of stones and throwing of arrows by the miscreants into the house. 5, 12 and 14 as the culprits both in the test identification parade as well as in court; 5 and 14 both in the test identification parade as well as in court; 7 and 12 both in test identification parade as well as in court and the fourth petitioner Gopal had been identified only by P. 14 as one of the culprits both in test identification parade as well as in court. 5 and also with the aid of flashing of torch lights by the petitioner and their companions hither and thither and as such they could identify them both in the test identification parade as well as in court, their evidence should not have been believed by the courts below because neither electric bulb nor any torch light of the petitioners has been seized, by the Investigating Officer at the time of investigation. This contention relates to appreciation of evidence of the identifying witnesses and since appreciation of evidence is normally not permissible in revision like the one in hand, I refrain myself to evaluate such contention particularly when perversity in appreciation of evidence by the courts below is not brought to my notice. As such, the contention must fail. Dhal for the petitioners that the other inmates of the house having not identified the petitioner Gopal as one of the culprits, it would not be safe to rely only on the evidence of P. 14 was thoroughly reliable and they have accordingly acted upon his evidence it is not considered necessary to disturb their finding particularly when their mode of appreciation of evidence is not shown to be perverse. 6. No other contention having been raised on behalf of the petitioners and the aforesaid contentions having failed, I hold that the revision is without merit and accordingly the same is dismissed.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => 'Tilkeshwar Singh v. The State of Bihar;',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => 'D.P. Dhal, ;P.K. Dhal and ;P.K. Panda, Advs.',
			'counseldef' => 'J. Mahanty, Standing Counsel',
			'court' => 'Orissa',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '1991-09-25',
			'deposition' => 'Petition dismissed',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'B.N. Dash, J.',
			'judgement' => 'ORDER<p style="text-align: justify;">B.N. Dash, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. The prosecution case, shortly stated, is that on 9/10-2-1984 at about midnight time while the informant Susil Kumar Dandpat was sleeping in the outer varandah of their house in village Machilapada under Badasahi Police station, District Meyurbhanj and the other inmates of the house including Sirish Chandra Dandpat (P.W. 1) and Sunilkumar Dandpat (P.W. 14) were sleeping inside the house bolting the entrance door from inside, there was barking of dogs for which P.W. 5 woke up and found that there was flashing of torch lights at some distance. After proceeding for some times when P.W. 5 asked in a raised voice as to who were focussing the torch lights, some people rushed at him and at their sight he ran towards his house shouting on the way to open the entrance door. Before the miscreants could approach him, the entrance door was opened and he entered into the house and bolted the door from inside. The miscreants dashed against the entrance door, but the same did not open inasmuch as the inmates of the house kept pressed the door leaves from inside. The miscreants also made attempts to make their entry into the house by breaking open a window but failed inasmuch as a folded table was kept against the broken open place of the window and there was pelting of glasses at the miscreants by the inmates of the house who did so in spite of pelting of stones and throwing of arrows by the miscreants into the house. On hearing the shouts raised by the inmates of the house, when villagers assembled near the spot, the culprits finding themselves to have been outnumbered took to their heels. Before their departure, they could injure the villagers Pratap Chandra Dandpat (P.W.3), Sadasiv Sahu (P.W.4) and Ajay Kumar Dandpat (P.W.12). After departure of the miscreants, F.I.R. (Ext. 2) was lodged at the Police station in the same night at 3 a.m. and investigation commenced. In course of investigation, stones and arrows thrown by the culprits were seized from the house in question and a test identification parade was conducted in which all the six petitioners were identified as the culprits who attempted to have committed dacoity in the house of P.W. 5. Ultimately, the present petitioners along with one Gagan Bhakta, (since acquitted) were tried for the offence Under Section 397, IPC.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. At the trial, the prosecution examined 15 witnesses of whom P.W. 1, P.W. 5 and P.W. 14 were the inmates of the house; P.W. 2 Radha Mohan Naik and P.W. 6 Bhagaban Sahu were the witnesses to the seizure of the articles from the house in question. P.W. 4 Sadasiv Sahu, P.W. 7 Ashok Kumar Dandpat and P.W. 12 Ajay Kumar Dandpat were the villagers who along with others saw the culprits and foiled their attempt to committing dacoity; P.W. 8 and 9 are the Medical Officers who examined the injured persons (P.Ws. 3, 4 and 12) and also the first petitioner Karmu Bhakta and found injuries on their persons; P.W. 10 is another Medical Officer who extracted an arrow from the person of P.W. 4 and handed over the same to the Investigating Officer; P.W. 13 is the Magistrate who conducted the test identification parade and P.Ws. 11 and 13 are the Police Officers who took some part or the other in the investigation of the case.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The trial court found that the first petitioner Karmu, the third petitioner Sarthak and the fifth petitioner Raju Katual had been duly identified by P.Ws. 5, 12 and 14 as the culprits both in the test identification parade as well as in court; the second petitioner Chandra had been duly identified as one of the culprits by P.Ws. 5 and 14 both in the test identification parade as well as in court; the sixth petitioner Jatindra had been duly identified as one of the culprits by P.Ws. 7 and 12 both in test identification parade as well as in court and the fourth petitioner Gopal had been identified only by P.W. 14 as one of the culprits both in test identification parade as well as in court. So, relying on the evidence of P.Ws. 5, 7, 12 and 14, the trial court convicted the six petitioners Under Section 397, IPC and sentenced each of them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years, while acquitting the accused Gagan Bhakta. In appeal, the learned Sessions Judge, Mayurbhanj, Baripada converted the conviction Under Section 397, IPC to one Under Section 395, IPC. and reduced the sentence to five years rigorous imprisonment in respect of each of the petitioners. Being aggrieved by such judgment and order, the present revision has been filed.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. The concurrent finding of fact that there was an attempt to commit dacoity in the house of P.W. 5 in the night in question is not assailed before me by Mr. P. K. Dhal, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners. It is, however, contended by him that the identifying witnesses having asserted that they had seen the petitioners with the help of electric light burning in the house of P.W. 5 and also with the aid of flashing of torch lights by the petitioner and their companions hither and thither and as such they could identify them both in the test identification parade as well as in court, their evidence should not have been believed by the courts below because neither electric bulb nor any torch light of the petitioners has been seized, by the Investigating Officer at the time of investigation. This contention relates to appreciation of evidence of the identifying witnesses and since appreciation of evidence is normally not permissible in revision like the one in hand, I refrain myself to evaluate such contention particularly when perversity in appreciation of evidence by the courts below is not brought to my notice. As such, the contention is rejected as unsubstantial.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. It is then contended by Mr. Dhal for the petitioners that P.W. 14 having not been examined at the time of investigation, his evidence in court identifying the petitioner Gopal as one of the culprits is inadmissible in evidence and if such evidence is left out of consideration then his evidence of identification in the test identification parade, being not substantive evidence, could not be relied upon for convicting Gopal. There is no pleading in the revision-petition that P.W. 14 had not been examined at the time of investigation. My attention is sought to be invited to the evidence of P.W. 14 himself in support of such factual position, but I am afraid if a court of revision can go through such evidence in the absence of any pleading. Even assuming for the sake of argument that P.W. 14 was not examined at the time of investigation, his evidence cannot be said to be inadmissible in the absence of any provision to that effect in Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 or in the Evidence Act. All that that can be said is that when a witness examined in court whose statement Under Section 161, Cr. P.C. had not been recorded at the time of investigation, the evidentiary value to be attached to the evidence of such witness has to be looked into and if it would be found that prejudice had been caused to the accused then the evidence of such witness may not be acted upon, otherwise not. I am supported in my view by a decision in Tilkeshwar Singh v. The State of Bihar, AIR 1956 SC 238 : (1956 Cri LJ 441). In this case, P.W. 14 had been cited as a witness in the charge-sheet and he was examined in court and both the courts below have relied on his evidence obviously for the reason that no prejudice had been caused to the petitioners: As such, the contention must fail.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. It is then contended by Mr. Dhal for the petitioners that the other inmates of the house having not identified the petitioner Gopal as one of the culprits, it would not be safe to rely only on the evidence of P.W. 14 to sustain his conviction. This argument would have carried some force if there would have been evidence to show that all inmates of the house had occasion to see all the petitioners, but no such evidence is brought to my notice. It is not unlikely that when the inmates of the house were seeing the culprits from different angles, the petitioner Gopal seen by P.W. 14 might not have been seen by the other inmates of the house. When both the courts below have found that the evidence of P.W. 14 was thoroughly reliable and they have accordingly acted upon his evidence it is not considered necessary to disturb their finding particularly when their mode of appreciation of evidence is not shown to be perverse.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. No other contention having been raised on behalf of the petitioners and the aforesaid contentions having failed, I hold that the revision is without merit and accordingly the same is dismissed.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '73(1992)CLT253; 1992CriLJ2154',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'State',
			'sub' => 'Criminal',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'karmu-bhakta-ors-vs-state',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '536492',
		(int) 1 => 'karmu-bhakta-ors-vs-state'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Karmu Bhakta and ors Vs State - Citation 536492 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '536492',
		'acts' => 'Evidence Act; <a href="/act/50902/code-of-criminal-procedure-1973-complete-act">Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1973</a> - Sections 161; Indian Penal Code (IPC) - Sections 395 and 397',
		'appealno' => 'Criminal Revision No. 200 of 1988',
		'appellant' => 'Karmu Bhakta and ors.',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Karmu Bhakta and ors. Vs. State',
		'casenote' => ' - Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002], 110 & 104 & Letters Patent, 1865, Clause 10: [Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Letters Patent  Appeal  Order of Single Judge of High Court passed while deciding matters filed under Order 43, Rule1 of C.P.C., -  Held, After introduction of Section 110A in the C.P.C., by 2002 Amendment Act, no Letters Patent Appeal is maintainable against judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge of a High Court. A right of appeal, even though a vested one, can be taken away by law. It is pertinent to note that Section 100-A introduced by 2002 Amendment of the Code starts with a non obstante clause. The purpose of such clause is to give the enacting part of an overriding effect in the case of a conflict with laws mentioned with the non obstante clause. The legislative intention is thus very clear that the law enacted shall have full operation and there would be no impediment. It is well settled that the definition of judgment in Section 2(9) of C.P.C., is much wider and more liberal, Intermediary or interlocutory judgment fall in the category of orders referred to Clause (a) to (w) of Order 43, Rule 1 and also such other orders which poses the characteristic and trapping of finality and may adversely affect a valuable right of a party or decide an important aspect of a trial in an ancillary proceeding. Amended Section 100-A of the Code clearly stipulates that where any appeal from an original or appellate decree or order is heard and decided by a Single Judge of a High Court, no further appeal shall lie. Even otherwise, the word judgment as defined under Section 2(9) means a statement given by a Judge on the grounds of a decree or order. Thus the contention that against an order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal filed under Section 104 C.P.C., a further appeal lies to a Division Bench cannot be accepted. The newly incorporated Section 100A in clear and specific terms prohibits further appeal against the decree and judgment or order of a Single Judge to a Division Bench notwithstanding anything contained in the Letters Patent. The Letters Patent which provides for further appeal to a Division Bench remains intact, but the right to prefer a further appeal is taken away even in respect of the matters arising under the special enactments or other instruments having the force of law be it against original/appellate decree or order heard and decided by a Single Judge. It has to be kept in mind that the special statute only provide for an Appeal to the High Court. It has not made any provision for filing appeal to a Division Bench against the judgment or decree or order of a Single Judge. No Letters Patent Appeal shall lie against a judgment/order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal arising out of a proceeding under a Special Act.

Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002] & 104:[Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Writ Appeal  Held, A Writ Appeal shall lie against judgment/orders passed by Single Judge in a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In a writ application filed under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution, if any order/judgment/decree is passed in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226, a writ appeal will lie. But, no writ appeal will lie against a judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge in exercising powers of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution. 
 -  The miscreants also made attempts to make their entry into the house by breaking open a window but failed inasmuch as a folded table was kept against the broken open place of the window and there was pelting of glasses at the miscreants by the inmates of the house who did so in spite of pelting of stones and throwing of arrows by the miscreants into the house. 5, 12 and 14 as the culprits both in the test identification parade as well as in court; 5 and 14 both in the test identification parade as well as in court; 7 and 12 both in test identification parade as well as in court and the fourth petitioner Gopal had been identified only by P. 14 as one of the culprits both in test identification parade as well as in court. 5 and also with the aid of flashing of torch lights by the petitioner and their companions hither and thither and as such they could identify them both in the test identification parade as well as in court, their evidence should not have been believed by the courts below because neither electric bulb nor any torch light of the petitioners has been seized, by the Investigating Officer at the time of investigation. This contention relates to appreciation of evidence of the identifying witnesses and since appreciation of evidence is normally not permissible in revision like the one in hand, I refrain myself to evaluate such contention particularly when perversity in appreciation of evidence by the courts below is not brought to my notice. As such, the contention must fail. Dhal for the petitioners that the other inmates of the house having not identified the petitioner Gopal as one of the culprits, it would not be safe to rely only on the evidence of P. 14 was thoroughly reliable and they have accordingly acted upon his evidence it is not considered necessary to disturb their finding particularly when their mode of appreciation of evidence is not shown to be perverse. 6. No other contention having been raised on behalf of the petitioners and the aforesaid contentions having failed, I hold that the revision is without merit and accordingly the same is dismissed.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => 'Tilkeshwar Singh v. The State of Bihar;',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => 'D.P. Dhal, ;P.K. Dhal and ;P.K. Panda, Advs.',
		'counseldef' => 'J. Mahanty, Standing Counsel',
		'court' => 'Orissa',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '1991-09-25',
		'deposition' => 'Petition dismissed',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'B.N. Dash, J.',
		'judgement' => 'ORDER<p>B.N. Dash, J.</p><p>1. The prosecution case, shortly stated, is that on 9/10-2-1984 at about midnight time while the informant Susil Kumar Dandpat was sleeping in the outer varandah of their house in village Machilapada under Badasahi Police station, District Meyurbhanj and the other inmates of the house including Sirish Chandra Dandpat (P.W. 1) and Sunilkumar Dandpat (P.W. 14) were sleeping inside the house bolting the entrance door from inside, there was barking of dogs for which P.W. 5 woke up and found that there was flashing of torch lights at some distance. After proceeding for some times when P.W. 5 asked in a raised voice as to who were focussing the torch lights, some people rushed at him and at their sight he ran towards his house shouting on the way to open the entrance door. Before the miscreants could approach him, the entrance door was opened and he entered into the house and bolted the door from inside. The miscreants dashed against the entrance door, but the same did not open inasmuch as the inmates of the house kept pressed the door leaves from inside. The miscreants also made attempts to make their entry into the house by breaking open a window but failed inasmuch as a folded table was kept against the broken open place of the window and there was pelting of glasses at the miscreants by the inmates of the house who did so in spite of pelting of stones and throwing of arrows by the miscreants into the house. On hearing the shouts raised by the inmates of the house, when villagers assembled near the spot, the culprits finding themselves to have been outnumbered took to their heels. Before their departure, they could injure the villagers Pratap Chandra Dandpat (P.W.3), Sadasiv Sahu (P.W.4) and Ajay Kumar Dandpat (P.W.12). After departure of the miscreants, F.I.R. (Ext. 2) was lodged at the Police station in the same night at 3 a.m. and investigation commenced. In course of investigation, stones and arrows thrown by the culprits were seized from the house in question and a test identification parade was conducted in which all the six petitioners were identified as the culprits who attempted to have committed dacoity in the house of P.W. 5. Ultimately, the present petitioners along with one Gagan Bhakta, (since acquitted) were tried for the offence Under Section 397, IPC.</p><p>2. At the trial, the prosecution examined 15 witnesses of whom P.W. 1, P.W. 5 and P.W. 14 were the inmates of the house; P.W. 2 Radha Mohan Naik and P.W. 6 Bhagaban Sahu were the witnesses to the seizure of the articles from the house in question. P.W. 4 Sadasiv Sahu, P.W. 7 Ashok Kumar Dandpat and P.W. 12 Ajay Kumar Dandpat were the villagers who along with others saw the culprits and foiled their attempt to committing dacoity; P.W. 8 and 9 are the Medical Officers who examined the injured persons (P.Ws. 3, 4 and 12) and also the first petitioner Karmu Bhakta and found injuries on their persons; P.W. 10 is another Medical Officer who extracted an arrow from the person of P.W. 4 and handed over the same to the Investigating Officer; P.W. 13 is the Magistrate who conducted the test identification parade and P.Ws. 11 and 13 are the Police Officers who took some part or the other in the investigation of the case.</p><p>The trial court found that the first petitioner Karmu, the third petitioner Sarthak and the fifth petitioner Raju Katual had been duly identified by P.Ws. 5, 12 and 14 as the culprits both in the test identification parade as well as in court; the second petitioner Chandra had been duly identified as one of the culprits by P.Ws. 5 and 14 both in the test identification parade as well as in court; the sixth petitioner Jatindra had been duly identified as one of the culprits by P.Ws. 7 and 12 both in test identification parade as well as in court and the fourth petitioner Gopal had been identified only by P.W. 14 as one of the culprits both in test identification parade as well as in court. So, relying on the evidence of P.Ws. 5, 7, 12 and 14, the trial court convicted the six petitioners Under Section 397, IPC and sentenced each of them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years, while acquitting the accused Gagan Bhakta. In appeal, the learned Sessions Judge, Mayurbhanj, Baripada converted the conviction Under Section 397, IPC to one Under Section 395, IPC. and reduced the sentence to five years rigorous imprisonment in respect of each of the petitioners. Being aggrieved by such judgment and order, the present revision has been filed.</p><p>3. The concurrent finding of fact that there was an attempt to commit dacoity in the house of P.W. 5 in the night in question is not assailed before me by Mr. P. K. Dhal, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners. It is, however, contended by him that the identifying witnesses having asserted that they had seen the petitioners with the help of electric light burning in the house of P.W. 5 and also with the aid of flashing of torch lights by the petitioner and their companions hither and thither and as such they could identify them both in the test identification parade as well as in court, their evidence should not have been believed by the courts below because neither electric bulb nor any torch light of the petitioners has been seized, by the Investigating Officer at the time of investigation. This contention relates to appreciation of evidence of the identifying witnesses and since appreciation of evidence is normally not permissible in revision like the one in hand, I refrain myself to evaluate such contention particularly when perversity in appreciation of evidence by the courts below is not brought to my notice. As such, the contention is rejected as unsubstantial.</p><p>4. It is then contended by Mr. Dhal for the petitioners that P.W. 14 having not been examined at the time of investigation, his evidence in court identifying the petitioner Gopal as one of the culprits is inadmissible in evidence and if such evidence is left out of consideration then his evidence of identification in the test identification parade, being not substantive evidence, could not be relied upon for convicting Gopal. There is no pleading in the revision-petition that P.W. 14 had not been examined at the time of investigation. My attention is sought to be invited to the evidence of P.W. 14 himself in support of such factual position, but I am afraid if a court of revision can go through such evidence in the absence of any pleading. Even assuming for the sake of argument that P.W. 14 was not examined at the time of investigation, his evidence cannot be said to be inadmissible in the absence of any provision to that effect in Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 or in the Evidence Act. All that that can be said is that when a witness examined in court whose statement Under Section 161, Cr. P.C. had not been recorded at the time of investigation, the evidentiary value to be attached to the evidence of such witness has to be looked into and if it would be found that prejudice had been caused to the accused then the evidence of such witness may not be acted upon, otherwise not. I am supported in my view by a decision in Tilkeshwar Singh v. The State of Bihar, AIR 1956 SC 238 : (1956 Cri LJ 441). In this case, P.W. 14 had been cited as a witness in the charge-sheet and he was examined in court and both the courts below have relied on his evidence obviously for the reason that no prejudice had been caused to the petitioners: As such, the contention must fail.</p><p>5. It is then contended by Mr. Dhal for the petitioners that the other inmates of the house having not identified the petitioner Gopal as one of the culprits, it would not be safe to rely only on the evidence of P.W. 14 to sustain his conviction. This argument would have carried some force if there would have been evidence to show that all inmates of the house had occasion to see all the petitioners, but no such evidence is brought to my notice. It is not unlikely that when the inmates of the house were seeing the culprits from different angles, the petitioner Gopal seen by P.W. 14 might not have been seen by the other inmates of the house. When both the courts below have found that the evidence of P.W. 14 was thoroughly reliable and they have accordingly acted upon his evidence it is not considered necessary to disturb their finding particularly when their mode of appreciation of evidence is not shown to be perverse.</p><p>6. No other contention having been raised on behalf of the petitioners and the aforesaid contentions having failed, I hold that the revision is without merit and accordingly the same is dismissed.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '73(1992)CLT253; 1992CriLJ2154',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'State',
		'sub' => 'Criminal',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'karmu-bhakta-ors-vs-state'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '536492',
	(int) 1 => 'karmu-bhakta-ors-vs-state'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/536492/karmu-bhakta-ors-vs-state'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$caseref = 'Tilkeshwar Singh v. The State of Bihar<br>'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => 'ORDER<p>B.N. Dash, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. The prosecution case, shortly stated, is that on 9/10-2-1984 at about midnight time while the informant Susil Kumar Dandpat was sleeping in the outer varandah of their house in village Machilapada under Badasahi Police station, District Meyurbhanj and the other inmates of the house including Sirish Chandra Dandpat (P.W. 1) and Sunilkumar Dandpat (P.W. 14) were sleeping inside the house bolting the entrance door from inside, there was barking of dogs for which P.W. 5 woke up and found that there was flashing of torch lights at some distance. After proceeding for some times when P.W. 5 asked in a raised voice as to who were focussing the torch lights, some people rushed at him and at their sight he ran towards his house shouting on the way to open the entrance door. Before the miscreants could approach him, the entrance door was opened and he entered into the house and bolted the door from inside. The miscreants dashed against the entrance door, but the same did not open inasmuch as the inmates of the house kept pressed the door leaves from inside. The miscreants also made attempts to make their entry into the house by breaking open a window but failed inasmuch as a folded table was kept against the broken open place of the window and there was pelting of glasses at the miscreants by the inmates of the house who did so in spite of pelting of stones and throwing of arrows by the miscreants into the house. On hearing the shouts raised by the inmates of the house, when villagers assembled near the spot, the culprits finding themselves to have been outnumbered took to their heels. Before their departure, they could injure the villagers Pratap Chandra Dandpat (P.W.3), Sadasiv Sahu (P.W.4) and Ajay Kumar Dandpat (P.W.12). After departure of the miscreants, F.I.R. (Ext. 2) was lodged at the Police station in the same night at 3 a.m. and investigation commenced. In course of investigation, stones and arrows thrown by the culprits were seized from the house in question and a test identification parade was conducted in which all the six petitioners were identified as the culprits who attempted to have committed dacoity in the house of P.W. 5. Ultimately, the present petitioners along with one Gagan Bhakta, (since acquitted) were tried for the offence Under Section 397, IPC.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. At the trial, the prosecution examined 15 witnesses of whom P.W. 1, P.W. 5 and P.W. 14 were the inmates of the house; P.W. 2 Radha Mohan Naik and P.W. 6 Bhagaban Sahu were the witnesses to the seizure of the articles from the house in question. P.W. 4 Sadasiv Sahu, P.W. 7 Ashok Kumar Dandpat and P.W. 12 Ajay Kumar Dandpat were the villagers who along with others saw the culprits and foiled their attempt to committing dacoity; P.W. 8 and 9 are the Medical Officers who examined the injured persons (P.Ws. 3, 4 and 12) and also the first petitioner Karmu Bhakta and found injuries on their persons; P.W. 10 is another Medical Officer who extracted an arrow from the person of P.W. 4 and handed over the same to the Investigating Officer; P.W. 13 is the Magistrate who conducted the test identification parade and P.Ws. 11 and 13 are the Police Officers who took some part or the other in the investigation of the case.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>The trial court found that the first petitioner Karmu, the third petitioner Sarthak and the fifth petitioner Raju Katual had been duly identified by P.Ws. 5, 12 and 14 as the culprits both in the test identification parade as well as in court; the second petitioner Chandra had been duly identified as one of the culprits by P.Ws. 5 and 14 both in the test identification parade as well as in court; the sixth petitioner Jatindra had been duly identified as one of the culprits by P.Ws. 7 and 12 both in test identification parade as well as in court and the fourth petitioner Gopal had been identified only by P.W. 14 as one of the culprits both in test identification parade as well as in court. So, relying on the evidence of P.Ws. 5, 7, 12 and 14, the trial court convicted the six petitioners Under Section 397, IPC and sentenced each of them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years, while acquitting the accused Gagan Bhakta. In appeal, the learned Sessions Judge, Mayurbhanj, Baripada converted the conviction Under Section 397, IPC to one Under Section 395, IPC. and reduced the sentence to five years rigorous imprisonment in respect of each of the petitioners. Being aggrieved by such judgment and order, the present revision has been filed.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>3. The concurrent finding of fact that there was an attempt to commit dacoity in the house of P.W. 5 in the night in question is not assailed before me by Mr. P. K. Dhal, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners. It is, however, contended by him that the identifying witnesses having asserted that they had seen the petitioners with the help of electric light burning in the house of P.W. 5 and also with the aid of flashing of torch lights by the petitioner and their companions hither and thither and as such they could identify them both in the test identification parade as well as in court, their evidence should not have been believed by the courts below because neither electric bulb nor any torch light of the petitioners has been seized, by the Investigating Officer at the time of investigation. This contention relates to appreciation of evidence of the identifying witnesses and since appreciation of evidence is normally not permissible in revision like the one in hand, I refrain myself to evaluate such contention particularly when perversity in appreciation of evidence by the courts below is not brought to my notice. As such, the contention is rejected as unsubstantial.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>4. It is then contended by Mr. Dhal for the petitioners that P.W. 14 having not been examined at the time of investigation, his evidence in court identifying the petitioner Gopal as one of the culprits is inadmissible in evidence and if such evidence is left out of consideration then his evidence of identification in the test identification parade, being not substantive evidence, could not be relied upon for convicting Gopal. There is no pleading in the revision-petition that P.W. 14 had not been examined at the time of investigation. My attention is sought to be invited to the evidence of P.W. 14 himself in support of such factual position, but I am afraid if a court of revision can go through such evidence in the absence of any pleading. Even assuming for the sake of argument that P.W. 14 was not examined at the time of investigation, his evidence cannot be said to be inadmissible in the absence of any provision to that effect in Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 or in the Evidence Act. All that that can be said is that when a witness examined in court whose statement Under Section 161, Cr. P.C. had not been recorded at the time of investigation, the evidentiary value to be attached to the evidence of such witness has to be looked into and if it would be found that prejudice had been caused to the accused then the evidence of such witness may not be acted upon, otherwise not. I am supported in my view by a decision in Tilkeshwar Singh v. The State of Bihar, AIR 1956 SC 238 : (1956 Cri LJ 441). In this case, P.W. 14 had been cited as a witness in the charge-sheet and he was examined in court and both the courts below have relied on his evidence obviously for the reason that no prejudice had been caused to the petitioners: As such, the contention must fail.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>5. It is then contended by Mr. Dhal for the petitioners that the other inmates of the house having not identified the petitioner Gopal as one of the culprits, it would not be safe to rely only on the evidence of P.W. 14 to sustain his conviction. This argument would have carried some force if there would have been evidence to show that all inmates of the house had occasion to see all the petitioners, but no such evidence is brought to my notice. It is not unlikely that when the inmates of the house were seeing the culprits from different angles, the petitioner Gopal seen by P.W. 14 might not have been seen by the other inmates of the house. When both the courts below have found that the evidence of P.W. 14 was thoroughly reliable and they have accordingly acted upon his evidence it is not considered necessary to disturb their finding particularly when their mode of appreciation of evidence is not shown to be perverse.',
	(int) 7 => '<p>6. No other contention having been raised on behalf of the petitioners and the aforesaid contentions having failed, I hold that the revision is without merit and accordingly the same is dismissed.<p>',
	(int) 8 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 9
$i = (int) 6
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

5. It is then contended by Mr. Dhal for the petitioners that the other inmates of the house having not identified the petitioner Gopal as one of the culprits, it would not be safe to rely only on the evidence of P.W. 14 to sustain his conviction. This argument would have carried some force if there would have been evidence to show that all inmates of the house had occasion to see all the petitioners, but no such evidence is brought to my notice. It is not unlikely that when the inmates of the house were seeing the culprits from different angles, the petitioner Gopal seen by P.W. 14 might not have been seen by the other inmates of the house. When both the courts below have found that the evidence of P.W. 14 was thoroughly reliable and they have accordingly acted upon his evidence it is not considered necessary to disturb their finding particularly when their mode of appreciation of evidence is not shown to be perverse.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Karmu Bhakta and ors Vs State - Citation 536492 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '536492',
			'acts' => 'Evidence Act; <a href="/act/50902/code-of-criminal-procedure-1973-complete-act">Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1973</a> - Sections 161; Indian Penal Code (IPC) - Sections 395 and 397',
			'appealno' => 'Criminal Revision No. 200 of 1988',
			'appellant' => 'Karmu Bhakta and ors.',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Karmu Bhakta and ors. Vs. State',
			'casenote' => ' - Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002], 110 & 104 & Letters Patent, 1865, Clause 10: [Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Letters Patent  Appeal  Order of Single Judge of High Court passed while deciding matters filed under Order 43, Rule1 of C.P.C., -  Held, After introduction of Section 110A in the C.P.C., by 2002 Amendment Act, no Letters Patent Appeal is maintainable against judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge of a High Court. A right of appeal, even though a vested one, can be taken away by law. It is pertinent to note that Section 100-A introduced by 2002 Amendment of the Code starts with a non obstante clause. The purpose of such clause is to give the enacting part of an overriding effect in the case of a conflict with laws mentioned with the non obstante clause. The legislative intention is thus very clear that the law enacted shall have full operation and there would be no impediment. It is well settled that the definition of judgment in Section 2(9) of C.P.C., is much wider and more liberal, Intermediary or interlocutory judgment fall in the category of orders referred to Clause (a) to (w) of Order 43, Rule 1 and also such other orders which poses the characteristic and trapping of finality and may adversely affect a valuable right of a party or decide an important aspect of a trial in an ancillary proceeding. Amended Section 100-A of the Code clearly stipulates that where any appeal from an original or appellate decree or order is heard and decided by a Single Judge of a High Court, no further appeal shall lie. Even otherwise, the word judgment as defined under Section 2(9) means a statement given by a Judge on the grounds of a decree or order. Thus the contention that against an order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal filed under Section 104 C.P.C., a further appeal lies to a Division Bench cannot be accepted. The newly incorporated Section 100A in clear and specific terms prohibits further appeal against the decree and judgment or order of a Single Judge to a Division Bench notwithstanding anything contained in the Letters Patent. The Letters Patent which provides for further appeal to a Division Bench remains intact, but the right to prefer a further appeal is taken away even in respect of the matters arising under the special enactments or other instruments having the force of law be it against original/appellate decree or order heard and decided by a Single Judge. It has to be kept in mind that the special statute only provide for an Appeal to the High Court. It has not made any provision for filing appeal to a Division Bench against the judgment or decree or order of a Single Judge. No Letters Patent Appeal shall lie against a judgment/order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal arising out of a proceeding under a Special Act.

Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002] & 104:[Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Writ Appeal  Held, A Writ Appeal shall lie against judgment/orders passed by Single Judge in a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In a writ application filed under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution, if any order/judgment/decree is passed in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226, a writ appeal will lie. But, no writ appeal will lie against a judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge in exercising powers of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution. 
 -  The miscreants also made attempts to make their entry into the house by breaking open a window but failed inasmuch as a folded table was kept against the broken open place of the window and there was pelting of glasses at the miscreants by the inmates of the house who did so in spite of pelting of stones and throwing of arrows by the miscreants into the house. 5, 12 and 14 as the culprits both in the test identification parade as well as in court; 5 and 14 both in the test identification parade as well as in court; 7 and 12 both in test identification parade as well as in court and the fourth petitioner Gopal had been identified only by P. 14 as one of the culprits both in test identification parade as well as in court. 5 and also with the aid of flashing of torch lights by the petitioner and their companions hither and thither and as such they could identify them both in the test identification parade as well as in court, their evidence should not have been believed by the courts below because neither electric bulb nor any torch light of the petitioners has been seized, by the Investigating Officer at the time of investigation. This contention relates to appreciation of evidence of the identifying witnesses and since appreciation of evidence is normally not permissible in revision like the one in hand, I refrain myself to evaluate such contention particularly when perversity in appreciation of evidence by the courts below is not brought to my notice. As such, the contention must fail. Dhal for the petitioners that the other inmates of the house having not identified the petitioner Gopal as one of the culprits, it would not be safe to rely only on the evidence of P. 14 was thoroughly reliable and they have accordingly acted upon his evidence it is not considered necessary to disturb their finding particularly when their mode of appreciation of evidence is not shown to be perverse. 6. No other contention having been raised on behalf of the petitioners and the aforesaid contentions having failed, I hold that the revision is without merit and accordingly the same is dismissed.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => 'Tilkeshwar Singh v. The State of Bihar;',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => 'D.P. Dhal, ;P.K. Dhal and ;P.K. Panda, Advs.',
			'counseldef' => 'J. Mahanty, Standing Counsel',
			'court' => 'Orissa',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '1991-09-25',
			'deposition' => 'Petition dismissed',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'B.N. Dash, J.',
			'judgement' => 'ORDER<p style="text-align: justify;">B.N. Dash, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. The prosecution case, shortly stated, is that on 9/10-2-1984 at about midnight time while the informant Susil Kumar Dandpat was sleeping in the outer varandah of their house in village Machilapada under Badasahi Police station, District Meyurbhanj and the other inmates of the house including Sirish Chandra Dandpat (P.W. 1) and Sunilkumar Dandpat (P.W. 14) were sleeping inside the house bolting the entrance door from inside, there was barking of dogs for which P.W. 5 woke up and found that there was flashing of torch lights at some distance. After proceeding for some times when P.W. 5 asked in a raised voice as to who were focussing the torch lights, some people rushed at him and at their sight he ran towards his house shouting on the way to open the entrance door. Before the miscreants could approach him, the entrance door was opened and he entered into the house and bolted the door from inside. The miscreants dashed against the entrance door, but the same did not open inasmuch as the inmates of the house kept pressed the door leaves from inside. The miscreants also made attempts to make their entry into the house by breaking open a window but failed inasmuch as a folded table was kept against the broken open place of the window and there was pelting of glasses at the miscreants by the inmates of the house who did so in spite of pelting of stones and throwing of arrows by the miscreants into the house. On hearing the shouts raised by the inmates of the house, when villagers assembled near the spot, the culprits finding themselves to have been outnumbered took to their heels. Before their departure, they could injure the villagers Pratap Chandra Dandpat (P.W.3), Sadasiv Sahu (P.W.4) and Ajay Kumar Dandpat (P.W.12). After departure of the miscreants, F.I.R. (Ext. 2) was lodged at the Police station in the same night at 3 a.m. and investigation commenced. In course of investigation, stones and arrows thrown by the culprits were seized from the house in question and a test identification parade was conducted in which all the six petitioners were identified as the culprits who attempted to have committed dacoity in the house of P.W. 5. Ultimately, the present petitioners along with one Gagan Bhakta, (since acquitted) were tried for the offence Under Section 397, IPC.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. At the trial, the prosecution examined 15 witnesses of whom P.W. 1, P.W. 5 and P.W. 14 were the inmates of the house; P.W. 2 Radha Mohan Naik and P.W. 6 Bhagaban Sahu were the witnesses to the seizure of the articles from the house in question. P.W. 4 Sadasiv Sahu, P.W. 7 Ashok Kumar Dandpat and P.W. 12 Ajay Kumar Dandpat were the villagers who along with others saw the culprits and foiled their attempt to committing dacoity; P.W. 8 and 9 are the Medical Officers who examined the injured persons (P.Ws. 3, 4 and 12) and also the first petitioner Karmu Bhakta and found injuries on their persons; P.W. 10 is another Medical Officer who extracted an arrow from the person of P.W. 4 and handed over the same to the Investigating Officer; P.W. 13 is the Magistrate who conducted the test identification parade and P.Ws. 11 and 13 are the Police Officers who took some part or the other in the investigation of the case.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The trial court found that the first petitioner Karmu, the third petitioner Sarthak and the fifth petitioner Raju Katual had been duly identified by P.Ws. 5, 12 and 14 as the culprits both in the test identification parade as well as in court; the second petitioner Chandra had been duly identified as one of the culprits by P.Ws. 5 and 14 both in the test identification parade as well as in court; the sixth petitioner Jatindra had been duly identified as one of the culprits by P.Ws. 7 and 12 both in test identification parade as well as in court and the fourth petitioner Gopal had been identified only by P.W. 14 as one of the culprits both in test identification parade as well as in court. So, relying on the evidence of P.Ws. 5, 7, 12 and 14, the trial court convicted the six petitioners Under Section 397, IPC and sentenced each of them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years, while acquitting the accused Gagan Bhakta. In appeal, the learned Sessions Judge, Mayurbhanj, Baripada converted the conviction Under Section 397, IPC to one Under Section 395, IPC. and reduced the sentence to five years rigorous imprisonment in respect of each of the petitioners. Being aggrieved by such judgment and order, the present revision has been filed.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. The concurrent finding of fact that there was an attempt to commit dacoity in the house of P.W. 5 in the night in question is not assailed before me by Mr. P. K. Dhal, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners. It is, however, contended by him that the identifying witnesses having asserted that they had seen the petitioners with the help of electric light burning in the house of P.W. 5 and also with the aid of flashing of torch lights by the petitioner and their companions hither and thither and as such they could identify them both in the test identification parade as well as in court, their evidence should not have been believed by the courts below because neither electric bulb nor any torch light of the petitioners has been seized, by the Investigating Officer at the time of investigation. This contention relates to appreciation of evidence of the identifying witnesses and since appreciation of evidence is normally not permissible in revision like the one in hand, I refrain myself to evaluate such contention particularly when perversity in appreciation of evidence by the courts below is not brought to my notice. As such, the contention is rejected as unsubstantial.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. It is then contended by Mr. Dhal for the petitioners that P.W. 14 having not been examined at the time of investigation, his evidence in court identifying the petitioner Gopal as one of the culprits is inadmissible in evidence and if such evidence is left out of consideration then his evidence of identification in the test identification parade, being not substantive evidence, could not be relied upon for convicting Gopal. There is no pleading in the revision-petition that P.W. 14 had not been examined at the time of investigation. My attention is sought to be invited to the evidence of P.W. 14 himself in support of such factual position, but I am afraid if a court of revision can go through such evidence in the absence of any pleading. Even assuming for the sake of argument that P.W. 14 was not examined at the time of investigation, his evidence cannot be said to be inadmissible in the absence of any provision to that effect in Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 or in the Evidence Act. All that that can be said is that when a witness examined in court whose statement Under Section 161, Cr. P.C. had not been recorded at the time of investigation, the evidentiary value to be attached to the evidence of such witness has to be looked into and if it would be found that prejudice had been caused to the accused then the evidence of such witness may not be acted upon, otherwise not. I am supported in my view by a decision in Tilkeshwar Singh v. The State of Bihar, AIR 1956 SC 238 : (1956 Cri LJ 441). In this case, P.W. 14 had been cited as a witness in the charge-sheet and he was examined in court and both the courts below have relied on his evidence obviously for the reason that no prejudice had been caused to the petitioners: As such, the contention must fail.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. It is then contended by Mr. Dhal for the petitioners that the other inmates of the house having not identified the petitioner Gopal as one of the culprits, it would not be safe to rely only on the evidence of P.W. 14 to sustain his conviction. This argument would have carried some force if there would have been evidence to show that all inmates of the house had occasion to see all the petitioners, but no such evidence is brought to my notice. It is not unlikely that when the inmates of the house were seeing the culprits from different angles, the petitioner Gopal seen by P.W. 14 might not have been seen by the other inmates of the house. When both the courts below have found that the evidence of P.W. 14 was thoroughly reliable and they have accordingly acted upon his evidence it is not considered necessary to disturb their finding particularly when their mode of appreciation of evidence is not shown to be perverse.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. No other contention having been raised on behalf of the petitioners and the aforesaid contentions having failed, I hold that the revision is without merit and accordingly the same is dismissed.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '73(1992)CLT253; 1992CriLJ2154',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'State',
			'sub' => 'Criminal',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'karmu-bhakta-ors-vs-state',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '536492',
		(int) 1 => 'karmu-bhakta-ors-vs-state'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Karmu Bhakta and ors Vs State - Citation 536492 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '536492',
		'acts' => 'Evidence Act; <a href="/act/50902/code-of-criminal-procedure-1973-complete-act">Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1973</a> - Sections 161; Indian Penal Code (IPC) - Sections 395 and 397',
		'appealno' => 'Criminal Revision No. 200 of 1988',
		'appellant' => 'Karmu Bhakta and ors.',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Karmu Bhakta and ors. Vs. State',
		'casenote' => ' - Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002], 110 & 104 & Letters Patent, 1865, Clause 10: [Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Letters Patent  Appeal  Order of Single Judge of High Court passed while deciding matters filed under Order 43, Rule1 of C.P.C., -  Held, After introduction of Section 110A in the C.P.C., by 2002 Amendment Act, no Letters Patent Appeal is maintainable against judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge of a High Court. A right of appeal, even though a vested one, can be taken away by law. It is pertinent to note that Section 100-A introduced by 2002 Amendment of the Code starts with a non obstante clause. The purpose of such clause is to give the enacting part of an overriding effect in the case of a conflict with laws mentioned with the non obstante clause. The legislative intention is thus very clear that the law enacted shall have full operation and there would be no impediment. It is well settled that the definition of judgment in Section 2(9) of C.P.C., is much wider and more liberal, Intermediary or interlocutory judgment fall in the category of orders referred to Clause (a) to (w) of Order 43, Rule 1 and also such other orders which poses the characteristic and trapping of finality and may adversely affect a valuable right of a party or decide an important aspect of a trial in an ancillary proceeding. Amended Section 100-A of the Code clearly stipulates that where any appeal from an original or appellate decree or order is heard and decided by a Single Judge of a High Court, no further appeal shall lie. Even otherwise, the word judgment as defined under Section 2(9) means a statement given by a Judge on the grounds of a decree or order. Thus the contention that against an order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal filed under Section 104 C.P.C., a further appeal lies to a Division Bench cannot be accepted. The newly incorporated Section 100A in clear and specific terms prohibits further appeal against the decree and judgment or order of a Single Judge to a Division Bench notwithstanding anything contained in the Letters Patent. The Letters Patent which provides for further appeal to a Division Bench remains intact, but the right to prefer a further appeal is taken away even in respect of the matters arising under the special enactments or other instruments having the force of law be it against original/appellate decree or order heard and decided by a Single Judge. It has to be kept in mind that the special statute only provide for an Appeal to the High Court. It has not made any provision for filing appeal to a Division Bench against the judgment or decree or order of a Single Judge. No Letters Patent Appeal shall lie against a judgment/order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal arising out of a proceeding under a Special Act.

Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002] & 104:[Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Writ Appeal  Held, A Writ Appeal shall lie against judgment/orders passed by Single Judge in a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In a writ application filed under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution, if any order/judgment/decree is passed in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226, a writ appeal will lie. But, no writ appeal will lie against a judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge in exercising powers of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution. 
 -  The miscreants also made attempts to make their entry into the house by breaking open a window but failed inasmuch as a folded table was kept against the broken open place of the window and there was pelting of glasses at the miscreants by the inmates of the house who did so in spite of pelting of stones and throwing of arrows by the miscreants into the house. 5, 12 and 14 as the culprits both in the test identification parade as well as in court; 5 and 14 both in the test identification parade as well as in court; 7 and 12 both in test identification parade as well as in court and the fourth petitioner Gopal had been identified only by P. 14 as one of the culprits both in test identification parade as well as in court. 5 and also with the aid of flashing of torch lights by the petitioner and their companions hither and thither and as such they could identify them both in the test identification parade as well as in court, their evidence should not have been believed by the courts below because neither electric bulb nor any torch light of the petitioners has been seized, by the Investigating Officer at the time of investigation. This contention relates to appreciation of evidence of the identifying witnesses and since appreciation of evidence is normally not permissible in revision like the one in hand, I refrain myself to evaluate such contention particularly when perversity in appreciation of evidence by the courts below is not brought to my notice. As such, the contention must fail. Dhal for the petitioners that the other inmates of the house having not identified the petitioner Gopal as one of the culprits, it would not be safe to rely only on the evidence of P. 14 was thoroughly reliable and they have accordingly acted upon his evidence it is not considered necessary to disturb their finding particularly when their mode of appreciation of evidence is not shown to be perverse. 6. No other contention having been raised on behalf of the petitioners and the aforesaid contentions having failed, I hold that the revision is without merit and accordingly the same is dismissed.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => 'Tilkeshwar Singh v. The State of Bihar;',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => 'D.P. Dhal, ;P.K. Dhal and ;P.K. Panda, Advs.',
		'counseldef' => 'J. Mahanty, Standing Counsel',
		'court' => 'Orissa',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '1991-09-25',
		'deposition' => 'Petition dismissed',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'B.N. Dash, J.',
		'judgement' => 'ORDER<p>B.N. Dash, J.</p><p>1. The prosecution case, shortly stated, is that on 9/10-2-1984 at about midnight time while the informant Susil Kumar Dandpat was sleeping in the outer varandah of their house in village Machilapada under Badasahi Police station, District Meyurbhanj and the other inmates of the house including Sirish Chandra Dandpat (P.W. 1) and Sunilkumar Dandpat (P.W. 14) were sleeping inside the house bolting the entrance door from inside, there was barking of dogs for which P.W. 5 woke up and found that there was flashing of torch lights at some distance. After proceeding for some times when P.W. 5 asked in a raised voice as to who were focussing the torch lights, some people rushed at him and at their sight he ran towards his house shouting on the way to open the entrance door. Before the miscreants could approach him, the entrance door was opened and he entered into the house and bolted the door from inside. The miscreants dashed against the entrance door, but the same did not open inasmuch as the inmates of the house kept pressed the door leaves from inside. The miscreants also made attempts to make their entry into the house by breaking open a window but failed inasmuch as a folded table was kept against the broken open place of the window and there was pelting of glasses at the miscreants by the inmates of the house who did so in spite of pelting of stones and throwing of arrows by the miscreants into the house. On hearing the shouts raised by the inmates of the house, when villagers assembled near the spot, the culprits finding themselves to have been outnumbered took to their heels. Before their departure, they could injure the villagers Pratap Chandra Dandpat (P.W.3), Sadasiv Sahu (P.W.4) and Ajay Kumar Dandpat (P.W.12). After departure of the miscreants, F.I.R. (Ext. 2) was lodged at the Police station in the same night at 3 a.m. and investigation commenced. In course of investigation, stones and arrows thrown by the culprits were seized from the house in question and a test identification parade was conducted in which all the six petitioners were identified as the culprits who attempted to have committed dacoity in the house of P.W. 5. Ultimately, the present petitioners along with one Gagan Bhakta, (since acquitted) were tried for the offence Under Section 397, IPC.</p><p>2. At the trial, the prosecution examined 15 witnesses of whom P.W. 1, P.W. 5 and P.W. 14 were the inmates of the house; P.W. 2 Radha Mohan Naik and P.W. 6 Bhagaban Sahu were the witnesses to the seizure of the articles from the house in question. P.W. 4 Sadasiv Sahu, P.W. 7 Ashok Kumar Dandpat and P.W. 12 Ajay Kumar Dandpat were the villagers who along with others saw the culprits and foiled their attempt to committing dacoity; P.W. 8 and 9 are the Medical Officers who examined the injured persons (P.Ws. 3, 4 and 12) and also the first petitioner Karmu Bhakta and found injuries on their persons; P.W. 10 is another Medical Officer who extracted an arrow from the person of P.W. 4 and handed over the same to the Investigating Officer; P.W. 13 is the Magistrate who conducted the test identification parade and P.Ws. 11 and 13 are the Police Officers who took some part or the other in the investigation of the case.</p><p>The trial court found that the first petitioner Karmu, the third petitioner Sarthak and the fifth petitioner Raju Katual had been duly identified by P.Ws. 5, 12 and 14 as the culprits both in the test identification parade as well as in court; the second petitioner Chandra had been duly identified as one of the culprits by P.Ws. 5 and 14 both in the test identification parade as well as in court; the sixth petitioner Jatindra had been duly identified as one of the culprits by P.Ws. 7 and 12 both in test identification parade as well as in court and the fourth petitioner Gopal had been identified only by P.W. 14 as one of the culprits both in test identification parade as well as in court. So, relying on the evidence of P.Ws. 5, 7, 12 and 14, the trial court convicted the six petitioners Under Section 397, IPC and sentenced each of them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years, while acquitting the accused Gagan Bhakta. In appeal, the learned Sessions Judge, Mayurbhanj, Baripada converted the conviction Under Section 397, IPC to one Under Section 395, IPC. and reduced the sentence to five years rigorous imprisonment in respect of each of the petitioners. Being aggrieved by such judgment and order, the present revision has been filed.</p><p>3. The concurrent finding of fact that there was an attempt to commit dacoity in the house of P.W. 5 in the night in question is not assailed before me by Mr. P. K. Dhal, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners. It is, however, contended by him that the identifying witnesses having asserted that they had seen the petitioners with the help of electric light burning in the house of P.W. 5 and also with the aid of flashing of torch lights by the petitioner and their companions hither and thither and as such they could identify them both in the test identification parade as well as in court, their evidence should not have been believed by the courts below because neither electric bulb nor any torch light of the petitioners has been seized, by the Investigating Officer at the time of investigation. This contention relates to appreciation of evidence of the identifying witnesses and since appreciation of evidence is normally not permissible in revision like the one in hand, I refrain myself to evaluate such contention particularly when perversity in appreciation of evidence by the courts below is not brought to my notice. As such, the contention is rejected as unsubstantial.</p><p>4. It is then contended by Mr. Dhal for the petitioners that P.W. 14 having not been examined at the time of investigation, his evidence in court identifying the petitioner Gopal as one of the culprits is inadmissible in evidence and if such evidence is left out of consideration then his evidence of identification in the test identification parade, being not substantive evidence, could not be relied upon for convicting Gopal. There is no pleading in the revision-petition that P.W. 14 had not been examined at the time of investigation. My attention is sought to be invited to the evidence of P.W. 14 himself in support of such factual position, but I am afraid if a court of revision can go through such evidence in the absence of any pleading. Even assuming for the sake of argument that P.W. 14 was not examined at the time of investigation, his evidence cannot be said to be inadmissible in the absence of any provision to that effect in Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 or in the Evidence Act. All that that can be said is that when a witness examined in court whose statement Under Section 161, Cr. P.C. had not been recorded at the time of investigation, the evidentiary value to be attached to the evidence of such witness has to be looked into and if it would be found that prejudice had been caused to the accused then the evidence of such witness may not be acted upon, otherwise not. I am supported in my view by a decision in Tilkeshwar Singh v. The State of Bihar, AIR 1956 SC 238 : (1956 Cri LJ 441). In this case, P.W. 14 had been cited as a witness in the charge-sheet and he was examined in court and both the courts below have relied on his evidence obviously for the reason that no prejudice had been caused to the petitioners: As such, the contention must fail.</p><p>5. It is then contended by Mr. Dhal for the petitioners that the other inmates of the house having not identified the petitioner Gopal as one of the culprits, it would not be safe to rely only on the evidence of P.W. 14 to sustain his conviction. This argument would have carried some force if there would have been evidence to show that all inmates of the house had occasion to see all the petitioners, but no such evidence is brought to my notice. It is not unlikely that when the inmates of the house were seeing the culprits from different angles, the petitioner Gopal seen by P.W. 14 might not have been seen by the other inmates of the house. When both the courts below have found that the evidence of P.W. 14 was thoroughly reliable and they have accordingly acted upon his evidence it is not considered necessary to disturb their finding particularly when their mode of appreciation of evidence is not shown to be perverse.</p><p>6. No other contention having been raised on behalf of the petitioners and the aforesaid contentions having failed, I hold that the revision is without merit and accordingly the same is dismissed.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '73(1992)CLT253; 1992CriLJ2154',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'State',
		'sub' => 'Criminal',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'karmu-bhakta-ors-vs-state'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '536492',
	(int) 1 => 'karmu-bhakta-ors-vs-state'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/536492/karmu-bhakta-ors-vs-state'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$caseref = 'Tilkeshwar Singh v. The State of Bihar<br>'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => 'ORDER<p>B.N. Dash, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. The prosecution case, shortly stated, is that on 9/10-2-1984 at about midnight time while the informant Susil Kumar Dandpat was sleeping in the outer varandah of their house in village Machilapada under Badasahi Police station, District Meyurbhanj and the other inmates of the house including Sirish Chandra Dandpat (P.W. 1) and Sunilkumar Dandpat (P.W. 14) were sleeping inside the house bolting the entrance door from inside, there was barking of dogs for which P.W. 5 woke up and found that there was flashing of torch lights at some distance. After proceeding for some times when P.W. 5 asked in a raised voice as to who were focussing the torch lights, some people rushed at him and at their sight he ran towards his house shouting on the way to open the entrance door. Before the miscreants could approach him, the entrance door was opened and he entered into the house and bolted the door from inside. The miscreants dashed against the entrance door, but the same did not open inasmuch as the inmates of the house kept pressed the door leaves from inside. The miscreants also made attempts to make their entry into the house by breaking open a window but failed inasmuch as a folded table was kept against the broken open place of the window and there was pelting of glasses at the miscreants by the inmates of the house who did so in spite of pelting of stones and throwing of arrows by the miscreants into the house. On hearing the shouts raised by the inmates of the house, when villagers assembled near the spot, the culprits finding themselves to have been outnumbered took to their heels. Before their departure, they could injure the villagers Pratap Chandra Dandpat (P.W.3), Sadasiv Sahu (P.W.4) and Ajay Kumar Dandpat (P.W.12). After departure of the miscreants, F.I.R. (Ext. 2) was lodged at the Police station in the same night at 3 a.m. and investigation commenced. In course of investigation, stones and arrows thrown by the culprits were seized from the house in question and a test identification parade was conducted in which all the six petitioners were identified as the culprits who attempted to have committed dacoity in the house of P.W. 5. Ultimately, the present petitioners along with one Gagan Bhakta, (since acquitted) were tried for the offence Under Section 397, IPC.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. At the trial, the prosecution examined 15 witnesses of whom P.W. 1, P.W. 5 and P.W. 14 were the inmates of the house; P.W. 2 Radha Mohan Naik and P.W. 6 Bhagaban Sahu were the witnesses to the seizure of the articles from the house in question. P.W. 4 Sadasiv Sahu, P.W. 7 Ashok Kumar Dandpat and P.W. 12 Ajay Kumar Dandpat were the villagers who along with others saw the culprits and foiled their attempt to committing dacoity; P.W. 8 and 9 are the Medical Officers who examined the injured persons (P.Ws. 3, 4 and 12) and also the first petitioner Karmu Bhakta and found injuries on their persons; P.W. 10 is another Medical Officer who extracted an arrow from the person of P.W. 4 and handed over the same to the Investigating Officer; P.W. 13 is the Magistrate who conducted the test identification parade and P.Ws. 11 and 13 are the Police Officers who took some part or the other in the investigation of the case.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>The trial court found that the first petitioner Karmu, the third petitioner Sarthak and the fifth petitioner Raju Katual had been duly identified by P.Ws. 5, 12 and 14 as the culprits both in the test identification parade as well as in court; the second petitioner Chandra had been duly identified as one of the culprits by P.Ws. 5 and 14 both in the test identification parade as well as in court; the sixth petitioner Jatindra had been duly identified as one of the culprits by P.Ws. 7 and 12 both in test identification parade as well as in court and the fourth petitioner Gopal had been identified only by P.W. 14 as one of the culprits both in test identification parade as well as in court. So, relying on the evidence of P.Ws. 5, 7, 12 and 14, the trial court convicted the six petitioners Under Section 397, IPC and sentenced each of them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years, while acquitting the accused Gagan Bhakta. In appeal, the learned Sessions Judge, Mayurbhanj, Baripada converted the conviction Under Section 397, IPC to one Under Section 395, IPC. and reduced the sentence to five years rigorous imprisonment in respect of each of the petitioners. Being aggrieved by such judgment and order, the present revision has been filed.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>3. The concurrent finding of fact that there was an attempt to commit dacoity in the house of P.W. 5 in the night in question is not assailed before me by Mr. P. K. Dhal, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners. It is, however, contended by him that the identifying witnesses having asserted that they had seen the petitioners with the help of electric light burning in the house of P.W. 5 and also with the aid of flashing of torch lights by the petitioner and their companions hither and thither and as such they could identify them both in the test identification parade as well as in court, their evidence should not have been believed by the courts below because neither electric bulb nor any torch light of the petitioners has been seized, by the Investigating Officer at the time of investigation. This contention relates to appreciation of evidence of the identifying witnesses and since appreciation of evidence is normally not permissible in revision like the one in hand, I refrain myself to evaluate such contention particularly when perversity in appreciation of evidence by the courts below is not brought to my notice. As such, the contention is rejected as unsubstantial.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>4. It is then contended by Mr. Dhal for the petitioners that P.W. 14 having not been examined at the time of investigation, his evidence in court identifying the petitioner Gopal as one of the culprits is inadmissible in evidence and if such evidence is left out of consideration then his evidence of identification in the test identification parade, being not substantive evidence, could not be relied upon for convicting Gopal. There is no pleading in the revision-petition that P.W. 14 had not been examined at the time of investigation. My attention is sought to be invited to the evidence of P.W. 14 himself in support of such factual position, but I am afraid if a court of revision can go through such evidence in the absence of any pleading. Even assuming for the sake of argument that P.W. 14 was not examined at the time of investigation, his evidence cannot be said to be inadmissible in the absence of any provision to that effect in Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 or in the Evidence Act. All that that can be said is that when a witness examined in court whose statement Under Section 161, Cr. P.C. had not been recorded at the time of investigation, the evidentiary value to be attached to the evidence of such witness has to be looked into and if it would be found that prejudice had been caused to the accused then the evidence of such witness may not be acted upon, otherwise not. I am supported in my view by a decision in Tilkeshwar Singh v. The State of Bihar, AIR 1956 SC 238 : (1956 Cri LJ 441). In this case, P.W. 14 had been cited as a witness in the charge-sheet and he was examined in court and both the courts below have relied on his evidence obviously for the reason that no prejudice had been caused to the petitioners: As such, the contention must fail.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>5. It is then contended by Mr. Dhal for the petitioners that the other inmates of the house having not identified the petitioner Gopal as one of the culprits, it would not be safe to rely only on the evidence of P.W. 14 to sustain his conviction. This argument would have carried some force if there would have been evidence to show that all inmates of the house had occasion to see all the petitioners, but no such evidence is brought to my notice. It is not unlikely that when the inmates of the house were seeing the culprits from different angles, the petitioner Gopal seen by P.W. 14 might not have been seen by the other inmates of the house. When both the courts below have found that the evidence of P.W. 14 was thoroughly reliable and they have accordingly acted upon his evidence it is not considered necessary to disturb their finding particularly when their mode of appreciation of evidence is not shown to be perverse.',
	(int) 7 => '<p>6. No other contention having been raised on behalf of the petitioners and the aforesaid contentions having failed, I hold that the revision is without merit and accordingly the same is dismissed.<p>',
	(int) 8 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 9
$i = (int) 7
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

6. No other contention having been raised on behalf of the petitioners and the aforesaid contentions having failed, I hold that the revision is without merit and accordingly the same is dismissed.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Karmu Bhakta and ors Vs State - Citation 536492 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '536492',
			'acts' => 'Evidence Act; <a href="/act/50902/code-of-criminal-procedure-1973-complete-act">Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1973</a> - Sections 161; Indian Penal Code (IPC) - Sections 395 and 397',
			'appealno' => 'Criminal Revision No. 200 of 1988',
			'appellant' => 'Karmu Bhakta and ors.',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Karmu Bhakta and ors. Vs. State',
			'casenote' => ' - Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002], 110 & 104 & Letters Patent, 1865, Clause 10: [Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Letters Patent  Appeal  Order of Single Judge of High Court passed while deciding matters filed under Order 43, Rule1 of C.P.C., -  Held, After introduction of Section 110A in the C.P.C., by 2002 Amendment Act, no Letters Patent Appeal is maintainable against judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge of a High Court. A right of appeal, even though a vested one, can be taken away by law. It is pertinent to note that Section 100-A introduced by 2002 Amendment of the Code starts with a non obstante clause. The purpose of such clause is to give the enacting part of an overriding effect in the case of a conflict with laws mentioned with the non obstante clause. The legislative intention is thus very clear that the law enacted shall have full operation and there would be no impediment. It is well settled that the definition of judgment in Section 2(9) of C.P.C., is much wider and more liberal, Intermediary or interlocutory judgment fall in the category of orders referred to Clause (a) to (w) of Order 43, Rule 1 and also such other orders which poses the characteristic and trapping of finality and may adversely affect a valuable right of a party or decide an important aspect of a trial in an ancillary proceeding. Amended Section 100-A of the Code clearly stipulates that where any appeal from an original or appellate decree or order is heard and decided by a Single Judge of a High Court, no further appeal shall lie. Even otherwise, the word judgment as defined under Section 2(9) means a statement given by a Judge on the grounds of a decree or order. Thus the contention that against an order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal filed under Section 104 C.P.C., a further appeal lies to a Division Bench cannot be accepted. The newly incorporated Section 100A in clear and specific terms prohibits further appeal against the decree and judgment or order of a Single Judge to a Division Bench notwithstanding anything contained in the Letters Patent. The Letters Patent which provides for further appeal to a Division Bench remains intact, but the right to prefer a further appeal is taken away even in respect of the matters arising under the special enactments or other instruments having the force of law be it against original/appellate decree or order heard and decided by a Single Judge. It has to be kept in mind that the special statute only provide for an Appeal to the High Court. It has not made any provision for filing appeal to a Division Bench against the judgment or decree or order of a Single Judge. No Letters Patent Appeal shall lie against a judgment/order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal arising out of a proceeding under a Special Act.

Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002] & 104:[Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Writ Appeal  Held, A Writ Appeal shall lie against judgment/orders passed by Single Judge in a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In a writ application filed under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution, if any order/judgment/decree is passed in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226, a writ appeal will lie. But, no writ appeal will lie against a judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge in exercising powers of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution. 
 -  The miscreants also made attempts to make their entry into the house by breaking open a window but failed inasmuch as a folded table was kept against the broken open place of the window and there was pelting of glasses at the miscreants by the inmates of the house who did so in spite of pelting of stones and throwing of arrows by the miscreants into the house. 5, 12 and 14 as the culprits both in the test identification parade as well as in court; 5 and 14 both in the test identification parade as well as in court; 7 and 12 both in test identification parade as well as in court and the fourth petitioner Gopal had been identified only by P. 14 as one of the culprits both in test identification parade as well as in court. 5 and also with the aid of flashing of torch lights by the petitioner and their companions hither and thither and as such they could identify them both in the test identification parade as well as in court, their evidence should not have been believed by the courts below because neither electric bulb nor any torch light of the petitioners has been seized, by the Investigating Officer at the time of investigation. This contention relates to appreciation of evidence of the identifying witnesses and since appreciation of evidence is normally not permissible in revision like the one in hand, I refrain myself to evaluate such contention particularly when perversity in appreciation of evidence by the courts below is not brought to my notice. As such, the contention must fail. Dhal for the petitioners that the other inmates of the house having not identified the petitioner Gopal as one of the culprits, it would not be safe to rely only on the evidence of P. 14 was thoroughly reliable and they have accordingly acted upon his evidence it is not considered necessary to disturb their finding particularly when their mode of appreciation of evidence is not shown to be perverse. 6. No other contention having been raised on behalf of the petitioners and the aforesaid contentions having failed, I hold that the revision is without merit and accordingly the same is dismissed.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => 'Tilkeshwar Singh v. The State of Bihar;',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => 'D.P. Dhal, ;P.K. Dhal and ;P.K. Panda, Advs.',
			'counseldef' => 'J. Mahanty, Standing Counsel',
			'court' => 'Orissa',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '1991-09-25',
			'deposition' => 'Petition dismissed',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'B.N. Dash, J.',
			'judgement' => 'ORDER<p style="text-align: justify;">B.N. Dash, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. The prosecution case, shortly stated, is that on 9/10-2-1984 at about midnight time while the informant Susil Kumar Dandpat was sleeping in the outer varandah of their house in village Machilapada under Badasahi Police station, District Meyurbhanj and the other inmates of the house including Sirish Chandra Dandpat (P.W. 1) and Sunilkumar Dandpat (P.W. 14) were sleeping inside the house bolting the entrance door from inside, there was barking of dogs for which P.W. 5 woke up and found that there was flashing of torch lights at some distance. After proceeding for some times when P.W. 5 asked in a raised voice as to who were focussing the torch lights, some people rushed at him and at their sight he ran towards his house shouting on the way to open the entrance door. Before the miscreants could approach him, the entrance door was opened and he entered into the house and bolted the door from inside. The miscreants dashed against the entrance door, but the same did not open inasmuch as the inmates of the house kept pressed the door leaves from inside. The miscreants also made attempts to make their entry into the house by breaking open a window but failed inasmuch as a folded table was kept against the broken open place of the window and there was pelting of glasses at the miscreants by the inmates of the house who did so in spite of pelting of stones and throwing of arrows by the miscreants into the house. On hearing the shouts raised by the inmates of the house, when villagers assembled near the spot, the culprits finding themselves to have been outnumbered took to their heels. Before their departure, they could injure the villagers Pratap Chandra Dandpat (P.W.3), Sadasiv Sahu (P.W.4) and Ajay Kumar Dandpat (P.W.12). After departure of the miscreants, F.I.R. (Ext. 2) was lodged at the Police station in the same night at 3 a.m. and investigation commenced. In course of investigation, stones and arrows thrown by the culprits were seized from the house in question and a test identification parade was conducted in which all the six petitioners were identified as the culprits who attempted to have committed dacoity in the house of P.W. 5. Ultimately, the present petitioners along with one Gagan Bhakta, (since acquitted) were tried for the offence Under Section 397, IPC.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. At the trial, the prosecution examined 15 witnesses of whom P.W. 1, P.W. 5 and P.W. 14 were the inmates of the house; P.W. 2 Radha Mohan Naik and P.W. 6 Bhagaban Sahu were the witnesses to the seizure of the articles from the house in question. P.W. 4 Sadasiv Sahu, P.W. 7 Ashok Kumar Dandpat and P.W. 12 Ajay Kumar Dandpat were the villagers who along with others saw the culprits and foiled their attempt to committing dacoity; P.W. 8 and 9 are the Medical Officers who examined the injured persons (P.Ws. 3, 4 and 12) and also the first petitioner Karmu Bhakta and found injuries on their persons; P.W. 10 is another Medical Officer who extracted an arrow from the person of P.W. 4 and handed over the same to the Investigating Officer; P.W. 13 is the Magistrate who conducted the test identification parade and P.Ws. 11 and 13 are the Police Officers who took some part or the other in the investigation of the case.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The trial court found that the first petitioner Karmu, the third petitioner Sarthak and the fifth petitioner Raju Katual had been duly identified by P.Ws. 5, 12 and 14 as the culprits both in the test identification parade as well as in court; the second petitioner Chandra had been duly identified as one of the culprits by P.Ws. 5 and 14 both in the test identification parade as well as in court; the sixth petitioner Jatindra had been duly identified as one of the culprits by P.Ws. 7 and 12 both in test identification parade as well as in court and the fourth petitioner Gopal had been identified only by P.W. 14 as one of the culprits both in test identification parade as well as in court. So, relying on the evidence of P.Ws. 5, 7, 12 and 14, the trial court convicted the six petitioners Under Section 397, IPC and sentenced each of them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years, while acquitting the accused Gagan Bhakta. In appeal, the learned Sessions Judge, Mayurbhanj, Baripada converted the conviction Under Section 397, IPC to one Under Section 395, IPC. and reduced the sentence to five years rigorous imprisonment in respect of each of the petitioners. Being aggrieved by such judgment and order, the present revision has been filed.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. The concurrent finding of fact that there was an attempt to commit dacoity in the house of P.W. 5 in the night in question is not assailed before me by Mr. P. K. Dhal, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners. It is, however, contended by him that the identifying witnesses having asserted that they had seen the petitioners with the help of electric light burning in the house of P.W. 5 and also with the aid of flashing of torch lights by the petitioner and their companions hither and thither and as such they could identify them both in the test identification parade as well as in court, their evidence should not have been believed by the courts below because neither electric bulb nor any torch light of the petitioners has been seized, by the Investigating Officer at the time of investigation. This contention relates to appreciation of evidence of the identifying witnesses and since appreciation of evidence is normally not permissible in revision like the one in hand, I refrain myself to evaluate such contention particularly when perversity in appreciation of evidence by the courts below is not brought to my notice. As such, the contention is rejected as unsubstantial.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. It is then contended by Mr. Dhal for the petitioners that P.W. 14 having not been examined at the time of investigation, his evidence in court identifying the petitioner Gopal as one of the culprits is inadmissible in evidence and if such evidence is left out of consideration then his evidence of identification in the test identification parade, being not substantive evidence, could not be relied upon for convicting Gopal. There is no pleading in the revision-petition that P.W. 14 had not been examined at the time of investigation. My attention is sought to be invited to the evidence of P.W. 14 himself in support of such factual position, but I am afraid if a court of revision can go through such evidence in the absence of any pleading. Even assuming for the sake of argument that P.W. 14 was not examined at the time of investigation, his evidence cannot be said to be inadmissible in the absence of any provision to that effect in Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 or in the Evidence Act. All that that can be said is that when a witness examined in court whose statement Under Section 161, Cr. P.C. had not been recorded at the time of investigation, the evidentiary value to be attached to the evidence of such witness has to be looked into and if it would be found that prejudice had been caused to the accused then the evidence of such witness may not be acted upon, otherwise not. I am supported in my view by a decision in Tilkeshwar Singh v. The State of Bihar, AIR 1956 SC 238 : (1956 Cri LJ 441). In this case, P.W. 14 had been cited as a witness in the charge-sheet and he was examined in court and both the courts below have relied on his evidence obviously for the reason that no prejudice had been caused to the petitioners: As such, the contention must fail.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. It is then contended by Mr. Dhal for the petitioners that the other inmates of the house having not identified the petitioner Gopal as one of the culprits, it would not be safe to rely only on the evidence of P.W. 14 to sustain his conviction. This argument would have carried some force if there would have been evidence to show that all inmates of the house had occasion to see all the petitioners, but no such evidence is brought to my notice. It is not unlikely that when the inmates of the house were seeing the culprits from different angles, the petitioner Gopal seen by P.W. 14 might not have been seen by the other inmates of the house. When both the courts below have found that the evidence of P.W. 14 was thoroughly reliable and they have accordingly acted upon his evidence it is not considered necessary to disturb their finding particularly when their mode of appreciation of evidence is not shown to be perverse.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. No other contention having been raised on behalf of the petitioners and the aforesaid contentions having failed, I hold that the revision is without merit and accordingly the same is dismissed.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '73(1992)CLT253; 1992CriLJ2154',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'State',
			'sub' => 'Criminal',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'karmu-bhakta-ors-vs-state',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '536492',
		(int) 1 => 'karmu-bhakta-ors-vs-state'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Karmu Bhakta and ors Vs State - Citation 536492 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '536492',
		'acts' => 'Evidence Act; <a href="/act/50902/code-of-criminal-procedure-1973-complete-act">Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1973</a> - Sections 161; Indian Penal Code (IPC) - Sections 395 and 397',
		'appealno' => 'Criminal Revision No. 200 of 1988',
		'appellant' => 'Karmu Bhakta and ors.',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Karmu Bhakta and ors. Vs. State',
		'casenote' => ' - Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002], 110 & 104 & Letters Patent, 1865, Clause 10: [Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Letters Patent  Appeal  Order of Single Judge of High Court passed while deciding matters filed under Order 43, Rule1 of C.P.C., -  Held, After introduction of Section 110A in the C.P.C., by 2002 Amendment Act, no Letters Patent Appeal is maintainable against judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge of a High Court. A right of appeal, even though a vested one, can be taken away by law. It is pertinent to note that Section 100-A introduced by 2002 Amendment of the Code starts with a non obstante clause. The purpose of such clause is to give the enacting part of an overriding effect in the case of a conflict with laws mentioned with the non obstante clause. The legislative intention is thus very clear that the law enacted shall have full operation and there would be no impediment. It is well settled that the definition of judgment in Section 2(9) of C.P.C., is much wider and more liberal, Intermediary or interlocutory judgment fall in the category of orders referred to Clause (a) to (w) of Order 43, Rule 1 and also such other orders which poses the characteristic and trapping of finality and may adversely affect a valuable right of a party or decide an important aspect of a trial in an ancillary proceeding. Amended Section 100-A of the Code clearly stipulates that where any appeal from an original or appellate decree or order is heard and decided by a Single Judge of a High Court, no further appeal shall lie. Even otherwise, the word judgment as defined under Section 2(9) means a statement given by a Judge on the grounds of a decree or order. Thus the contention that against an order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal filed under Section 104 C.P.C., a further appeal lies to a Division Bench cannot be accepted. The newly incorporated Section 100A in clear and specific terms prohibits further appeal against the decree and judgment or order of a Single Judge to a Division Bench notwithstanding anything contained in the Letters Patent. The Letters Patent which provides for further appeal to a Division Bench remains intact, but the right to prefer a further appeal is taken away even in respect of the matters arising under the special enactments or other instruments having the force of law be it against original/appellate decree or order heard and decided by a Single Judge. It has to be kept in mind that the special statute only provide for an Appeal to the High Court. It has not made any provision for filing appeal to a Division Bench against the judgment or decree or order of a Single Judge. No Letters Patent Appeal shall lie against a judgment/order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal arising out of a proceeding under a Special Act.

Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002] & 104:[Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Writ Appeal  Held, A Writ Appeal shall lie against judgment/orders passed by Single Judge in a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In a writ application filed under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution, if any order/judgment/decree is passed in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226, a writ appeal will lie. But, no writ appeal will lie against a judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge in exercising powers of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution. 
 -  The miscreants also made attempts to make their entry into the house by breaking open a window but failed inasmuch as a folded table was kept against the broken open place of the window and there was pelting of glasses at the miscreants by the inmates of the house who did so in spite of pelting of stones and throwing of arrows by the miscreants into the house. 5, 12 and 14 as the culprits both in the test identification parade as well as in court; 5 and 14 both in the test identification parade as well as in court; 7 and 12 both in test identification parade as well as in court and the fourth petitioner Gopal had been identified only by P. 14 as one of the culprits both in test identification parade as well as in court. 5 and also with the aid of flashing of torch lights by the petitioner and their companions hither and thither and as such they could identify them both in the test identification parade as well as in court, their evidence should not have been believed by the courts below because neither electric bulb nor any torch light of the petitioners has been seized, by the Investigating Officer at the time of investigation. This contention relates to appreciation of evidence of the identifying witnesses and since appreciation of evidence is normally not permissible in revision like the one in hand, I refrain myself to evaluate such contention particularly when perversity in appreciation of evidence by the courts below is not brought to my notice. As such, the contention must fail. Dhal for the petitioners that the other inmates of the house having not identified the petitioner Gopal as one of the culprits, it would not be safe to rely only on the evidence of P. 14 was thoroughly reliable and they have accordingly acted upon his evidence it is not considered necessary to disturb their finding particularly when their mode of appreciation of evidence is not shown to be perverse. 6. No other contention having been raised on behalf of the petitioners and the aforesaid contentions having failed, I hold that the revision is without merit and accordingly the same is dismissed.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => 'Tilkeshwar Singh v. The State of Bihar;',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => 'D.P. Dhal, ;P.K. Dhal and ;P.K. Panda, Advs.',
		'counseldef' => 'J. Mahanty, Standing Counsel',
		'court' => 'Orissa',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '1991-09-25',
		'deposition' => 'Petition dismissed',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'B.N. Dash, J.',
		'judgement' => 'ORDER<p>B.N. Dash, J.</p><p>1. The prosecution case, shortly stated, is that on 9/10-2-1984 at about midnight time while the informant Susil Kumar Dandpat was sleeping in the outer varandah of their house in village Machilapada under Badasahi Police station, District Meyurbhanj and the other inmates of the house including Sirish Chandra Dandpat (P.W. 1) and Sunilkumar Dandpat (P.W. 14) were sleeping inside the house bolting the entrance door from inside, there was barking of dogs for which P.W. 5 woke up and found that there was flashing of torch lights at some distance. After proceeding for some times when P.W. 5 asked in a raised voice as to who were focussing the torch lights, some people rushed at him and at their sight he ran towards his house shouting on the way to open the entrance door. Before the miscreants could approach him, the entrance door was opened and he entered into the house and bolted the door from inside. The miscreants dashed against the entrance door, but the same did not open inasmuch as the inmates of the house kept pressed the door leaves from inside. The miscreants also made attempts to make their entry into the house by breaking open a window but failed inasmuch as a folded table was kept against the broken open place of the window and there was pelting of glasses at the miscreants by the inmates of the house who did so in spite of pelting of stones and throwing of arrows by the miscreants into the house. On hearing the shouts raised by the inmates of the house, when villagers assembled near the spot, the culprits finding themselves to have been outnumbered took to their heels. Before their departure, they could injure the villagers Pratap Chandra Dandpat (P.W.3), Sadasiv Sahu (P.W.4) and Ajay Kumar Dandpat (P.W.12). After departure of the miscreants, F.I.R. (Ext. 2) was lodged at the Police station in the same night at 3 a.m. and investigation commenced. In course of investigation, stones and arrows thrown by the culprits were seized from the house in question and a test identification parade was conducted in which all the six petitioners were identified as the culprits who attempted to have committed dacoity in the house of P.W. 5. Ultimately, the present petitioners along with one Gagan Bhakta, (since acquitted) were tried for the offence Under Section 397, IPC.</p><p>2. At the trial, the prosecution examined 15 witnesses of whom P.W. 1, P.W. 5 and P.W. 14 were the inmates of the house; P.W. 2 Radha Mohan Naik and P.W. 6 Bhagaban Sahu were the witnesses to the seizure of the articles from the house in question. P.W. 4 Sadasiv Sahu, P.W. 7 Ashok Kumar Dandpat and P.W. 12 Ajay Kumar Dandpat were the villagers who along with others saw the culprits and foiled their attempt to committing dacoity; P.W. 8 and 9 are the Medical Officers who examined the injured persons (P.Ws. 3, 4 and 12) and also the first petitioner Karmu Bhakta and found injuries on their persons; P.W. 10 is another Medical Officer who extracted an arrow from the person of P.W. 4 and handed over the same to the Investigating Officer; P.W. 13 is the Magistrate who conducted the test identification parade and P.Ws. 11 and 13 are the Police Officers who took some part or the other in the investigation of the case.</p><p>The trial court found that the first petitioner Karmu, the third petitioner Sarthak and the fifth petitioner Raju Katual had been duly identified by P.Ws. 5, 12 and 14 as the culprits both in the test identification parade as well as in court; the second petitioner Chandra had been duly identified as one of the culprits by P.Ws. 5 and 14 both in the test identification parade as well as in court; the sixth petitioner Jatindra had been duly identified as one of the culprits by P.Ws. 7 and 12 both in test identification parade as well as in court and the fourth petitioner Gopal had been identified only by P.W. 14 as one of the culprits both in test identification parade as well as in court. So, relying on the evidence of P.Ws. 5, 7, 12 and 14, the trial court convicted the six petitioners Under Section 397, IPC and sentenced each of them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years, while acquitting the accused Gagan Bhakta. In appeal, the learned Sessions Judge, Mayurbhanj, Baripada converted the conviction Under Section 397, IPC to one Under Section 395, IPC. and reduced the sentence to five years rigorous imprisonment in respect of each of the petitioners. Being aggrieved by such judgment and order, the present revision has been filed.</p><p>3. The concurrent finding of fact that there was an attempt to commit dacoity in the house of P.W. 5 in the night in question is not assailed before me by Mr. P. K. Dhal, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners. It is, however, contended by him that the identifying witnesses having asserted that they had seen the petitioners with the help of electric light burning in the house of P.W. 5 and also with the aid of flashing of torch lights by the petitioner and their companions hither and thither and as such they could identify them both in the test identification parade as well as in court, their evidence should not have been believed by the courts below because neither electric bulb nor any torch light of the petitioners has been seized, by the Investigating Officer at the time of investigation. This contention relates to appreciation of evidence of the identifying witnesses and since appreciation of evidence is normally not permissible in revision like the one in hand, I refrain myself to evaluate such contention particularly when perversity in appreciation of evidence by the courts below is not brought to my notice. As such, the contention is rejected as unsubstantial.</p><p>4. It is then contended by Mr. Dhal for the petitioners that P.W. 14 having not been examined at the time of investigation, his evidence in court identifying the petitioner Gopal as one of the culprits is inadmissible in evidence and if such evidence is left out of consideration then his evidence of identification in the test identification parade, being not substantive evidence, could not be relied upon for convicting Gopal. There is no pleading in the revision-petition that P.W. 14 had not been examined at the time of investigation. My attention is sought to be invited to the evidence of P.W. 14 himself in support of such factual position, but I am afraid if a court of revision can go through such evidence in the absence of any pleading. Even assuming for the sake of argument that P.W. 14 was not examined at the time of investigation, his evidence cannot be said to be inadmissible in the absence of any provision to that effect in Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 or in the Evidence Act. All that that can be said is that when a witness examined in court whose statement Under Section 161, Cr. P.C. had not been recorded at the time of investigation, the evidentiary value to be attached to the evidence of such witness has to be looked into and if it would be found that prejudice had been caused to the accused then the evidence of such witness may not be acted upon, otherwise not. I am supported in my view by a decision in Tilkeshwar Singh v. The State of Bihar, AIR 1956 SC 238 : (1956 Cri LJ 441). In this case, P.W. 14 had been cited as a witness in the charge-sheet and he was examined in court and both the courts below have relied on his evidence obviously for the reason that no prejudice had been caused to the petitioners: As such, the contention must fail.</p><p>5. It is then contended by Mr. Dhal for the petitioners that the other inmates of the house having not identified the petitioner Gopal as one of the culprits, it would not be safe to rely only on the evidence of P.W. 14 to sustain his conviction. This argument would have carried some force if there would have been evidence to show that all inmates of the house had occasion to see all the petitioners, but no such evidence is brought to my notice. It is not unlikely that when the inmates of the house were seeing the culprits from different angles, the petitioner Gopal seen by P.W. 14 might not have been seen by the other inmates of the house. When both the courts below have found that the evidence of P.W. 14 was thoroughly reliable and they have accordingly acted upon his evidence it is not considered necessary to disturb their finding particularly when their mode of appreciation of evidence is not shown to be perverse.</p><p>6. No other contention having been raised on behalf of the petitioners and the aforesaid contentions having failed, I hold that the revision is without merit and accordingly the same is dismissed.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '73(1992)CLT253; 1992CriLJ2154',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'State',
		'sub' => 'Criminal',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'karmu-bhakta-ors-vs-state'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '536492',
	(int) 1 => 'karmu-bhakta-ors-vs-state'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/536492/karmu-bhakta-ors-vs-state'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$caseref = 'Tilkeshwar Singh v. The State of Bihar<br>'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => 'ORDER<p>B.N. Dash, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. The prosecution case, shortly stated, is that on 9/10-2-1984 at about midnight time while the informant Susil Kumar Dandpat was sleeping in the outer varandah of their house in village Machilapada under Badasahi Police station, District Meyurbhanj and the other inmates of the house including Sirish Chandra Dandpat (P.W. 1) and Sunilkumar Dandpat (P.W. 14) were sleeping inside the house bolting the entrance door from inside, there was barking of dogs for which P.W. 5 woke up and found that there was flashing of torch lights at some distance. After proceeding for some times when P.W. 5 asked in a raised voice as to who were focussing the torch lights, some people rushed at him and at their sight he ran towards his house shouting on the way to open the entrance door. Before the miscreants could approach him, the entrance door was opened and he entered into the house and bolted the door from inside. The miscreants dashed against the entrance door, but the same did not open inasmuch as the inmates of the house kept pressed the door leaves from inside. The miscreants also made attempts to make their entry into the house by breaking open a window but failed inasmuch as a folded table was kept against the broken open place of the window and there was pelting of glasses at the miscreants by the inmates of the house who did so in spite of pelting of stones and throwing of arrows by the miscreants into the house. On hearing the shouts raised by the inmates of the house, when villagers assembled near the spot, the culprits finding themselves to have been outnumbered took to their heels. Before their departure, they could injure the villagers Pratap Chandra Dandpat (P.W.3), Sadasiv Sahu (P.W.4) and Ajay Kumar Dandpat (P.W.12). After departure of the miscreants, F.I.R. (Ext. 2) was lodged at the Police station in the same night at 3 a.m. and investigation commenced. In course of investigation, stones and arrows thrown by the culprits were seized from the house in question and a test identification parade was conducted in which all the six petitioners were identified as the culprits who attempted to have committed dacoity in the house of P.W. 5. Ultimately, the present petitioners along with one Gagan Bhakta, (since acquitted) were tried for the offence Under Section 397, IPC.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. At the trial, the prosecution examined 15 witnesses of whom P.W. 1, P.W. 5 and P.W. 14 were the inmates of the house; P.W. 2 Radha Mohan Naik and P.W. 6 Bhagaban Sahu were the witnesses to the seizure of the articles from the house in question. P.W. 4 Sadasiv Sahu, P.W. 7 Ashok Kumar Dandpat and P.W. 12 Ajay Kumar Dandpat were the villagers who along with others saw the culprits and foiled their attempt to committing dacoity; P.W. 8 and 9 are the Medical Officers who examined the injured persons (P.Ws. 3, 4 and 12) and also the first petitioner Karmu Bhakta and found injuries on their persons; P.W. 10 is another Medical Officer who extracted an arrow from the person of P.W. 4 and handed over the same to the Investigating Officer; P.W. 13 is the Magistrate who conducted the test identification parade and P.Ws. 11 and 13 are the Police Officers who took some part or the other in the investigation of the case.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>The trial court found that the first petitioner Karmu, the third petitioner Sarthak and the fifth petitioner Raju Katual had been duly identified by P.Ws. 5, 12 and 14 as the culprits both in the test identification parade as well as in court; the second petitioner Chandra had been duly identified as one of the culprits by P.Ws. 5 and 14 both in the test identification parade as well as in court; the sixth petitioner Jatindra had been duly identified as one of the culprits by P.Ws. 7 and 12 both in test identification parade as well as in court and the fourth petitioner Gopal had been identified only by P.W. 14 as one of the culprits both in test identification parade as well as in court. So, relying on the evidence of P.Ws. 5, 7, 12 and 14, the trial court convicted the six petitioners Under Section 397, IPC and sentenced each of them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years, while acquitting the accused Gagan Bhakta. In appeal, the learned Sessions Judge, Mayurbhanj, Baripada converted the conviction Under Section 397, IPC to one Under Section 395, IPC. and reduced the sentence to five years rigorous imprisonment in respect of each of the petitioners. Being aggrieved by such judgment and order, the present revision has been filed.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>3. The concurrent finding of fact that there was an attempt to commit dacoity in the house of P.W. 5 in the night in question is not assailed before me by Mr. P. K. Dhal, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners. It is, however, contended by him that the identifying witnesses having asserted that they had seen the petitioners with the help of electric light burning in the house of P.W. 5 and also with the aid of flashing of torch lights by the petitioner and their companions hither and thither and as such they could identify them both in the test identification parade as well as in court, their evidence should not have been believed by the courts below because neither electric bulb nor any torch light of the petitioners has been seized, by the Investigating Officer at the time of investigation. This contention relates to appreciation of evidence of the identifying witnesses and since appreciation of evidence is normally not permissible in revision like the one in hand, I refrain myself to evaluate such contention particularly when perversity in appreciation of evidence by the courts below is not brought to my notice. As such, the contention is rejected as unsubstantial.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>4. It is then contended by Mr. Dhal for the petitioners that P.W. 14 having not been examined at the time of investigation, his evidence in court identifying the petitioner Gopal as one of the culprits is inadmissible in evidence and if such evidence is left out of consideration then his evidence of identification in the test identification parade, being not substantive evidence, could not be relied upon for convicting Gopal. There is no pleading in the revision-petition that P.W. 14 had not been examined at the time of investigation. My attention is sought to be invited to the evidence of P.W. 14 himself in support of such factual position, but I am afraid if a court of revision can go through such evidence in the absence of any pleading. Even assuming for the sake of argument that P.W. 14 was not examined at the time of investigation, his evidence cannot be said to be inadmissible in the absence of any provision to that effect in Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 or in the Evidence Act. All that that can be said is that when a witness examined in court whose statement Under Section 161, Cr. P.C. had not been recorded at the time of investigation, the evidentiary value to be attached to the evidence of such witness has to be looked into and if it would be found that prejudice had been caused to the accused then the evidence of such witness may not be acted upon, otherwise not. I am supported in my view by a decision in Tilkeshwar Singh v. The State of Bihar, AIR 1956 SC 238 : (1956 Cri LJ 441). In this case, P.W. 14 had been cited as a witness in the charge-sheet and he was examined in court and both the courts below have relied on his evidence obviously for the reason that no prejudice had been caused to the petitioners: As such, the contention must fail.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>5. It is then contended by Mr. Dhal for the petitioners that the other inmates of the house having not identified the petitioner Gopal as one of the culprits, it would not be safe to rely only on the evidence of P.W. 14 to sustain his conviction. This argument would have carried some force if there would have been evidence to show that all inmates of the house had occasion to see all the petitioners, but no such evidence is brought to my notice. It is not unlikely that when the inmates of the house were seeing the culprits from different angles, the petitioner Gopal seen by P.W. 14 might not have been seen by the other inmates of the house. When both the courts below have found that the evidence of P.W. 14 was thoroughly reliable and they have accordingly acted upon his evidence it is not considered necessary to disturb their finding particularly when their mode of appreciation of evidence is not shown to be perverse.',
	(int) 7 => '<p>6. No other contention having been raised on behalf of the petitioners and the aforesaid contentions having failed, I hold that the revision is without merit and accordingly the same is dismissed.<p>',
	(int) 8 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 9
$i = (int) 8
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109