Semantic Analysis by spaCy
Kanka Singh Vs. State of Orissa
Decided On : Nov-16-2007
Court : Orissa
Notice (8): Undefined index: topics [APP/View/Case/meta.ctp, line 36]Code Context$shops2 = $shops['topics'];$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/meta.ctp' $dataForView = array( 'title_for_layout' => 'Kanka Singh Vs. State of Orissa Semantic Analysis', 'shops' => array( 'LAW' => array( (int) 0 => 'Section 302 IPC', (int) 1 => 'Section 307 IPC', (int) 2 => 'Section 304', (int) 3 => 'Section 304', (int) 4 => 'Section 307', (int) 5 => 'Section 307', (int) 6 => 'Section 307 I.P.C.', (int) 7 => 'Section 334', (int) 8 => 'Section 307', (int) 9 => 'Section 334', (int) 10 => 'Section 304' ), 'PERSON' => array( (int) 0 => 'P.K. Tripathy', (int) 1 => 'Chandra Mohanta', (int) 2 => 'Padmalochan Barik', (int) 3 => 'Baya Singh', (int) 4 => 'Suni Singh', (int) 5 => 'Suni Singh', (int) 6 => 'Suni', (int) 7 => 'Suni Singh', (int) 8 => 'I.O.', (int) 9 => 'Sum Singh', (int) 10 => 'Suni Singh', (int) 11 => 'Suni Singh', (int) 12 => 'Suni Singh', (int) 13 => 'Suni Singh' ), 'NORP' => array( (int) 0 => 'J.1', (int) 1 => 'Bamboo' ), 'ORG' => array( (int) 0 => 'Sutan Dehury', (int) 1 => 'P.W. 1', (int) 2 => 'the F.I.R. Ext', (int) 3 => 'Exts', (int) 4 => 'M.O.I. P.W. 10', (int) 5 => 'M.O.I.', (int) 6 => 'Exts', (int) 7 => 'P.W. 10', (int) 8 => 'P.W.', (int) 9 => 'Court', (int) 10 => 'the Trial Court', (int) 11 => 'Learned State Defence Counsel', (int) 12 => 'the Trial Court', (int) 13 => 'the Trial Court', (int) 14 => 'Court', (int) 15 => 'IPC', (int) 16 => 'Trial Court', (int) 17 => 'Sentence', (int) 18 => 'IPC', (int) 19 => 'Ext', (int) 20 => 'Court', (int) 21 => 'IPC', (int) 22 => 'IPC', (int) 23 => 'IPC', (int) 24 => 'IPC' ), 'TIME' => array( (int) 0 => 'the evening hours', (int) 1 => 'about 7 p.m.', (int) 2 => '48 hours' ), 'PRODUCT' => array( (int) 0 => 'P.W. 1', (int) 1 => 'P.W. 1', (int) 2 => 'Bamboo', (int) 3 => 'P.W. 1', (int) 4 => 'P.W. 1', (int) 5 => 'P.W. 10', (int) 6 => 'P.W. 10', (int) 7 => 'P.W. 1', (int) 8 => 'P.W. 1', (int) 9 => 'Appellant', (int) 10 => 'P.W. 1', (int) 11 => 'P.W. 13', (int) 12 => 'P.W. 13', (int) 13 => 'P.W. 13', (int) 14 => 'P.W. 13' ), 'GPE' => array( (int) 0 => 'Subash' ), 'CARDINAL' => array( (int) 0 => '1', (int) 1 => '3', (int) 2 => '9', (int) 3 => '1', (int) 4 => '14', (int) 5 => '1 to 17', (int) 6 => 'one', (int) 7 => '2', (int) 8 => '1/', (int) 9 => '2', (int) 10 => '8', (int) 11 => '10', (int) 12 => '8 and 10', (int) 13 => '13', (int) 14 => '6', (int) 15 => '12', (int) 16 => '1/2', (int) 17 => '1/4', (int) 18 => '1/6', (int) 19 => '1', (int) 20 => '1/2', (int) 21 => '1', (int) 22 => '1/2' ), 'QUANTITY' => array( (int) 0 => 'four head one inch' ), 'ORDINAL' => array( (int) 0 => '7th', (int) 1 => '8th', (int) 2 => '9th' ), 'DATE' => array( (int) 0 => '7 years', (int) 1 => 'one month' ) ), 'desc' => array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '536829', 'acts' => '', 'appealno' => '', 'appellant' => 'Kanka Singh', 'authreffered' => '', 'casename' => 'Kanka Singh Vs. State of Orissa', '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. - 1, he admitted to have assulted Suni Singh as well as the deceased because they were found in objectionable position. 13) made an attempt to trace out that injured but failed.', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => '', 'citingcases' => '', 'counselplain' => '', 'counseldef' => '', 'court' => 'Orissa', 'court_type' => 'HC', 'decidedon' => '2007-11-16', 'deposition' => '', 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => ' P.K. Tripathy, J.', 'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">P.K. Tripathy, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. Prosecution case is that Sutan Dehury (hereinafter referred to as the deceased), on the date of occurrence, in the evening hours left the cattle in his master's house and went out. P.W. 1, the informant was his master. At about 7 p.m., Subash Chandra Mohanta (P.W. 1), Padmalochan Barik (P.W. 3) and Baya Singh (P.W. 9) came and informed P.W. 1 that accused committed murder of the deceased by means of Bamboo lathi. On hearing that P.W. 1 together with others rushed to the spot and they discovered that deceased was lying dead with injuries. Suni Singh, wife of the accused was also lying with injuries and the accused was standing there with a Bamboo lathi. On being asked by P.W. 1, he admitted to have assulted Suni Singh as well as the deceased because they were found in objectionable position. P.W. 1, therefore, lodged the F.I.R. Ext. 1 and set the law into motion. After routine investigation charge-sheet was submitted against accused, as noted above, for the offence under Section 302 IPC for committing murder of the deceased and under Section 307 IPC for attempting to murder Suni Singh.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. In course of the trial, 14 witnesses were examined and various documents from Exts. 1 to 17 were exhibited and the Bamboo lathi, i.e., weapon of offence, was marked as M.O.I. P.W. 10 was the doctor, who conducted autopsy on the body of the deceased and found one abrasion over scrotum, one lacerated wound of 2' x 1/ 2'x bone deep transversely placed on the four head one inch above the left eye brow and bruises of dimension of 2' x 8' and 2' x 6' transversely placed on the left scapula interiorly. On dissection P.W. 10 found that 7th, 8th and 9th left ribs were fractured, the pleura had turned over the fractured ribs, lacerated injury ' x 1' over left bug and there was fracture of left humerous. P.W. 10 opined that time of death was within 48 hours from the time of examination and that death was due to aforesaid injuries. P.W. 10 also opined that injury found in the fore-head is possible by M.O.I. The postmortem report and opinion report are marked as Exts. 8 and 10. In the cross-examination, P.W. 10 stated that he did not engage of sexual intercourse committed by the deceased before his death. Evidence of P.W. 10 proved homicidal death of the deceased and that aspect was not challenged in the Trial Court.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. Admittedly, there were no eyewitnesses to the occurrence except Suni Singh, the injured. It reveals from the lower Court record that summons could not be served on her because her whereabouts were not known to anybody in the concerned village. Even the I.O. (P.W. 13) made an attempt to trace out that injured but failed. Under such circumstance, prosecution heavily relied on the circumstantial evidence, as noted above so also the extra judicial confession made by the accused before P.Ws.1 and 6. It has been rightly pointed out by the Trial Court that Learned State Defence Counsel did not challenge the aforesaid piece of evidence, i.e., extra judicial confession. On the other hand, perusal of the deposition of P.W. 1 and other witnesses, it is seen that questions have been put to lend credibility to the extra-judicial confession. Under such circumstance, there is nothing against findings recorded by the Trial Court that the deceased died because of injury inflicted on him by the accused.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. At this stage the question that comes for consideration is as to whether accused is guilty of the offence of murder or culpable homicidal not amounting to murder. It was admitted by P.W. 1 and other witnesses to the extra-judicial confession that when the accused found his wife and the deceased were indulging in merry making that he (and) got provocation and thereafter assaulted the deceased and the injured. Under such circumstance, the findings of the Trial Court that the act of the Appellant was culpable homicide not amounting to murder is found to have been correctly recorded. Keeping the circumstances preceding in the occurrence leading to unfortunate death of the deceased, the substantive sentence which has been imposed appears to be sufficient and therefore while maintaining order of conviction for the offence under Section 304 part-I and confirming the sentence of 7 years of rigorous imprisonment, this Court set aside the order of sentence of fine for the offence under Section 304 part-I IPC imposed byjbe Trial Court. The Sentence is accordingly modified.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. (Sic) So far as the charge under Section 307, IPC is concerned, no doubt P.W. 1 and other witnesses proved that when they arrived at the spot they also found injured, Sum Singh lying on the spot with injuries. P.W. 13 is the Doctor, who examined Suni Singh and issued the injury certificate, Ext. 12. P.W. 13 has stated in his evidence that he found lacerated injury 1/2' x 1/4' x 1/6' on the left upper eye lid, a bruise of 1' x 1/2' on the middle of right arm and a bruise of 1' x 1/2' on the middle of left arm P.W. 13 has opined that all the injuries were simple in nature. P.W. 13 was further stated that he recorded the statement of the injured. That statement was marked as Ext.13. In that statement Suni Singh stated about sleeping with the deceased when accused arrived and assaulted both of them. The tenor of evidence of P.W. 13 or any of the witnesses examined in course of the trial does not reveal that the accused made an attempt to commit murder of injured Suni Singh. Under such circumstance dealing of blows and causing injury in this case automatically does not amount to offence of attempt to commit murder punishable under Section 307, I.P.C. For the reasons stated above, this Court finds that conviction of the accused for the offence under Section 307 I.P.C. is not correct. On the other hand, since a lathi was used to commit simple injuries on the body of Suni Singh, therefore accused is liable to be convicted for the offence under Section 334, IPC, which provides for maximum sentence of imprisonment for one month or with fine of Rs. 500/-.Under such circumstance, while setting aside the order of conviction under Section 307, IPC accused is found to be guilty of offence under Section 334, IPC and in view of the sentence imposed on him for the offence under Section 304-part-I, IPC, no separate sentence is awarded.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. The Jail Criminal Appeal is accordingly allowed in part. Appellant ere set at liberty forthwith if he has already served the sentence and further if his detention in jail is not required in any other case.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => '', 'pubs' => '105(2008)CLT422', 'ratiodecidendi' => '', 'respondent' => 'State of Orissa', 'sub' => 'Criminal', 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ), 'args' => array( (int) 0 => '536829' ) ) $title_for_layout = 'Kanka Singh Vs. State of Orissa Semantic Analysis' $shops = array( 'LAW' => array( (int) 0 => 'Section 302 IPC', (int) 1 => 'Section 307 IPC', (int) 2 => 'Section 304', (int) 3 => 'Section 304', (int) 4 => 'Section 307', (int) 5 => 'Section 307', (int) 6 => 'Section 307 I.P.C.', (int) 7 => 'Section 334', (int) 8 => 'Section 307', (int) 9 => 'Section 334', (int) 10 => 'Section 304' ), 'PERSON' => array( (int) 0 => 'P.K. Tripathy', (int) 1 => 'Chandra Mohanta', (int) 2 => 'Padmalochan Barik', (int) 3 => 'Baya Singh', (int) 4 => 'Suni Singh', (int) 5 => 'Suni Singh', (int) 6 => 'Suni', (int) 7 => 'Suni Singh', (int) 8 => 'I.O.', (int) 9 => 'Sum Singh', (int) 10 => 'Suni Singh', (int) 11 => 'Suni Singh', (int) 12 => 'Suni Singh', (int) 13 => 'Suni Singh' ), 'NORP' => array( (int) 0 => 'J.1', (int) 1 => 'Bamboo' ), 'ORG' => array( (int) 0 => 'Sutan Dehury', (int) 1 => 'P.W. 1', (int) 2 => 'the F.I.R. Ext', (int) 3 => 'Exts', (int) 4 => 'M.O.I. P.W. 10', (int) 5 => 'M.O.I.', (int) 6 => 'Exts', (int) 7 => 'P.W. 10', (int) 8 => 'P.W.', (int) 9 => 'Court', (int) 10 => 'the Trial Court', (int) 11 => 'Learned State Defence Counsel', (int) 12 => 'the Trial Court', (int) 13 => 'the Trial Court', (int) 14 => 'Court', (int) 15 => 'IPC', (int) 16 => 'Trial Court', (int) 17 => 'Sentence', (int) 18 => 'IPC', (int) 19 => 'Ext', (int) 20 => 'Court', (int) 21 => 'IPC', (int) 22 => 'IPC', (int) 23 => 'IPC', (int) 24 => 'IPC' ), 'TIME' => array( (int) 0 => 'the evening hours', (int) 1 => 'about 7 p.m.', (int) 2 => '48 hours' ), 'PRODUCT' => array( (int) 0 => 'P.W. 1', (int) 1 => 'P.W. 1', (int) 2 => 'Bamboo', (int) 3 => 'P.W. 1', (int) 4 => 'P.W. 1', (int) 5 => 'P.W. 10', (int) 6 => 'P.W. 10', (int) 7 => 'P.W. 1', (int) 8 => 'P.W. 1', (int) 9 => 'Appellant', (int) 10 => 'P.W. 1', (int) 11 => 'P.W. 13', (int) 12 => 'P.W. 13', (int) 13 => 'P.W. 13', (int) 14 => 'P.W. 13' ), 'GPE' => array( (int) 0 => 'Subash' ), 'CARDINAL' => array( (int) 0 => '1', (int) 1 => '3', (int) 2 => '9', (int) 3 => '1', (int) 4 => '14', (int) 5 => '1 to 17', (int) 6 => 'one', (int) 7 => '2', (int) 8 => '1/', (int) 9 => '2', (int) 10 => '8', (int) 11 => '10', (int) 12 => '8 and 10', (int) 13 => '13', (int) 14 => '6', (int) 15 => '12', (int) 16 => '1/2', (int) 17 => '1/4', (int) 18 => '1/6', (int) 19 => '1', (int) 20 => '1/2', (int) 21 => '1', (int) 22 => '1/2' ), 'QUANTITY' => array( (int) 0 => 'four head one inch' ), 'ORDINAL' => array( (int) 0 => '7th', (int) 1 => '8th', (int) 2 => '9th' ), 'DATE' => array( (int) 0 => '7 years', (int) 1 => 'one month' ) ) $desc = array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '536829', 'acts' => '', 'appealno' => '', 'appellant' => 'Kanka Singh', 'authreffered' => '', 'casename' => 'Kanka Singh Vs. State of Orissa', '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. - 1, he admitted to have assulted Suni Singh as well as the deceased because they were found in objectionable position. 13) made an attempt to trace out that injured but failed.', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => '', 'citingcases' => '', 'counselplain' => '', 'counseldef' => '', 'court' => 'Orissa', 'court_type' => 'HC', 'decidedon' => '2007-11-16', 'deposition' => '', 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => ' P.K. Tripathy, J.', 'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">P.K. Tripathy, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. Prosecution case is that Sutan Dehury (hereinafter referred to as the deceased), on the date of occurrence, in the evening hours left the cattle in his master's house and went out. P.W. 1, the informant was his master. At about 7 p.m., Subash Chandra Mohanta (P.W. 1), Padmalochan Barik (P.W. 3) and Baya Singh (P.W. 9) came and informed P.W. 1 that accused committed murder of the deceased by means of Bamboo lathi. On hearing that P.W. 1 together with others rushed to the spot and they discovered that deceased was lying dead with injuries. Suni Singh, wife of the accused was also lying with injuries and the accused was standing there with a Bamboo lathi. On being asked by P.W. 1, he admitted to have assulted Suni Singh as well as the deceased because they were found in objectionable position. P.W. 1, therefore, lodged the F.I.R. Ext. 1 and set the law into motion. After routine investigation charge-sheet was submitted against accused, as noted above, for the offence under Section 302 IPC for committing murder of the deceased and under Section 307 IPC for attempting to murder Suni Singh.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. In course of the trial, 14 witnesses were examined and various documents from Exts. 1 to 17 were exhibited and the Bamboo lathi, i.e., weapon of offence, was marked as M.O.I. P.W. 10 was the doctor, who conducted autopsy on the body of the deceased and found one abrasion over scrotum, one lacerated wound of 2' x 1/ 2'x bone deep transversely placed on the four head one inch above the left eye brow and bruises of dimension of 2' x 8' and 2' x 6' transversely placed on the left scapula interiorly. On dissection P.W. 10 found that 7th, 8th and 9th left ribs were fractured, the pleura had turned over the fractured ribs, lacerated injury ' x 1' over left bug and there was fracture of left humerous. P.W. 10 opined that time of death was within 48 hours from the time of examination and that death was due to aforesaid injuries. P.W. 10 also opined that injury found in the fore-head is possible by M.O.I. The postmortem report and opinion report are marked as Exts. 8 and 10. In the cross-examination, P.W. 10 stated that he did not engage of sexual intercourse committed by the deceased before his death. Evidence of P.W. 10 proved homicidal death of the deceased and that aspect was not challenged in the Trial Court.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. Admittedly, there were no eyewitnesses to the occurrence except Suni Singh, the injured. It reveals from the lower Court record that summons could not be served on her because her whereabouts were not known to anybody in the concerned village. Even the I.O. (P.W. 13) made an attempt to trace out that injured but failed. Under such circumstance, prosecution heavily relied on the circumstantial evidence, as noted above so also the extra judicial confession made by the accused before P.Ws.1 and 6. It has been rightly pointed out by the Trial Court that Learned State Defence Counsel did not challenge the aforesaid piece of evidence, i.e., extra judicial confession. On the other hand, perusal of the deposition of P.W. 1 and other witnesses, it is seen that questions have been put to lend credibility to the extra-judicial confession. Under such circumstance, there is nothing against findings recorded by the Trial Court that the deceased died because of injury inflicted on him by the accused.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. At this stage the question that comes for consideration is as to whether accused is guilty of the offence of murder or culpable homicidal not amounting to murder. It was admitted by P.W. 1 and other witnesses to the extra-judicial confession that when the accused found his wife and the deceased were indulging in merry making that he (and) got provocation and thereafter assaulted the deceased and the injured. Under such circumstance, the findings of the Trial Court that the act of the Appellant was culpable homicide not amounting to murder is found to have been correctly recorded. Keeping the circumstances preceding in the occurrence leading to unfortunate death of the deceased, the substantive sentence which has been imposed appears to be sufficient and therefore while maintaining order of conviction for the offence under Section 304 part-I and confirming the sentence of 7 years of rigorous imprisonment, this Court set aside the order of sentence of fine for the offence under Section 304 part-I IPC imposed byjbe Trial Court. The Sentence is accordingly modified.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. (Sic) So far as the charge under Section 307, IPC is concerned, no doubt P.W. 1 and other witnesses proved that when they arrived at the spot they also found injured, Sum Singh lying on the spot with injuries. P.W. 13 is the Doctor, who examined Suni Singh and issued the injury certificate, Ext. 12. P.W. 13 has stated in his evidence that he found lacerated injury 1/2' x 1/4' x 1/6' on the left upper eye lid, a bruise of 1' x 1/2' on the middle of right arm and a bruise of 1' x 1/2' on the middle of left arm P.W. 13 has opined that all the injuries were simple in nature. P.W. 13 was further stated that he recorded the statement of the injured. That statement was marked as Ext.13. In that statement Suni Singh stated about sleeping with the deceased when accused arrived and assaulted both of them. The tenor of evidence of P.W. 13 or any of the witnesses examined in course of the trial does not reveal that the accused made an attempt to commit murder of injured Suni Singh. Under such circumstance dealing of blows and causing injury in this case automatically does not amount to offence of attempt to commit murder punishable under Section 307, I.P.C. For the reasons stated above, this Court finds that conviction of the accused for the offence under Section 307 I.P.C. is not correct. On the other hand, since a lathi was used to commit simple injuries on the body of Suni Singh, therefore accused is liable to be convicted for the offence under Section 334, IPC, which provides for maximum sentence of imprisonment for one month or with fine of Rs. 500/-.Under such circumstance, while setting aside the order of conviction under Section 307, IPC accused is found to be guilty of offence under Section 334, IPC and in view of the sentence imposed on him for the offence under Section 304-part-I, IPC, no separate sentence is awarded.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. The Jail Criminal Appeal is accordingly allowed in part. Appellant ere set at liberty forthwith if he has already served the sentence and further if his detention in jail is not required in any other case.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => '', 'pubs' => '105(2008)CLT422', 'ratiodecidendi' => '', 'respondent' => 'State of Orissa', 'sub' => 'Criminal', 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ) $args = array( (int) 0 => '536829' ) $pattern = '/\(((0[1-9]|[12][0-9]|3[01])[.](0[1-9]|1[012])[.](17|18|19|20)[0-9]{2}).*\)/'include - APP/View/Case/meta.ctp, line 36 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
Warning (2): Invalid argument supplied for foreach() [APP/View/Case/meta.ctp, line 39]Code Context//$shops = $shops['entities'];foreach ($shops2 as $key => $val) {$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/meta.ctp' $dataForView = array( 'title_for_layout' => 'Kanka Singh Vs. State of Orissa Semantic Analysis', 'shops' => array( 'LAW' => array( (int) 0 => 'Section 302 IPC', (int) 1 => 'Section 307 IPC', (int) 2 => 'Section 304', (int) 3 => 'Section 304', (int) 4 => 'Section 307', (int) 5 => 'Section 307', (int) 6 => 'Section 307 I.P.C.', (int) 7 => 'Section 334', (int) 8 => 'Section 307', (int) 9 => 'Section 334', (int) 10 => 'Section 304' ), 'PERSON' => array( (int) 0 => 'P.K. Tripathy', (int) 1 => 'Chandra Mohanta', (int) 2 => 'Padmalochan Barik', (int) 3 => 'Baya Singh', (int) 4 => 'Suni Singh', (int) 5 => 'Suni Singh', (int) 6 => 'Suni', (int) 7 => 'Suni Singh', (int) 8 => 'I.O.', (int) 9 => 'Sum Singh', (int) 10 => 'Suni Singh', (int) 11 => 'Suni Singh', (int) 12 => 'Suni Singh', (int) 13 => 'Suni Singh' ), 'NORP' => array( (int) 0 => 'J.1', (int) 1 => 'Bamboo' ), 'ORG' => array( (int) 0 => 'Sutan Dehury', (int) 1 => 'P.W. 1', (int) 2 => 'the F.I.R. Ext', (int) 3 => 'Exts', (int) 4 => 'M.O.I. P.W. 10', (int) 5 => 'M.O.I.', (int) 6 => 'Exts', (int) 7 => 'P.W. 10', (int) 8 => 'P.W.', (int) 9 => 'Court', (int) 10 => 'the Trial Court', (int) 11 => 'Learned State Defence Counsel', (int) 12 => 'the Trial Court', (int) 13 => 'the Trial Court', (int) 14 => 'Court', (int) 15 => 'IPC', (int) 16 => 'Trial Court', (int) 17 => 'Sentence', (int) 18 => 'IPC', (int) 19 => 'Ext', (int) 20 => 'Court', (int) 21 => 'IPC', (int) 22 => 'IPC', (int) 23 => 'IPC', (int) 24 => 'IPC' ), 'TIME' => array( (int) 0 => 'the evening hours', (int) 1 => 'about 7 p.m.', (int) 2 => '48 hours' ), 'PRODUCT' => array( (int) 0 => 'P.W. 1', (int) 1 => 'P.W. 1', (int) 2 => 'Bamboo', (int) 3 => 'P.W. 1', (int) 4 => 'P.W. 1', (int) 5 => 'P.W. 10', (int) 6 => 'P.W. 10', (int) 7 => 'P.W. 1', (int) 8 => 'P.W. 1', (int) 9 => 'Appellant', (int) 10 => 'P.W. 1', (int) 11 => 'P.W. 13', (int) 12 => 'P.W. 13', (int) 13 => 'P.W. 13', (int) 14 => 'P.W. 13' ), 'GPE' => array( (int) 0 => 'Subash' ), 'CARDINAL' => array( (int) 0 => '1', (int) 1 => '3', (int) 2 => '9', (int) 3 => '1', (int) 4 => '14', (int) 5 => '1 to 17', (int) 6 => 'one', (int) 7 => '2', (int) 8 => '1/', (int) 9 => '2', (int) 10 => '8', (int) 11 => '10', (int) 12 => '8 and 10', (int) 13 => '13', (int) 14 => '6', (int) 15 => '12', (int) 16 => '1/2', (int) 17 => '1/4', (int) 18 => '1/6', (int) 19 => '1', (int) 20 => '1/2', (int) 21 => '1', (int) 22 => '1/2' ), 'QUANTITY' => array( (int) 0 => 'four head one inch' ), 'ORDINAL' => array( (int) 0 => '7th', (int) 1 => '8th', (int) 2 => '9th' ), 'DATE' => array( (int) 0 => '7 years', (int) 1 => 'one month' ) ), 'desc' => array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '536829', 'acts' => '', 'appealno' => '', 'appellant' => 'Kanka Singh', 'authreffered' => '', 'casename' => 'Kanka Singh Vs. State of Orissa', '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. - 1, he admitted to have assulted Suni Singh as well as the deceased because they were found in objectionable position. 13) made an attempt to trace out that injured but failed.', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => '', 'citingcases' => '', 'counselplain' => '', 'counseldef' => '', 'court' => 'Orissa', 'court_type' => 'HC', 'decidedon' => '2007-11-16', 'deposition' => '', 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => ' P.K. Tripathy, J.', 'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">P.K. Tripathy, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. Prosecution case is that Sutan Dehury (hereinafter referred to as the deceased), on the date of occurrence, in the evening hours left the cattle in his master's house and went out. P.W. 1, the informant was his master. At about 7 p.m., Subash Chandra Mohanta (P.W. 1), Padmalochan Barik (P.W. 3) and Baya Singh (P.W. 9) came and informed P.W. 1 that accused committed murder of the deceased by means of Bamboo lathi. On hearing that P.W. 1 together with others rushed to the spot and they discovered that deceased was lying dead with injuries. Suni Singh, wife of the accused was also lying with injuries and the accused was standing there with a Bamboo lathi. On being asked by P.W. 1, he admitted to have assulted Suni Singh as well as the deceased because they were found in objectionable position. P.W. 1, therefore, lodged the F.I.R. Ext. 1 and set the law into motion. After routine investigation charge-sheet was submitted against accused, as noted above, for the offence under Section 302 IPC for committing murder of the deceased and under Section 307 IPC for attempting to murder Suni Singh.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. In course of the trial, 14 witnesses were examined and various documents from Exts. 1 to 17 were exhibited and the Bamboo lathi, i.e., weapon of offence, was marked as M.O.I. P.W. 10 was the doctor, who conducted autopsy on the body of the deceased and found one abrasion over scrotum, one lacerated wound of 2' x 1/ 2'x bone deep transversely placed on the four head one inch above the left eye brow and bruises of dimension of 2' x 8' and 2' x 6' transversely placed on the left scapula interiorly. On dissection P.W. 10 found that 7th, 8th and 9th left ribs were fractured, the pleura had turned over the fractured ribs, lacerated injury ' x 1' over left bug and there was fracture of left humerous. P.W. 10 opined that time of death was within 48 hours from the time of examination and that death was due to aforesaid injuries. P.W. 10 also opined that injury found in the fore-head is possible by M.O.I. The postmortem report and opinion report are marked as Exts. 8 and 10. In the cross-examination, P.W. 10 stated that he did not engage of sexual intercourse committed by the deceased before his death. Evidence of P.W. 10 proved homicidal death of the deceased and that aspect was not challenged in the Trial Court.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. Admittedly, there were no eyewitnesses to the occurrence except Suni Singh, the injured. It reveals from the lower Court record that summons could not be served on her because her whereabouts were not known to anybody in the concerned village. Even the I.O. (P.W. 13) made an attempt to trace out that injured but failed. Under such circumstance, prosecution heavily relied on the circumstantial evidence, as noted above so also the extra judicial confession made by the accused before P.Ws.1 and 6. It has been rightly pointed out by the Trial Court that Learned State Defence Counsel did not challenge the aforesaid piece of evidence, i.e., extra judicial confession. On the other hand, perusal of the deposition of P.W. 1 and other witnesses, it is seen that questions have been put to lend credibility to the extra-judicial confession. Under such circumstance, there is nothing against findings recorded by the Trial Court that the deceased died because of injury inflicted on him by the accused.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. At this stage the question that comes for consideration is as to whether accused is guilty of the offence of murder or culpable homicidal not amounting to murder. It was admitted by P.W. 1 and other witnesses to the extra-judicial confession that when the accused found his wife and the deceased were indulging in merry making that he (and) got provocation and thereafter assaulted the deceased and the injured. Under such circumstance, the findings of the Trial Court that the act of the Appellant was culpable homicide not amounting to murder is found to have been correctly recorded. Keeping the circumstances preceding in the occurrence leading to unfortunate death of the deceased, the substantive sentence which has been imposed appears to be sufficient and therefore while maintaining order of conviction for the offence under Section 304 part-I and confirming the sentence of 7 years of rigorous imprisonment, this Court set aside the order of sentence of fine for the offence under Section 304 part-I IPC imposed byjbe Trial Court. The Sentence is accordingly modified.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. (Sic) So far as the charge under Section 307, IPC is concerned, no doubt P.W. 1 and other witnesses proved that when they arrived at the spot they also found injured, Sum Singh lying on the spot with injuries. P.W. 13 is the Doctor, who examined Suni Singh and issued the injury certificate, Ext. 12. P.W. 13 has stated in his evidence that he found lacerated injury 1/2' x 1/4' x 1/6' on the left upper eye lid, a bruise of 1' x 1/2' on the middle of right arm and a bruise of 1' x 1/2' on the middle of left arm P.W. 13 has opined that all the injuries were simple in nature. P.W. 13 was further stated that he recorded the statement of the injured. That statement was marked as Ext.13. In that statement Suni Singh stated about sleeping with the deceased when accused arrived and assaulted both of them. The tenor of evidence of P.W. 13 or any of the witnesses examined in course of the trial does not reveal that the accused made an attempt to commit murder of injured Suni Singh. Under such circumstance dealing of blows and causing injury in this case automatically does not amount to offence of attempt to commit murder punishable under Section 307, I.P.C. For the reasons stated above, this Court finds that conviction of the accused for the offence under Section 307 I.P.C. is not correct. On the other hand, since a lathi was used to commit simple injuries on the body of Suni Singh, therefore accused is liable to be convicted for the offence under Section 334, IPC, which provides for maximum sentence of imprisonment for one month or with fine of Rs. 500/-.Under such circumstance, while setting aside the order of conviction under Section 307, IPC accused is found to be guilty of offence under Section 334, IPC and in view of the sentence imposed on him for the offence under Section 304-part-I, IPC, no separate sentence is awarded.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. The Jail Criminal Appeal is accordingly allowed in part. Appellant ere set at liberty forthwith if he has already served the sentence and further if his detention in jail is not required in any other case.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => '', 'pubs' => '105(2008)CLT422', 'ratiodecidendi' => '', 'respondent' => 'State of Orissa', 'sub' => 'Criminal', 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ), 'args' => array( (int) 0 => '536829' ) ) $title_for_layout = 'Kanka Singh Vs. State of Orissa Semantic Analysis' $shops = array( 'LAW' => array( (int) 0 => 'Section 302 IPC', (int) 1 => 'Section 307 IPC', (int) 2 => 'Section 304', (int) 3 => 'Section 304', (int) 4 => 'Section 307', (int) 5 => 'Section 307', (int) 6 => 'Section 307 I.P.C.', (int) 7 => 'Section 334', (int) 8 => 'Section 307', (int) 9 => 'Section 334', (int) 10 => 'Section 304' ), 'PERSON' => array( (int) 0 => 'P.K. Tripathy', (int) 1 => 'Chandra Mohanta', (int) 2 => 'Padmalochan Barik', (int) 3 => 'Baya Singh', (int) 4 => 'Suni Singh', (int) 5 => 'Suni Singh', (int) 6 => 'Suni', (int) 7 => 'Suni Singh', (int) 8 => 'I.O.', (int) 9 => 'Sum Singh', (int) 10 => 'Suni Singh', (int) 11 => 'Suni Singh', (int) 12 => 'Suni Singh', (int) 13 => 'Suni Singh' ), 'NORP' => array( (int) 0 => 'J.1', (int) 1 => 'Bamboo' ), 'ORG' => array( (int) 0 => 'Sutan Dehury', (int) 1 => 'P.W. 1', (int) 2 => 'the F.I.R. Ext', (int) 3 => 'Exts', (int) 4 => 'M.O.I. P.W. 10', (int) 5 => 'M.O.I.', (int) 6 => 'Exts', (int) 7 => 'P.W. 10', (int) 8 => 'P.W.', (int) 9 => 'Court', (int) 10 => 'the Trial Court', (int) 11 => 'Learned State Defence Counsel', (int) 12 => 'the Trial Court', (int) 13 => 'the Trial Court', (int) 14 => 'Court', (int) 15 => 'IPC', (int) 16 => 'Trial Court', (int) 17 => 'Sentence', (int) 18 => 'IPC', (int) 19 => 'Ext', (int) 20 => 'Court', (int) 21 => 'IPC', (int) 22 => 'IPC', (int) 23 => 'IPC', (int) 24 => 'IPC' ), 'TIME' => array( (int) 0 => 'the evening hours', (int) 1 => 'about 7 p.m.', (int) 2 => '48 hours' ), 'PRODUCT' => array( (int) 0 => 'P.W. 1', (int) 1 => 'P.W. 1', (int) 2 => 'Bamboo', (int) 3 => 'P.W. 1', (int) 4 => 'P.W. 1', (int) 5 => 'P.W. 10', (int) 6 => 'P.W. 10', (int) 7 => 'P.W. 1', (int) 8 => 'P.W. 1', (int) 9 => 'Appellant', (int) 10 => 'P.W. 1', (int) 11 => 'P.W. 13', (int) 12 => 'P.W. 13', (int) 13 => 'P.W. 13', (int) 14 => 'P.W. 13' ), 'GPE' => array( (int) 0 => 'Subash' ), 'CARDINAL' => array( (int) 0 => '1', (int) 1 => '3', (int) 2 => '9', (int) 3 => '1', (int) 4 => '14', (int) 5 => '1 to 17', (int) 6 => 'one', (int) 7 => '2', (int) 8 => '1/', (int) 9 => '2', (int) 10 => '8', (int) 11 => '10', (int) 12 => '8 and 10', (int) 13 => '13', (int) 14 => '6', (int) 15 => '12', (int) 16 => '1/2', (int) 17 => '1/4', (int) 18 => '1/6', (int) 19 => '1', (int) 20 => '1/2', (int) 21 => '1', (int) 22 => '1/2' ), 'QUANTITY' => array( (int) 0 => 'four head one inch' ), 'ORDINAL' => array( (int) 0 => '7th', (int) 1 => '8th', (int) 2 => '9th' ), 'DATE' => array( (int) 0 => '7 years', (int) 1 => 'one month' ) ) $desc = array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '536829', 'acts' => '', 'appealno' => '', 'appellant' => 'Kanka Singh', 'authreffered' => '', 'casename' => 'Kanka Singh Vs. State of Orissa', '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. - 1, he admitted to have assulted Suni Singh as well as the deceased because they were found in objectionable position. 13) made an attempt to trace out that injured but failed.', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => '', 'citingcases' => '', 'counselplain' => '', 'counseldef' => '', 'court' => 'Orissa', 'court_type' => 'HC', 'decidedon' => '2007-11-16', 'deposition' => '', 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => ' P.K. Tripathy, J.', 'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">P.K. Tripathy, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. Prosecution case is that Sutan Dehury (hereinafter referred to as the deceased), on the date of occurrence, in the evening hours left the cattle in his master's house and went out. P.W. 1, the informant was his master. At about 7 p.m., Subash Chandra Mohanta (P.W. 1), Padmalochan Barik (P.W. 3) and Baya Singh (P.W. 9) came and informed P.W. 1 that accused committed murder of the deceased by means of Bamboo lathi. On hearing that P.W. 1 together with others rushed to the spot and they discovered that deceased was lying dead with injuries. Suni Singh, wife of the accused was also lying with injuries and the accused was standing there with a Bamboo lathi. On being asked by P.W. 1, he admitted to have assulted Suni Singh as well as the deceased because they were found in objectionable position. P.W. 1, therefore, lodged the F.I.R. Ext. 1 and set the law into motion. After routine investigation charge-sheet was submitted against accused, as noted above, for the offence under Section 302 IPC for committing murder of the deceased and under Section 307 IPC for attempting to murder Suni Singh.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. In course of the trial, 14 witnesses were examined and various documents from Exts. 1 to 17 were exhibited and the Bamboo lathi, i.e., weapon of offence, was marked as M.O.I. P.W. 10 was the doctor, who conducted autopsy on the body of the deceased and found one abrasion over scrotum, one lacerated wound of 2' x 1/ 2'x bone deep transversely placed on the four head one inch above the left eye brow and bruises of dimension of 2' x 8' and 2' x 6' transversely placed on the left scapula interiorly. On dissection P.W. 10 found that 7th, 8th and 9th left ribs were fractured, the pleura had turned over the fractured ribs, lacerated injury ' x 1' over left bug and there was fracture of left humerous. P.W. 10 opined that time of death was within 48 hours from the time of examination and that death was due to aforesaid injuries. P.W. 10 also opined that injury found in the fore-head is possible by M.O.I. The postmortem report and opinion report are marked as Exts. 8 and 10. In the cross-examination, P.W. 10 stated that he did not engage of sexual intercourse committed by the deceased before his death. Evidence of P.W. 10 proved homicidal death of the deceased and that aspect was not challenged in the Trial Court.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. Admittedly, there were no eyewitnesses to the occurrence except Suni Singh, the injured. It reveals from the lower Court record that summons could not be served on her because her whereabouts were not known to anybody in the concerned village. Even the I.O. (P.W. 13) made an attempt to trace out that injured but failed. Under such circumstance, prosecution heavily relied on the circumstantial evidence, as noted above so also the extra judicial confession made by the accused before P.Ws.1 and 6. It has been rightly pointed out by the Trial Court that Learned State Defence Counsel did not challenge the aforesaid piece of evidence, i.e., extra judicial confession. On the other hand, perusal of the deposition of P.W. 1 and other witnesses, it is seen that questions have been put to lend credibility to the extra-judicial confession. Under such circumstance, there is nothing against findings recorded by the Trial Court that the deceased died because of injury inflicted on him by the accused.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. At this stage the question that comes for consideration is as to whether accused is guilty of the offence of murder or culpable homicidal not amounting to murder. It was admitted by P.W. 1 and other witnesses to the extra-judicial confession that when the accused found his wife and the deceased were indulging in merry making that he (and) got provocation and thereafter assaulted the deceased and the injured. Under such circumstance, the findings of the Trial Court that the act of the Appellant was culpable homicide not amounting to murder is found to have been correctly recorded. Keeping the circumstances preceding in the occurrence leading to unfortunate death of the deceased, the substantive sentence which has been imposed appears to be sufficient and therefore while maintaining order of conviction for the offence under Section 304 part-I and confirming the sentence of 7 years of rigorous imprisonment, this Court set aside the order of sentence of fine for the offence under Section 304 part-I IPC imposed byjbe Trial Court. The Sentence is accordingly modified.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. (Sic) So far as the charge under Section 307, IPC is concerned, no doubt P.W. 1 and other witnesses proved that when they arrived at the spot they also found injured, Sum Singh lying on the spot with injuries. P.W. 13 is the Doctor, who examined Suni Singh and issued the injury certificate, Ext. 12. P.W. 13 has stated in his evidence that he found lacerated injury 1/2' x 1/4' x 1/6' on the left upper eye lid, a bruise of 1' x 1/2' on the middle of right arm and a bruise of 1' x 1/2' on the middle of left arm P.W. 13 has opined that all the injuries were simple in nature. P.W. 13 was further stated that he recorded the statement of the injured. That statement was marked as Ext.13. In that statement Suni Singh stated about sleeping with the deceased when accused arrived and assaulted both of them. The tenor of evidence of P.W. 13 or any of the witnesses examined in course of the trial does not reveal that the accused made an attempt to commit murder of injured Suni Singh. Under such circumstance dealing of blows and causing injury in this case automatically does not amount to offence of attempt to commit murder punishable under Section 307, I.P.C. For the reasons stated above, this Court finds that conviction of the accused for the offence under Section 307 I.P.C. is not correct. On the other hand, since a lathi was used to commit simple injuries on the body of Suni Singh, therefore accused is liable to be convicted for the offence under Section 334, IPC, which provides for maximum sentence of imprisonment for one month or with fine of Rs. 500/-.Under such circumstance, while setting aside the order of conviction under Section 307, IPC accused is found to be guilty of offence under Section 334, IPC and in view of the sentence imposed on him for the offence under Section 304-part-I, IPC, no separate sentence is awarded.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. The Jail Criminal Appeal is accordingly allowed in part. Appellant ere set at liberty forthwith if he has already served the sentence and further if his detention in jail is not required in any other case.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => '', 'pubs' => '105(2008)CLT422', 'ratiodecidendi' => '', 'respondent' => 'State of Orissa', 'sub' => 'Criminal', 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ) $args = array( (int) 0 => '536829' ) $pattern = '/\(((0[1-9]|[12][0-9]|3[01])[.](0[1-9]|1[012])[.](17|18|19|20)[0-9]{2}).*\)/' $shops2 = nullinclude - APP/View/Case/meta.ctp, line 39 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
LAW: Section 302 IPC, Section 307 IPC, Section 304, Section 304, Section 307, Section 307, Section 307 I.P.C., Section 334, Section 307, Section 334, Section 304
PERSON: P.K. Tripathy, Chandra Mohanta, Padmalochan Barik, Baya Singh, Suni Singh, Suni Singh, Suni, Suni Singh, I.O., Sum Singh, Suni Singh, Suni Singh, Suni Singh, Suni Singh
NORP: J.1, Bamboo
ORG: Sutan Dehury, P.W. 1, the F.I.R. Ext, Exts, M.O.I. P.W. 10, M.O.I., Exts, P.W. 10, P.W., Court, the Trial Court, Learned State Defence Counsel, the Trial Court, the Trial Court, Court, IPC, Trial Court, Sentence, IPC, Ext, Court, IPC, IPC, IPC, IPC
TIME: the evening hours, about 7 p.m., 48 hours
PRODUCT: P.W. 1, P.W. 1, Bamboo, P.W. 1, P.W. 1, P.W. 10, P.W. 10, P.W. 1, P.W. 1, Appellant, P.W. 1, P.W. 13, P.W. 13, P.W. 13, P.W. 13
GPE: Subash
CARDINAL: 1, 3, 9, 1, 14, 1 to 17, one, 2, 1/, 2, 8, 10, 8 and 10, 13, 6, 12, 1/2, 1/4, 1/6, 1, 1/2, 1, 1/2
QUANTITY: four head one inch
ORDINAL: 7th, 8th, 9th
DATE: 7 years, one month