Malia @ Abhimanyu Das Vs. State of Orissa

Decided On : Dec-19-2007

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' => 'Malia @ Abhimanyu Das Vs. State of Orissa Semantic Analysis',
	'shops' => array(
		'LAW' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'Section 302 IPC',
			(int) 1 => 'Section 302 IPC',
			(int) 2 => 'Section 302 IPC',
			(int) 3 => 'Section 302 IPC.7',
			(int) 4 => 'Section 27',
			(int) 5 => 'Section 27',
			(int) 6 => 'Section 302 I.P.C.'
		),
		'CARDINAL' => array(
			(int) 0 => '1',
			(int) 1 => '109',
			(int) 2 => '302',
			(int) 3 => '404',
			(int) 4 => '10.01.1999',
			(int) 5 => '12',
			(int) 6 => '12',
			(int) 7 => '20',
			(int) 8 => 'as many as 20',
			(int) 9 => '1',
			(int) 10 => '5',
			(int) 11 => '12',
			(int) 12 => '364',
			(int) 13 => '201'
		),
		'WORK_OF_ART' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'S.T. Case No'
		),
		'DATE' => array(
			(int) 0 => '1999-2000',
			(int) 1 => '01.01.1999',
			(int) 2 => 'about 14 years',
			(int) 3 => '10.01.1999',
			(int) 4 => 'about 19 years',
			(int) 5 => 'about 14 years',
			(int) 6 => '3',
			(int) 7 => '4',
			(int) 8 => '6',
			(int) 9 => '7',
			(int) 10 => '9',
			(int) 11 => '10',
			(int) 12 => '11',
			(int) 13 => '13',
			(int) 14 => '14',
			(int) 15 => '15',
			(int) 16 => '16',
			(int) 17 => 'eight to ten days'
		),
		'PERSON' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'Appellant Malia @ Abhimanyu Das',
			(int) 1 => 'Hemalata Das',
			(int) 2 => 'Arun Das',
			(int) 3 => 'Bindu Nahak',
			(int) 4 => 'Parbati Nahak',
			(int) 5 => 'Bindu Nahak',
			(int) 6 => 'Bindu',
			(int) 7 => 'Bindu',
			(int) 8 => 'Courtesy',
			(int) 9 => 'Abhimanyu',
			(int) 10 => 'Abhimanyu Das',
			(int) 11 => 'Lambodar Nahak',
			(int) 12 => 'Bindu',
			(int) 13 => 'Abhimanyu',
			(int) 14 => 'Brahamani',
			(int) 15 => 'F.I.R.',
			(int) 16 => 'Santilata Mohanty',
			(int) 17 => 'Chandramani',
			(int) 18 => 'Chandramani',
			(int) 19 => 'Chandramani',
			(int) 20 => 'Arun',
			(int) 21 => 'Abhimanyu @ Malia',
			(int) 22 => 'Learned Addl',
			(int) 23 => 'Learned Addl',
			(int) 24 => 'Behera',
			(int) 25 => 'Appellant',
			(int) 26 => 'Learned Addl'
		),
		'ORG' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'Chandramani Das',
			(int) 1 => 'Sections 364',
			(int) 2 => 'intention.3',
			(int) 3 => 'Malia @ Abhimanyu Das',
			(int) 4 => 'P.W.',
			(int) 5 => 'Ext.2',
			(int) 6 => 'O.I.C. Kaniha Police Station',
			(int) 7 => 'Parbati',
			(int) 8 => 'Sections 404',
			(int) 9 => 'Learned Counsel',
			(int) 10 => 'Learned Standing Counsel',
			(int) 11 => 'P.W.S',
			(int) 12 => 'Abhimanyu',
			(int) 13 => 'P.W.',
			(int) 14 => 'Chandramani',
			(int) 15 => 'the Criminal Appeal'
		),
		'MONEY' => array(
			(int) 0 => '201/34 I.P.C.'
		),
		'TIME' => array(
			(int) 0 => '01.01.1999 in the evening hours',
			(int) 1 => 'that evening'
		),
		'NORP' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'P.W.5'
		),
		'PRODUCT' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'P.W. 5',
			(int) 1 => 'Appellant',
			(int) 2 => 'Appellant',
			(int) 3 => 'Appellant',
			(int) 4 => 'Appellant',
			(int) 5 => 'Appellant',
			(int) 6 => 'Appellant'
		),
		'LOC' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'Chandamani'
		),
		'GPE' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'Chandramani',
			(int) 1 => 'Hemalata',
			(int) 2 => 'Arun',
			(int) 3 => 'P.C.'
		)
	),
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '536882',
			'acts' => '',
			'appealno' => '',
			'appellant' => 'Malia @ Abhimanyu Das',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Malia @ Abhimanyu Das 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. 
 -  Mother of the Bindu was running a shop and having business transaction as well as social Courtesy extended to the accused persons. Behera, Learned Counsel for the Appellant states that in the absence of direct or circumstantial evidence the order of conviction under Section 302 IPC as against the Appellant is bad in law and it be set aside. For reasons best known, prosecution did not appeal against the order of acquittal of at least accused Chandramani, since according to the prosecution recovery under Section 27 was made at his instance.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => '',
			'counseldef' => '',
			'court' => 'Orissa',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2007-12-19',
			'deposition' => 'Appeal allowed',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => ' P.K. Tripathy and; R.N. Biswal, JJ.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">1. Order of conviction under Section 302 IPC against the accused in S.T. Case No. 109-A/34 of 1999-2000 is under challenge by the Appellant.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Appellant Malia @ Abhimanyu Das together with his parents, accused Chandramani Das and Hemalata Das and his elder brother Arun Das were charged for the offence under Sections 364, 302, 404, 201/34 I.P.C. on allegation that on 01.01.1999 at about 7 P.M. Abhimanyu kidnapped the minor girl, Bindu Nahak aged about 14 years from the lawful custody of her mother Parbati Nahak (P.W.5) and that said Bindu Nahak suffered a homicidal death and her dead body was found on 10.01.1999 and her ornaments were misappropriated by the accused persons by sharing common intention.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. According to the case of the prosecution, accused Malia @ Abhimanyu Das aged about 19 years had illicit relationship with Bindu, a girl aged about 14 years. Mother of the Bindu was running a shop and having business transaction as well as social Courtesy extended to the accused persons. On 01.01.1999 in the evening hours accused Abhimanyu came and intimated P.W.5 to go to their house to collect paddy and P.W.5 proceeded for that purpose. After returned to her shop-cum-residence, she found her daughter missing from the house. When she did not find the daughter, she tried to locate accused Abhimanyu Das and she found him missing. She intimated this fact to her husband, Lambodar Nahak (P.W.12). They were in search of the Bindu and Abhimanyu and on 10.01.1999 P.W. 5 got information about floating of a dead body on the other side of the river 'Brahamani'. She went to ascertain and found that to be her daughter. Thereafter, P.W. 12 together with others also went and confirmed about the identity of the dead body of the deceased. The dead body had been put on a gunny bag fixed with a stone. There were injuries on her neck and other parts of the body. P.W. 12, thus, lodged F.I.R. (Ext.2) before O.I.C. Kaniha Police Station and set the law into motion. P.W. 20, i.e., Dr. Santilata Mohanty, who conducted autopsy on the dead body of the deceased confirmed about homicidal death of the deceased due to cut injury on and around the neck. In course of the investigation, P.W.19, the Investigating Officer recovered missing ornaments of the deceased on being produced by accused Chandramani. He also recovered the weapon of offence being concealed by accused Chandramani and he also recorded the confessional statement of accused Chandramani and Arun that they had concealed the dead body of the deceased. The seizure of the incriminating articles, i.e., blood stained wearing apparels etc were seized and ultimately charge sheet was submitted. Accused persons denied to the allegation and claimed for trial.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. In course of the trial, prosecution examined as many as 20 witnesses. Amongst them P.Ws. 1, 3, 4, 6, 7, 9, 10, 11, 13, 14, 15, 16 are the villagers, who did not support the prosecution on the matter of interrogation of the accused, regarding recovery of incriminating materials, ornaments, wearing apparels etc and also the extra-judicial confession. P.W.s. 5 and 12 deposed about missing of the girl and also absence of the accused Chandamani from his house at the corresponding time. In that respect P.W.2 only stated that in that evening he had seen Abhimanyu @ Malia and Parbati, being present in the shop. As noted above, P.W.20 proved the post-mortem report, Ext.18 and his opinion report, Ext.17 stating M.O.1. as weapon of offence.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. On assessment of such evidence, Learned Addl. Sessions Judge recorded the finding that there is no sufficient evidence to connect the accused Chandramani, Hemalata and Arun with the alleged crime for the offence under Sections 404, 364 and 201 I.P.C. and accordingly acquitted them. While accepting the evidence of P.W.20 about the homicidal death of the deceased and taking note of missing of the accused from the house during the relevant time and recovery of ornaments from the house where he resides, Learned Addl. Sessions Judge found that circumstantially it has been proved on record that accused is the author of the crime and accordingly he convicted the Appellant for the offence under Section 302 IPC and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life. He acquitted the accused from the charge on the other offences.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. Challenging the aforesaid finding and order of conviction, Mr. Behera, Learned Counsel for the Appellant states that in the absence of direct or circumstantial evidence the order of conviction under Section 302 IPC as against the Appellant is bad in law and it be set aside. Learned Standing Counsel, however, defends the impugned Judgment on the ground that missing of the girl and absence of the Appellant from the house cannot be regarded as a coincidence and because of the unchallenged evidence of P.W.S about the illicit relationship between them valid presumption can be drawn about kidnapping of the girl by the accused Abhimanyu and thereafter since she suffered a homicidal death while in custody of the Appellant he being guilty of that offence punishable under Section 302 IPC.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. Before dealing with the aforesaid argument, we take note of the evidence of P.W.20 and the post-mortem report. Accordingly to P.W. 20, death occurred eight to ten days before the date of post-mortem examination and the dead body was highly decomposed. He however found incised wound extending from left auxiliary bone up to the occiput, incised wound below the left ear loam and cutting of the neck below the mandible to the extent that only skin (old was there. He also found groove on the thighs, knee joint and fore-arms. Such grooves were post-mortem in nature. Undoubtedly, the aforesaid evidence proves of homicidal death of the deceased.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. Reverting to the contention of the parties, we find that prosecution has not tendered any evidence whatsoever that Appellant was last seen with the deceased outside the house of the deceased. The incriminating articles seized are not at all connected with the accused, be it relating to wearing apparels or otherwise. The recovery under Section 27 Cr.P.C. are also not connectable to him, because such recovery were given by the co-accused and they were honourably acquitted. Thus, there is absolutely no evidence on record and it is only on surmises that Learned Addl. Sessions Judge recorded conviction against the Appellant. For reasons best known, prosecution did not appeal against the order of acquittal of at least accused Chandramani, since according to the prosecution recovery under Section 27 was made at his instance. Under such circumstance, the Appellant is found not guilty of the offence under Section 302 I.P.C. Accordingly, the order of conviction is set aside and the Criminal Appeal is allowed.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. Since the Appellant is in the jail custody, therefore, we direct that he be set at liberty forthwith, if his detention is not required in connection with any other criminal case.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '105(2008)CLT508; 2008(I)OLR713',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'State of Orissa',
			'sub' => 'Criminal',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '536882'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Malia @ Abhimanyu Das Vs. State of Orissa Semantic Analysis'
$shops = array(
	'LAW' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'Section 302 IPC',
		(int) 1 => 'Section 302 IPC',
		(int) 2 => 'Section 302 IPC',
		(int) 3 => 'Section 302 IPC.7',
		(int) 4 => 'Section 27',
		(int) 5 => 'Section 27',
		(int) 6 => 'Section 302 I.P.C.'
	),
	'CARDINAL' => array(
		(int) 0 => '1',
		(int) 1 => '109',
		(int) 2 => '302',
		(int) 3 => '404',
		(int) 4 => '10.01.1999',
		(int) 5 => '12',
		(int) 6 => '12',
		(int) 7 => '20',
		(int) 8 => 'as many as 20',
		(int) 9 => '1',
		(int) 10 => '5',
		(int) 11 => '12',
		(int) 12 => '364',
		(int) 13 => '201'
	),
	'WORK_OF_ART' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'S.T. Case No'
	),
	'DATE' => array(
		(int) 0 => '1999-2000',
		(int) 1 => '01.01.1999',
		(int) 2 => 'about 14 years',
		(int) 3 => '10.01.1999',
		(int) 4 => 'about 19 years',
		(int) 5 => 'about 14 years',
		(int) 6 => '3',
		(int) 7 => '4',
		(int) 8 => '6',
		(int) 9 => '7',
		(int) 10 => '9',
		(int) 11 => '10',
		(int) 12 => '11',
		(int) 13 => '13',
		(int) 14 => '14',
		(int) 15 => '15',
		(int) 16 => '16',
		(int) 17 => 'eight to ten days'
	),
	'PERSON' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'Appellant Malia @ Abhimanyu Das',
		(int) 1 => 'Hemalata Das',
		(int) 2 => 'Arun Das',
		(int) 3 => 'Bindu Nahak',
		(int) 4 => 'Parbati Nahak',
		(int) 5 => 'Bindu Nahak',
		(int) 6 => 'Bindu',
		(int) 7 => 'Bindu',
		(int) 8 => 'Courtesy',
		(int) 9 => 'Abhimanyu',
		(int) 10 => 'Abhimanyu Das',
		(int) 11 => 'Lambodar Nahak',
		(int) 12 => 'Bindu',
		(int) 13 => 'Abhimanyu',
		(int) 14 => 'Brahamani',
		(int) 15 => 'F.I.R.',
		(int) 16 => 'Santilata Mohanty',
		(int) 17 => 'Chandramani',
		(int) 18 => 'Chandramani',
		(int) 19 => 'Chandramani',
		(int) 20 => 'Arun',
		(int) 21 => 'Abhimanyu @ Malia',
		(int) 22 => 'Learned Addl',
		(int) 23 => 'Learned Addl',
		(int) 24 => 'Behera',
		(int) 25 => 'Appellant',
		(int) 26 => 'Learned Addl'
	),
	'ORG' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'Chandramani Das',
		(int) 1 => 'Sections 364',
		(int) 2 => 'intention.3',
		(int) 3 => 'Malia @ Abhimanyu Das',
		(int) 4 => 'P.W.',
		(int) 5 => 'Ext.2',
		(int) 6 => 'O.I.C. Kaniha Police Station',
		(int) 7 => 'Parbati',
		(int) 8 => 'Sections 404',
		(int) 9 => 'Learned Counsel',
		(int) 10 => 'Learned Standing Counsel',
		(int) 11 => 'P.W.S',
		(int) 12 => 'Abhimanyu',
		(int) 13 => 'P.W.',
		(int) 14 => 'Chandramani',
		(int) 15 => 'the Criminal Appeal'
	),
	'MONEY' => array(
		(int) 0 => '201/34 I.P.C.'
	),
	'TIME' => array(
		(int) 0 => '01.01.1999 in the evening hours',
		(int) 1 => 'that evening'
	),
	'NORP' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'P.W.5'
	),
	'PRODUCT' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'P.W. 5',
		(int) 1 => 'Appellant',
		(int) 2 => 'Appellant',
		(int) 3 => 'Appellant',
		(int) 4 => 'Appellant',
		(int) 5 => 'Appellant',
		(int) 6 => 'Appellant'
	),
	'LOC' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'Chandamani'
	),
	'GPE' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'Chandramani',
		(int) 1 => 'Hemalata',
		(int) 2 => 'Arun',
		(int) 3 => 'P.C.'
	)
)
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '536882',
		'acts' => '',
		'appealno' => '',
		'appellant' => 'Malia @ Abhimanyu Das',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Malia @ Abhimanyu Das 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. 
 -  Mother of the Bindu was running a shop and having business transaction as well as social Courtesy extended to the accused persons. Behera, Learned Counsel for the Appellant states that in the absence of direct or circumstantial evidence the order of conviction under Section 302 IPC as against the Appellant is bad in law and it be set aside. For reasons best known, prosecution did not appeal against the order of acquittal of at least accused Chandramani, since according to the prosecution recovery under Section 27 was made at his instance.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => '',
		'counseldef' => '',
		'court' => 'Orissa',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2007-12-19',
		'deposition' => 'Appeal allowed',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => ' P.K. Tripathy and; R.N. Biswal, JJ.',
		'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">1. Order of conviction under Section 302 IPC against the accused in S.T. Case No. 109-A/34 of 1999-2000 is under challenge by the Appellant.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Appellant Malia @ Abhimanyu Das together with his parents, accused Chandramani Das and Hemalata Das and his elder brother Arun Das were charged for the offence under Sections 364, 302, 404, 201/34 I.P.C. on allegation that on 01.01.1999 at about 7 P.M. Abhimanyu kidnapped the minor girl, Bindu Nahak aged about 14 years from the lawful custody of her mother Parbati Nahak (P.W.5) and that said Bindu Nahak suffered a homicidal death and her dead body was found on 10.01.1999 and her ornaments were misappropriated by the accused persons by sharing common intention.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. According to the case of the prosecution, accused Malia @ Abhimanyu Das aged about 19 years had illicit relationship with Bindu, a girl aged about 14 years. Mother of the Bindu was running a shop and having business transaction as well as social Courtesy extended to the accused persons. On 01.01.1999 in the evening hours accused Abhimanyu came and intimated P.W.5 to go to their house to collect paddy and P.W.5 proceeded for that purpose. After returned to her shop-cum-residence, she found her daughter missing from the house. When she did not find the daughter, she tried to locate accused Abhimanyu Das and she found him missing. She intimated this fact to her husband, Lambodar Nahak (P.W.12). They were in search of the Bindu and Abhimanyu and on 10.01.1999 P.W. 5 got information about floating of a dead body on the other side of the river 'Brahamani'. She went to ascertain and found that to be her daughter. Thereafter, P.W. 12 together with others also went and confirmed about the identity of the dead body of the deceased. The dead body had been put on a gunny bag fixed with a stone. There were injuries on her neck and other parts of the body. P.W. 12, thus, lodged F.I.R. (Ext.2) before O.I.C. Kaniha Police Station and set the law into motion. P.W. 20, i.e., Dr. Santilata Mohanty, who conducted autopsy on the dead body of the deceased confirmed about homicidal death of the deceased due to cut injury on and around the neck. In course of the investigation, P.W.19, the Investigating Officer recovered missing ornaments of the deceased on being produced by accused Chandramani. He also recovered the weapon of offence being concealed by accused Chandramani and he also recorded the confessional statement of accused Chandramani and Arun that they had concealed the dead body of the deceased. The seizure of the incriminating articles, i.e., blood stained wearing apparels etc were seized and ultimately charge sheet was submitted. Accused persons denied to the allegation and claimed for trial.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. In course of the trial, prosecution examined as many as 20 witnesses. Amongst them P.Ws. 1, 3, 4, 6, 7, 9, 10, 11, 13, 14, 15, 16 are the villagers, who did not support the prosecution on the matter of interrogation of the accused, regarding recovery of incriminating materials, ornaments, wearing apparels etc and also the extra-judicial confession. P.W.s. 5 and 12 deposed about missing of the girl and also absence of the accused Chandamani from his house at the corresponding time. In that respect P.W.2 only stated that in that evening he had seen Abhimanyu @ Malia and Parbati, being present in the shop. As noted above, P.W.20 proved the post-mortem report, Ext.18 and his opinion report, Ext.17 stating M.O.1. as weapon of offence.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. On assessment of such evidence, Learned Addl. Sessions Judge recorded the finding that there is no sufficient evidence to connect the accused Chandramani, Hemalata and Arun with the alleged crime for the offence under Sections 404, 364 and 201 I.P.C. and accordingly acquitted them. While accepting the evidence of P.W.20 about the homicidal death of the deceased and taking note of missing of the accused from the house during the relevant time and recovery of ornaments from the house where he resides, Learned Addl. Sessions Judge found that circumstantially it has been proved on record that accused is the author of the crime and accordingly he convicted the Appellant for the offence under Section 302 IPC and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life. He acquitted the accused from the charge on the other offences.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. Challenging the aforesaid finding and order of conviction, Mr. Behera, Learned Counsel for the Appellant states that in the absence of direct or circumstantial evidence the order of conviction under Section 302 IPC as against the Appellant is bad in law and it be set aside. Learned Standing Counsel, however, defends the impugned Judgment on the ground that missing of the girl and absence of the Appellant from the house cannot be regarded as a coincidence and because of the unchallenged evidence of P.W.S about the illicit relationship between them valid presumption can be drawn about kidnapping of the girl by the accused Abhimanyu and thereafter since she suffered a homicidal death while in custody of the Appellant he being guilty of that offence punishable under Section 302 IPC.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. Before dealing with the aforesaid argument, we take note of the evidence of P.W.20 and the post-mortem report. Accordingly to P.W. 20, death occurred eight to ten days before the date of post-mortem examination and the dead body was highly decomposed. He however found incised wound extending from left auxiliary bone up to the occiput, incised wound below the left ear loam and cutting of the neck below the mandible to the extent that only skin (old was there. He also found groove on the thighs, knee joint and fore-arms. Such grooves were post-mortem in nature. Undoubtedly, the aforesaid evidence proves of homicidal death of the deceased.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. Reverting to the contention of the parties, we find that prosecution has not tendered any evidence whatsoever that Appellant was last seen with the deceased outside the house of the deceased. The incriminating articles seized are not at all connected with the accused, be it relating to wearing apparels or otherwise. The recovery under Section 27 Cr.P.C. are also not connectable to him, because such recovery were given by the co-accused and they were honourably acquitted. Thus, there is absolutely no evidence on record and it is only on surmises that Learned Addl. Sessions Judge recorded conviction against the Appellant. For reasons best known, prosecution did not appeal against the order of acquittal of at least accused Chandramani, since according to the prosecution recovery under Section 27 was made at his instance. Under such circumstance, the Appellant is found not guilty of the offence under Section 302 I.P.C. Accordingly, the order of conviction is set aside and the Criminal Appeal is allowed.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. Since the Appellant is in the jail custody, therefore, we direct that he be set at liberty forthwith, if his detention is not required in connection with any other criminal case.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '105(2008)CLT508; 2008(I)OLR713',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'State of Orissa',
		'sub' => 'Criminal',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '536882'
)
$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' => 'Malia @ Abhimanyu Das Vs. State of Orissa Semantic Analysis',
	'shops' => array(
		'LAW' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'Section 302 IPC',
			(int) 1 => 'Section 302 IPC',
			(int) 2 => 'Section 302 IPC',
			(int) 3 => 'Section 302 IPC.7',
			(int) 4 => 'Section 27',
			(int) 5 => 'Section 27',
			(int) 6 => 'Section 302 I.P.C.'
		),
		'CARDINAL' => array(
			(int) 0 => '1',
			(int) 1 => '109',
			(int) 2 => '302',
			(int) 3 => '404',
			(int) 4 => '10.01.1999',
			(int) 5 => '12',
			(int) 6 => '12',
			(int) 7 => '20',
			(int) 8 => 'as many as 20',
			(int) 9 => '1',
			(int) 10 => '5',
			(int) 11 => '12',
			(int) 12 => '364',
			(int) 13 => '201'
		),
		'WORK_OF_ART' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'S.T. Case No'
		),
		'DATE' => array(
			(int) 0 => '1999-2000',
			(int) 1 => '01.01.1999',
			(int) 2 => 'about 14 years',
			(int) 3 => '10.01.1999',
			(int) 4 => 'about 19 years',
			(int) 5 => 'about 14 years',
			(int) 6 => '3',
			(int) 7 => '4',
			(int) 8 => '6',
			(int) 9 => '7',
			(int) 10 => '9',
			(int) 11 => '10',
			(int) 12 => '11',
			(int) 13 => '13',
			(int) 14 => '14',
			(int) 15 => '15',
			(int) 16 => '16',
			(int) 17 => 'eight to ten days'
		),
		'PERSON' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'Appellant Malia @ Abhimanyu Das',
			(int) 1 => 'Hemalata Das',
			(int) 2 => 'Arun Das',
			(int) 3 => 'Bindu Nahak',
			(int) 4 => 'Parbati Nahak',
			(int) 5 => 'Bindu Nahak',
			(int) 6 => 'Bindu',
			(int) 7 => 'Bindu',
			(int) 8 => 'Courtesy',
			(int) 9 => 'Abhimanyu',
			(int) 10 => 'Abhimanyu Das',
			(int) 11 => 'Lambodar Nahak',
			(int) 12 => 'Bindu',
			(int) 13 => 'Abhimanyu',
			(int) 14 => 'Brahamani',
			(int) 15 => 'F.I.R.',
			(int) 16 => 'Santilata Mohanty',
			(int) 17 => 'Chandramani',
			(int) 18 => 'Chandramani',
			(int) 19 => 'Chandramani',
			(int) 20 => 'Arun',
			(int) 21 => 'Abhimanyu @ Malia',
			(int) 22 => 'Learned Addl',
			(int) 23 => 'Learned Addl',
			(int) 24 => 'Behera',
			(int) 25 => 'Appellant',
			(int) 26 => 'Learned Addl'
		),
		'ORG' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'Chandramani Das',
			(int) 1 => 'Sections 364',
			(int) 2 => 'intention.3',
			(int) 3 => 'Malia @ Abhimanyu Das',
			(int) 4 => 'P.W.',
			(int) 5 => 'Ext.2',
			(int) 6 => 'O.I.C. Kaniha Police Station',
			(int) 7 => 'Parbati',
			(int) 8 => 'Sections 404',
			(int) 9 => 'Learned Counsel',
			(int) 10 => 'Learned Standing Counsel',
			(int) 11 => 'P.W.S',
			(int) 12 => 'Abhimanyu',
			(int) 13 => 'P.W.',
			(int) 14 => 'Chandramani',
			(int) 15 => 'the Criminal Appeal'
		),
		'MONEY' => array(
			(int) 0 => '201/34 I.P.C.'
		),
		'TIME' => array(
			(int) 0 => '01.01.1999 in the evening hours',
			(int) 1 => 'that evening'
		),
		'NORP' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'P.W.5'
		),
		'PRODUCT' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'P.W. 5',
			(int) 1 => 'Appellant',
			(int) 2 => 'Appellant',
			(int) 3 => 'Appellant',
			(int) 4 => 'Appellant',
			(int) 5 => 'Appellant',
			(int) 6 => 'Appellant'
		),
		'LOC' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'Chandamani'
		),
		'GPE' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'Chandramani',
			(int) 1 => 'Hemalata',
			(int) 2 => 'Arun',
			(int) 3 => 'P.C.'
		)
	),
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '536882',
			'acts' => '',
			'appealno' => '',
			'appellant' => 'Malia @ Abhimanyu Das',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Malia @ Abhimanyu Das 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. 
 -  Mother of the Bindu was running a shop and having business transaction as well as social Courtesy extended to the accused persons. Behera, Learned Counsel for the Appellant states that in the absence of direct or circumstantial evidence the order of conviction under Section 302 IPC as against the Appellant is bad in law and it be set aside. For reasons best known, prosecution did not appeal against the order of acquittal of at least accused Chandramani, since according to the prosecution recovery under Section 27 was made at his instance.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => '',
			'counseldef' => '',
			'court' => 'Orissa',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2007-12-19',
			'deposition' => 'Appeal allowed',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => ' P.K. Tripathy and; R.N. Biswal, JJ.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">1. Order of conviction under Section 302 IPC against the accused in S.T. Case No. 109-A/34 of 1999-2000 is under challenge by the Appellant.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Appellant Malia @ Abhimanyu Das together with his parents, accused Chandramani Das and Hemalata Das and his elder brother Arun Das were charged for the offence under Sections 364, 302, 404, 201/34 I.P.C. on allegation that on 01.01.1999 at about 7 P.M. Abhimanyu kidnapped the minor girl, Bindu Nahak aged about 14 years from the lawful custody of her mother Parbati Nahak (P.W.5) and that said Bindu Nahak suffered a homicidal death and her dead body was found on 10.01.1999 and her ornaments were misappropriated by the accused persons by sharing common intention.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. According to the case of the prosecution, accused Malia @ Abhimanyu Das aged about 19 years had illicit relationship with Bindu, a girl aged about 14 years. Mother of the Bindu was running a shop and having business transaction as well as social Courtesy extended to the accused persons. On 01.01.1999 in the evening hours accused Abhimanyu came and intimated P.W.5 to go to their house to collect paddy and P.W.5 proceeded for that purpose. After returned to her shop-cum-residence, she found her daughter missing from the house. When she did not find the daughter, she tried to locate accused Abhimanyu Das and she found him missing. She intimated this fact to her husband, Lambodar Nahak (P.W.12). They were in search of the Bindu and Abhimanyu and on 10.01.1999 P.W. 5 got information about floating of a dead body on the other side of the river 'Brahamani'. She went to ascertain and found that to be her daughter. Thereafter, P.W. 12 together with others also went and confirmed about the identity of the dead body of the deceased. The dead body had been put on a gunny bag fixed with a stone. There were injuries on her neck and other parts of the body. P.W. 12, thus, lodged F.I.R. (Ext.2) before O.I.C. Kaniha Police Station and set the law into motion. P.W. 20, i.e., Dr. Santilata Mohanty, who conducted autopsy on the dead body of the deceased confirmed about homicidal death of the deceased due to cut injury on and around the neck. In course of the investigation, P.W.19, the Investigating Officer recovered missing ornaments of the deceased on being produced by accused Chandramani. He also recovered the weapon of offence being concealed by accused Chandramani and he also recorded the confessional statement of accused Chandramani and Arun that they had concealed the dead body of the deceased. The seizure of the incriminating articles, i.e., blood stained wearing apparels etc were seized and ultimately charge sheet was submitted. Accused persons denied to the allegation and claimed for trial.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. In course of the trial, prosecution examined as many as 20 witnesses. Amongst them P.Ws. 1, 3, 4, 6, 7, 9, 10, 11, 13, 14, 15, 16 are the villagers, who did not support the prosecution on the matter of interrogation of the accused, regarding recovery of incriminating materials, ornaments, wearing apparels etc and also the extra-judicial confession. P.W.s. 5 and 12 deposed about missing of the girl and also absence of the accused Chandamani from his house at the corresponding time. In that respect P.W.2 only stated that in that evening he had seen Abhimanyu @ Malia and Parbati, being present in the shop. As noted above, P.W.20 proved the post-mortem report, Ext.18 and his opinion report, Ext.17 stating M.O.1. as weapon of offence.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. On assessment of such evidence, Learned Addl. Sessions Judge recorded the finding that there is no sufficient evidence to connect the accused Chandramani, Hemalata and Arun with the alleged crime for the offence under Sections 404, 364 and 201 I.P.C. and accordingly acquitted them. While accepting the evidence of P.W.20 about the homicidal death of the deceased and taking note of missing of the accused from the house during the relevant time and recovery of ornaments from the house where he resides, Learned Addl. Sessions Judge found that circumstantially it has been proved on record that accused is the author of the crime and accordingly he convicted the Appellant for the offence under Section 302 IPC and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life. He acquitted the accused from the charge on the other offences.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. Challenging the aforesaid finding and order of conviction, Mr. Behera, Learned Counsel for the Appellant states that in the absence of direct or circumstantial evidence the order of conviction under Section 302 IPC as against the Appellant is bad in law and it be set aside. Learned Standing Counsel, however, defends the impugned Judgment on the ground that missing of the girl and absence of the Appellant from the house cannot be regarded as a coincidence and because of the unchallenged evidence of P.W.S about the illicit relationship between them valid presumption can be drawn about kidnapping of the girl by the accused Abhimanyu and thereafter since she suffered a homicidal death while in custody of the Appellant he being guilty of that offence punishable under Section 302 IPC.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. Before dealing with the aforesaid argument, we take note of the evidence of P.W.20 and the post-mortem report. Accordingly to P.W. 20, death occurred eight to ten days before the date of post-mortem examination and the dead body was highly decomposed. He however found incised wound extending from left auxiliary bone up to the occiput, incised wound below the left ear loam and cutting of the neck below the mandible to the extent that only skin (old was there. He also found groove on the thighs, knee joint and fore-arms. Such grooves were post-mortem in nature. Undoubtedly, the aforesaid evidence proves of homicidal death of the deceased.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. Reverting to the contention of the parties, we find that prosecution has not tendered any evidence whatsoever that Appellant was last seen with the deceased outside the house of the deceased. The incriminating articles seized are not at all connected with the accused, be it relating to wearing apparels or otherwise. The recovery under Section 27 Cr.P.C. are also not connectable to him, because such recovery were given by the co-accused and they were honourably acquitted. Thus, there is absolutely no evidence on record and it is only on surmises that Learned Addl. Sessions Judge recorded conviction against the Appellant. For reasons best known, prosecution did not appeal against the order of acquittal of at least accused Chandramani, since according to the prosecution recovery under Section 27 was made at his instance. Under such circumstance, the Appellant is found not guilty of the offence under Section 302 I.P.C. Accordingly, the order of conviction is set aside and the Criminal Appeal is allowed.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. Since the Appellant is in the jail custody, therefore, we direct that he be set at liberty forthwith, if his detention is not required in connection with any other criminal case.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '105(2008)CLT508; 2008(I)OLR713',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'State of Orissa',
			'sub' => 'Criminal',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '536882'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Malia @ Abhimanyu Das Vs. State of Orissa Semantic Analysis'
$shops = array(
	'LAW' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'Section 302 IPC',
		(int) 1 => 'Section 302 IPC',
		(int) 2 => 'Section 302 IPC',
		(int) 3 => 'Section 302 IPC.7',
		(int) 4 => 'Section 27',
		(int) 5 => 'Section 27',
		(int) 6 => 'Section 302 I.P.C.'
	),
	'CARDINAL' => array(
		(int) 0 => '1',
		(int) 1 => '109',
		(int) 2 => '302',
		(int) 3 => '404',
		(int) 4 => '10.01.1999',
		(int) 5 => '12',
		(int) 6 => '12',
		(int) 7 => '20',
		(int) 8 => 'as many as 20',
		(int) 9 => '1',
		(int) 10 => '5',
		(int) 11 => '12',
		(int) 12 => '364',
		(int) 13 => '201'
	),
	'WORK_OF_ART' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'S.T. Case No'
	),
	'DATE' => array(
		(int) 0 => '1999-2000',
		(int) 1 => '01.01.1999',
		(int) 2 => 'about 14 years',
		(int) 3 => '10.01.1999',
		(int) 4 => 'about 19 years',
		(int) 5 => 'about 14 years',
		(int) 6 => '3',
		(int) 7 => '4',
		(int) 8 => '6',
		(int) 9 => '7',
		(int) 10 => '9',
		(int) 11 => '10',
		(int) 12 => '11',
		(int) 13 => '13',
		(int) 14 => '14',
		(int) 15 => '15',
		(int) 16 => '16',
		(int) 17 => 'eight to ten days'
	),
	'PERSON' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'Appellant Malia @ Abhimanyu Das',
		(int) 1 => 'Hemalata Das',
		(int) 2 => 'Arun Das',
		(int) 3 => 'Bindu Nahak',
		(int) 4 => 'Parbati Nahak',
		(int) 5 => 'Bindu Nahak',
		(int) 6 => 'Bindu',
		(int) 7 => 'Bindu',
		(int) 8 => 'Courtesy',
		(int) 9 => 'Abhimanyu',
		(int) 10 => 'Abhimanyu Das',
		(int) 11 => 'Lambodar Nahak',
		(int) 12 => 'Bindu',
		(int) 13 => 'Abhimanyu',
		(int) 14 => 'Brahamani',
		(int) 15 => 'F.I.R.',
		(int) 16 => 'Santilata Mohanty',
		(int) 17 => 'Chandramani',
		(int) 18 => 'Chandramani',
		(int) 19 => 'Chandramani',
		(int) 20 => 'Arun',
		(int) 21 => 'Abhimanyu @ Malia',
		(int) 22 => 'Learned Addl',
		(int) 23 => 'Learned Addl',
		(int) 24 => 'Behera',
		(int) 25 => 'Appellant',
		(int) 26 => 'Learned Addl'
	),
	'ORG' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'Chandramani Das',
		(int) 1 => 'Sections 364',
		(int) 2 => 'intention.3',
		(int) 3 => 'Malia @ Abhimanyu Das',
		(int) 4 => 'P.W.',
		(int) 5 => 'Ext.2',
		(int) 6 => 'O.I.C. Kaniha Police Station',
		(int) 7 => 'Parbati',
		(int) 8 => 'Sections 404',
		(int) 9 => 'Learned Counsel',
		(int) 10 => 'Learned Standing Counsel',
		(int) 11 => 'P.W.S',
		(int) 12 => 'Abhimanyu',
		(int) 13 => 'P.W.',
		(int) 14 => 'Chandramani',
		(int) 15 => 'the Criminal Appeal'
	),
	'MONEY' => array(
		(int) 0 => '201/34 I.P.C.'
	),
	'TIME' => array(
		(int) 0 => '01.01.1999 in the evening hours',
		(int) 1 => 'that evening'
	),
	'NORP' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'P.W.5'
	),
	'PRODUCT' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'P.W. 5',
		(int) 1 => 'Appellant',
		(int) 2 => 'Appellant',
		(int) 3 => 'Appellant',
		(int) 4 => 'Appellant',
		(int) 5 => 'Appellant',
		(int) 6 => 'Appellant'
	),
	'LOC' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'Chandamani'
	),
	'GPE' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'Chandramani',
		(int) 1 => 'Hemalata',
		(int) 2 => 'Arun',
		(int) 3 => 'P.C.'
	)
)
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '536882',
		'acts' => '',
		'appealno' => '',
		'appellant' => 'Malia @ Abhimanyu Das',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Malia @ Abhimanyu Das 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. 
 -  Mother of the Bindu was running a shop and having business transaction as well as social Courtesy extended to the accused persons. Behera, Learned Counsel for the Appellant states that in the absence of direct or circumstantial evidence the order of conviction under Section 302 IPC as against the Appellant is bad in law and it be set aside. For reasons best known, prosecution did not appeal against the order of acquittal of at least accused Chandramani, since according to the prosecution recovery under Section 27 was made at his instance.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => '',
		'counseldef' => '',
		'court' => 'Orissa',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2007-12-19',
		'deposition' => 'Appeal allowed',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => ' P.K. Tripathy and; R.N. Biswal, JJ.',
		'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">1. Order of conviction under Section 302 IPC against the accused in S.T. Case No. 109-A/34 of 1999-2000 is under challenge by the Appellant.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Appellant Malia @ Abhimanyu Das together with his parents, accused Chandramani Das and Hemalata Das and his elder brother Arun Das were charged for the offence under Sections 364, 302, 404, 201/34 I.P.C. on allegation that on 01.01.1999 at about 7 P.M. Abhimanyu kidnapped the minor girl, Bindu Nahak aged about 14 years from the lawful custody of her mother Parbati Nahak (P.W.5) and that said Bindu Nahak suffered a homicidal death and her dead body was found on 10.01.1999 and her ornaments were misappropriated by the accused persons by sharing common intention.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. According to the case of the prosecution, accused Malia @ Abhimanyu Das aged about 19 years had illicit relationship with Bindu, a girl aged about 14 years. Mother of the Bindu was running a shop and having business transaction as well as social Courtesy extended to the accused persons. On 01.01.1999 in the evening hours accused Abhimanyu came and intimated P.W.5 to go to their house to collect paddy and P.W.5 proceeded for that purpose. After returned to her shop-cum-residence, she found her daughter missing from the house. When she did not find the daughter, she tried to locate accused Abhimanyu Das and she found him missing. She intimated this fact to her husband, Lambodar Nahak (P.W.12). They were in search of the Bindu and Abhimanyu and on 10.01.1999 P.W. 5 got information about floating of a dead body on the other side of the river 'Brahamani'. She went to ascertain and found that to be her daughter. Thereafter, P.W. 12 together with others also went and confirmed about the identity of the dead body of the deceased. The dead body had been put on a gunny bag fixed with a stone. There were injuries on her neck and other parts of the body. P.W. 12, thus, lodged F.I.R. (Ext.2) before O.I.C. Kaniha Police Station and set the law into motion. P.W. 20, i.e., Dr. Santilata Mohanty, who conducted autopsy on the dead body of the deceased confirmed about homicidal death of the deceased due to cut injury on and around the neck. In course of the investigation, P.W.19, the Investigating Officer recovered missing ornaments of the deceased on being produced by accused Chandramani. He also recovered the weapon of offence being concealed by accused Chandramani and he also recorded the confessional statement of accused Chandramani and Arun that they had concealed the dead body of the deceased. The seizure of the incriminating articles, i.e., blood stained wearing apparels etc were seized and ultimately charge sheet was submitted. Accused persons denied to the allegation and claimed for trial.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. In course of the trial, prosecution examined as many as 20 witnesses. Amongst them P.Ws. 1, 3, 4, 6, 7, 9, 10, 11, 13, 14, 15, 16 are the villagers, who did not support the prosecution on the matter of interrogation of the accused, regarding recovery of incriminating materials, ornaments, wearing apparels etc and also the extra-judicial confession. P.W.s. 5 and 12 deposed about missing of the girl and also absence of the accused Chandamani from his house at the corresponding time. In that respect P.W.2 only stated that in that evening he had seen Abhimanyu @ Malia and Parbati, being present in the shop. As noted above, P.W.20 proved the post-mortem report, Ext.18 and his opinion report, Ext.17 stating M.O.1. as weapon of offence.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. On assessment of such evidence, Learned Addl. Sessions Judge recorded the finding that there is no sufficient evidence to connect the accused Chandramani, Hemalata and Arun with the alleged crime for the offence under Sections 404, 364 and 201 I.P.C. and accordingly acquitted them. While accepting the evidence of P.W.20 about the homicidal death of the deceased and taking note of missing of the accused from the house during the relevant time and recovery of ornaments from the house where he resides, Learned Addl. Sessions Judge found that circumstantially it has been proved on record that accused is the author of the crime and accordingly he convicted the Appellant for the offence under Section 302 IPC and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life. He acquitted the accused from the charge on the other offences.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. Challenging the aforesaid finding and order of conviction, Mr. Behera, Learned Counsel for the Appellant states that in the absence of direct or circumstantial evidence the order of conviction under Section 302 IPC as against the Appellant is bad in law and it be set aside. Learned Standing Counsel, however, defends the impugned Judgment on the ground that missing of the girl and absence of the Appellant from the house cannot be regarded as a coincidence and because of the unchallenged evidence of P.W.S about the illicit relationship between them valid presumption can be drawn about kidnapping of the girl by the accused Abhimanyu and thereafter since she suffered a homicidal death while in custody of the Appellant he being guilty of that offence punishable under Section 302 IPC.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. Before dealing with the aforesaid argument, we take note of the evidence of P.W.20 and the post-mortem report. Accordingly to P.W. 20, death occurred eight to ten days before the date of post-mortem examination and the dead body was highly decomposed. He however found incised wound extending from left auxiliary bone up to the occiput, incised wound below the left ear loam and cutting of the neck below the mandible to the extent that only skin (old was there. He also found groove on the thighs, knee joint and fore-arms. Such grooves were post-mortem in nature. Undoubtedly, the aforesaid evidence proves of homicidal death of the deceased.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. Reverting to the contention of the parties, we find that prosecution has not tendered any evidence whatsoever that Appellant was last seen with the deceased outside the house of the deceased. The incriminating articles seized are not at all connected with the accused, be it relating to wearing apparels or otherwise. The recovery under Section 27 Cr.P.C. are also not connectable to him, because such recovery were given by the co-accused and they were honourably acquitted. Thus, there is absolutely no evidence on record and it is only on surmises that Learned Addl. Sessions Judge recorded conviction against the Appellant. For reasons best known, prosecution did not appeal against the order of acquittal of at least accused Chandramani, since according to the prosecution recovery under Section 27 was made at his instance. Under such circumstance, the Appellant is found not guilty of the offence under Section 302 I.P.C. Accordingly, the order of conviction is set aside and the Criminal Appeal is allowed.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. Since the Appellant is in the jail custody, therefore, we direct that he be set at liberty forthwith, if his detention is not required in connection with any other criminal case.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '105(2008)CLT508; 2008(I)OLR713',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'State of Orissa',
		'sub' => 'Criminal',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '536882'
)
$pattern = '/\(((0[1-9]|[12][0-9]|3[01])[.](0[1-9]|1[012])[.](17|18|19|20)[0-9]{2}).*\)/'
$shops2 = null
include - 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 302 IPC, Section 302 IPC, Section 302 IPC.7, Section 27, Section 27, Section 302 I.P.C.

CARDINAL: 1, 109, 302, 404, 10.01.1999, 12, 12, 20, as many as 20, 1, 5, 12, 364, 201

WORK_OF_ART: S.T. Case No

DATE: 1999-2000, 01.01.1999, about 14 years, 10.01.1999, about 19 years, about 14 years, 3, 4, 6, 7, 9, 10, 11, 13, 14, 15, 16, eight to ten days

PERSON: Appellant Malia @ Abhimanyu Das, Hemalata Das, Arun Das, Bindu Nahak, Parbati Nahak, Bindu Nahak, Bindu, Bindu, Courtesy, Abhimanyu, Abhimanyu Das, Lambodar Nahak, Bindu, Abhimanyu, Brahamani, F.I.R., Santilata Mohanty, Chandramani, Chandramani, Chandramani, Arun, Abhimanyu @ Malia, Learned Addl, Learned Addl, Behera, Appellant, Learned Addl

ORG: Chandramani Das, Sections 364, intention.3, Malia @ Abhimanyu Das, P.W., Ext.2, O.I.C. Kaniha Police Station, Parbati, Sections 404, Learned Counsel, Learned Standing Counsel, P.W.S, Abhimanyu, P.W., Chandramani, the Criminal Appeal

MONEY: 201/34 I.P.C.

TIME: 01.01.1999 in the evening hours, that evening

NORP: P.W.5

PRODUCT: P.W. 5, Appellant, Appellant, Appellant, Appellant, Appellant, Appellant

LOC: Chandamani

GPE: Chandramani, Hemalata, Arun, P.C.