Court : Orissa
Reported in : 93(2002)CLT415
P.K. Patra, J. 1. This is an appeal against the judgment dated 24.6.1994 passed by Shri M. C. Rath, Additional Sessions Judge, Jeypore in Sessions Case No. 98 of 1992 (S.C. No. 241 of 1992) convicting the appellant (hereinafter referred to as 'the accused') under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as 'IPC') for alleged commission of murder of one Dhanu Bhotra on 12.6.1992 in village Haldiguda under Dabugaon P.S. in Koraput district, and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life.2. The facts leading to the prosecution case are as follows :Deceased Dhanu Bhotra had married the sister of the accused. After the death of his sister, the accused reached the house of the deceased in village Haldiguda at about 8 p.m. on 12.6.1992 while the deceased was in the house and was igniting firewood. The accused demanded return of the ornaments and other articles given to his sister at the time of marriage and the deceased replied that since none of his (accuse...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : 93(2002)CLT550
P.K. Patra, J. 1. This is an appeal against the judgment dated 15.12.90 passed by Shri B. K. Patnaik, Second Additional Sessions Judge, Puri in Sessions Trial No. 41/267 of 1989 convicting the thirteen appellants (hereinafter referred to as 'the accused persons') under Sections 302/149/148/326 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as 'IPC') and under Section 9-B of the Indian Explosive Act and sentencing accused persons Nos. 1 and 2 to undergo imprisonment for life under Section 302 IPC and the other eleven accused persons to undergo imprisonment for life for the offence under Section 302/149 IPC. All the aforesaid thirteen accused persons have also been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years for the offence under Section 148 IPC; accused persons Nos. 4, 7, 9, 11 and 12 have further been convicted under Section 326 IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years; and accused persons Nos. 1, 2 and 11 have also been convicted under Section...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : 93(2002)CLT297
P.K. Patra, J.1. This is an appeal against the judgment dated 7,7,1994 passed by Smt. M. Patnaik, Sessions Judge, Koraput, Jeypore, camp at Rayagada in Sessions Case No. 222 of 1993 convicting the appellant (hereinafter referred to as 'the accused') under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as 'IPC') and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life for alleged commission of murder of his wife on 2.4.1993 in village Podafaandha under Kasipur Police Station in the district of Rayagada. The accused and his three co-accused persons, who are his brothers, were not found guilty under Section 201/34 IPC.2. The facts leading to the prosecution case are as follows :The accused had married deceased Nila Jhadia, daughter of P.W. 1, eight years prior to the occurrence. She begot four children, but all ,of them did not survive long after their birth, for which the accused and hi? father suspected the deceased to a witch (DAHANI) and used to harass her. The dece...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : 93(2002)CLT225
P. K. Patra, J. 1. This is an appeal against the judgment dated 16.11.1994 passed by Shri P. B. Patnaik, Additional Sessions Judge, Jajpur, in Sessions Trial No. 50/9 of 1994 convicting the appellant (hereinafter referred to as 'the accused') under Sections 302 and 307 of the Indian Penat Code (hereinafter referred to as 'IPC') and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and rigorous imprisonment for seven years respectively directing that both the sentences will run concurrently.2. The facts leading to this appeal are as follows :On 12.9.1993 at about 5.30 a.m. the accused all of a sudden attacked deceased Pitambar Mallick by means of a 'Katari' and severed his head from the trunk, seeing which, P.W. 3 (wife of deceased Pitambar) reported the matter to P.W. 1 (younger brother of deceased Pitambar). When P.W. 1 opened t.he door to see as to what had happened, he found the accused chasing P.W. 3 with the bloodstained 'Katari' and hence both P.Ws. 1 and 3 went inside the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : 2002(I)OLR419
ORDERP.K. Tripathy, J.1. Heard.This Civil Revision is directed against the order dated 5th January, 2002, passed by the Ad hoc Addl. District Judge, Fast Track Court No. III, Cuttack.3. It is not disputed at the Bar that petitioners were defendants Nos. 24 to 28 in Title Suit No. 414 of 1988 of the Court of Civil Judge (Senior Division), First Court, Cuttack, and the opp. party was the plaintiff in that suit. She filed the suit claiming for declaration of her right, title, interest and possession over the suit premises on the ground of having recorded the same as a gift at the time of her marriage, and alternatively claimed for a decree for partition. The present petitioners asserted their right, title, interest and possession over the said portion of the suit house on the plea of having purchased the same from one of the co-sharers, namely, Madan, whose heirs, as stated by learned counsel for the petitioners, figured as defendant Nos. 19 to 23. At the stage of hearing of that suit, du...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : 2002(I)OLR292
C.R. Pal, J.1. The appeal preferred against the judgment dated 28.10.1999 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Sundargarh in Sessions Trial No. 170 of 1997 convicting the appellant under Sections 201 and 302,1.P.C. and sentencing him under Section 201, I.P.C. to undergo R.I. for five years and under Section 302, I.P.C. to capital punishment and the reference made by the learned Sessions Judge under Section 366 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 1973 were heard together and are disposed of by this common judgment.2. The facts of the case which gave rise to this appeal are as follows :The appellant and two others, namely, Jabhiar Soreng and Sylvestar Lakra stood charged for the offences under Section 302, 201 read with Section 34, I.P.C. for committing murder of Lajrus Kullu, the brother of the appellant, Katirna Kido alias Kullu, the wife of Lajrus Kullu and Ruben Kullu, the son of Lajrus Kullu sometime in the month of August, 1996. The case against the appellant is that he was not pul...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : 2002(I)OLR405
P.K. Tripathy, J.1. In this appeal appellant challenges the legality and correctness of the order dated 3.11.2000 passed under Order 39, Rule 1, C.P.C. by learned District Judge, Keonjhar in M.J.C. No. 19 of 2000.2. The factual position is almost admitted on record to the effect that the present petitioner/appellant instituted Title Suit No. 44 of 1995 in the Court of Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Keonjhar, with the claim of right, title, interest and confirmation of possession over the suit scheduled land, a part of which is covered by the impugned order of injunction. Defendant No. 1 in that suit, who is respondent No. 1 in this appeal, filed a counter claim claiming right, title, interest and confirmation of possession, alternatively recovery of possession over a substantial part of the suit scheduled land. At the stage of hearing, because of the default in appearance by the plaintiff to participate in the hearing, learned Civil Judge dismissed the suit for default of the plaintiff an...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : 2002(I)OLR303
P.K. Balasubramanyan, C.J.1. Legal heirs of the plaintiff are the appellants. The plaintiff filed Title Suit No. 16 of 1972 in the Court of Subordinate Judge, Baripada for declaration of her title over the plaint schedule property and recovery of possession on rescission of a contract for sale entered into by her in favour of defendant. The suit was resisted by defendant. He inter alia pleaded that he was entitled to the protection of Section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act. The trial Court dismissed the suit on the ground that the plaintiff had not established that the defendant committed the breach of contract and that the suit was not maintainable. On appeal by the plaintiff, the learned Single Judge dismissed the appeal taking the view that time was not of the essence of the contract, and that the plaintiff had not established that the defendant was not ready and willing to perform his part of the contract. It is thus being aggrieved by the dismissal of the suit that the legal...
Tag this Judgment!