Court : Orissa
Decided on : Dec-20-1996
Reported in : II(1997)DMC205
R.K. Dash, J.1. The petitioner challenges the legality and correctness of the order of the Judge, Family Court, Cuttack, in a proceeding under Section 125, Cr. P.C. whereby he has been directed to pay maintenance to his wife, opposite party herein.2. It is not disputed that the petitioner had married the opposite party according to Hindu rites and customs and after marriage both had been leading a marital life for some time. According to the opposite party, after marriage the petitioner at the instigation of his parents demanded colour T.V., motor cycle and cash as dowry and the same having not been satisfied, started ill-treating her and even tried to do away with her whereupon she left for brother's house and has been residing there.3. The petitioner's case, on the other hand, is that the opposite party being a woman of easy virtue has been leading an immoral life, inasmuch as she having extra-marital relationship with her brother-in-law (sister's husband) left the mari- tal aboard o...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Decided on : Dec-20-1996
Reported in : 83(1997)CLT567; 1997(I)OLR156
R.K. Dash, J.1. The petitioner challenges the legality and correctness of the order of the Judge, Family Court, Cuttack, in a proceeding under Section 125, Cr P C whereby he has been directed to pay maintenance to his wife,opposite party herein.2. It is not disputed that the petitioner had married the opposite party according to Hindu rites and customs and after marriage both had been leading a marital life for some time. According to the opposite party, after marriage the petitioner at the instigation of his parents demanded colour T. V., motor cycle and cash as dowry and the same having not been satisfied, started ill-treating her and even tried to do away with her whereupon she left for her brother's house and has been residing there. 3. The petitioner's case, on the other hand, is that the opposite party being a woman of easy virtue has been leading an immoral life, inasmuch as she having extra-marital relationship with her brother-in-law (sister's husband) left the marital aboard ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Decided on : Dec-20-1996
Reported in : 83(1997)CLT477; 1997CriLJ2182
ORDERR.K. Dash, J.1. Petitioners (hereinafter referred to as 'the accused persons') by filing the present application have challenged the order of the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Baramba, passed in G.R. Case No, 78 of 1990, whereby he has taken cognizance of the offence under Section 436, I.P.C. and issued summons for their appearance.2. Brief fads giving rise to the present proceeding may be stated thus :Kubere Majhi. opposite patty No. 2 (hereinafter referred to as 'the informant') lodged F.I.R. at Baramba Police Station alleging that the accused persons were inimically disposed towards him since last Panchayat election and in order to take revenge on him. they came in a body to his house a! about 1.40 in the night of 18/19-6-1990 being armed with lathis knives, rivolvers, etc., took away household articles and set fire to the house. They also assaulted and dragged him forcibly with intenion to throw him in the burning fire. It is further alleged that they while leaving...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Decided on : Dec-12-1996
Reported in : 1997(I)OLR67
D.M. Patnaik1. The petitioners, accused persons in a complaint case for offence under Section 395, IPC, assail the order dated 28-11-1994 of the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Baramba issuing processes following an enquiry under Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short, 'the Code'). The allegation was that the petitioners on 23-1-1994 in the dead of the night snatched away gold necklace from the person of the opposite party and removed a sum of Rs. 1200/- from her house. During the enquiry under Section 202 of the Code, the Magistrate examined five witnesses out of the six. This is challenged by the petitioners on the ground that it was mandatory on the part of the Magistrate to examine all the six witnesses.2. Mr. S. S. Das, learned counsel for the petitioner raised two contentions in support of his case. Firstly, it was submitted that since the opposite party had lodged an FIR with the police it was obligatory on the part of the Magistrate to stay the proceeding in...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Decided on : Dec-12-1996
Reported in : 1997(I)OLR78
D.M. Patnaik, J.1. The appellant assails his conviction under sections.302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code and sentence of imprisonment for life and Imprisonment for six months respectively. He has been acquitted of the charge of Dowry death punishable under Section 304B, IPC.2. Prosecution case is marriage between the appellant and deceased Jhunu alias Shakuntala took place in Falguna 1990. Though PW 1, father of the deceased had met the demand of dowry, yet he failed to keep his promise to pay Rs. 10,0 00/- towards the cost of a scooter for which it was alleged that, the appellant and his parents started ill-treating to deceased.On 2-4-1994 receiving information that Shakuntala was ailing, PW 1 came to the house of the appellant and found his daughter to have recovered from the illness. On that day he witnessed the appellant quarrelling with the deceased for amount of Rs. 10,000/-promised by PW 1 to get. The appellant left the house at 4 p.m. towards the Bazar and returned at about ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Decided on : Dec-06-1996
Reported in : 84(1997)CLT388; 1997(I)OLR198
P.K. Misra, J. 1. The three Criminal Revisions relate to same petitioner and since common questions of fact and law are involved, all the three matters are being disposed of by this judgment.2. The petitioner was initially convicted under Sections 409 and 468, Indian Penal Code, by the trial Court and the order of conviction was confirmed by the appellate Court. Criminal Revision No. 638 of 1932 filed by the petitioner was allowed by this Court by judgment dated 7-2-1994 reported in (1994) 7 0CR 215 (Bhabagrahi Mayak v. State of Orissa). The revision was allowed and the matter was remitted to the trial Court for fresh disposal on the ground that there had been improper framing of charges in contravention of Sections 219 and 220 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the 'Code') and that there had been defective examination of the accused person under Section 313 of the Code. The matter was remitted to the trial Court with the following observations :'In the resul...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Decided on : Dec-05-1996
Reported in : 1997(1)ALT(Cri)19; 1997CriLJ1950
S.N. Phukan, C.J.1. The accused-appellant Gayadhar Naik was booked for trial under Sections 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code before the learned Sessions Judge: Dhenkanal, The case was registered as S.T. Case No. 136 of 1980 and the learned Sessions Jude found the accused guilty under Section 302, I.P.C. and accordingly convicted him to suffer imprisonment for life. The accused-appellant was found not guilty under Section 201, I.P.C.2. The prosecution case, briefly stated, is that in the evening of 9-9-1989 while the deceased-Sambhu Manigira and Banshidhar Naik (P.W. 1), were returning from Sanjamura to their village Kumbhamunda after taking liquor, on the way they met the accused-appellant and there was exchange of hot words between the accused and the deceased over 'Pidha Puja'. The prosecution has further alleged that the accused pushed the deceased into the Satidhara Nala at Gangadhar ghat and the deceased fell into the water. The further allegation is that the accused thereafte...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Decided on : Nov-26-1996
Reported in : 1997(I)OLR84
Dipak Misra, J.1. The petitioner calls in question legality of the order passed by the learned SDJM, Udala refusing to take cognizance in respect of the offences against the sole accused on the ground of absence of sanction as envisaged under Section 197(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short, 'the Code') in 1. C. C. No. 38/1996.2. The facts as uncurtained are that the petitioner as complainant set the criminal action into motion by instituting the aforesaid complaint case for the offences under Sections. 323. 294, 341 and 220, IPC. The allegations, as depicted are that the opposite party, the O.I.C., Khunta Police station was involved in a vigilance case wherein the present petitioner was a witness for which he was pressurised time and again not to depose against the said 0. I. C. Having failed in his attempt, the O. I. C. on 10-4-1996 at about 8 a. m. arrested the petitioner on the strength of a non-bailable warrant issued in Criminal Misc. Case No. 65/94 and detained him in ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Decided on : Nov-20-1996
Reported in : 1997(1)ALT(Cri)19; 1997CriLJ3253; I(1997)DMC476
Dipak Misra, J.1. Grant of maintenance to the wife and the children in a proceeding under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code') by the Subdivisional Judicial Magistrate, Puri in Criminal Misc. Case No. 335 of 1993 is the subject matter of challenge in the present revision.2. The factual matrix as unfolded is that the opposite party No. 1, the wife of the present petitioner, along with three daughters, opposite parties 2 to 4 herein filed an application under Section 125 of the Code claiming maintenance of Rs. 500/- for herself and Rs. 200/- for each of the children per month. According to the wife-opposite party No. 1, her marriage with the present petitioner was solemnised on 9.7.1972 and three daughters and one son were born in their wedlock. The husband who has been working as a 'Bill Issuer' in Utkal Express has developed illicit relationship with his sister-in-law (wife's sister) and she objected to the same and requested him to mend...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Decided on : Nov-12-1996
Reported in : 1997(1)ALT(Cri)7; 83(1997)CLT104; 1997CriLJ1396
P.K. Mohanty, J.1. This is an appeal from jail by the convict under Section 302, I.P.C. undergoing sentence of life imprisonment by the Additional Sessions Judge, Sambalpur in Sessions Trial No. 26/9 of 1991.2. Prosecution case, in brief, is that on 2-6-1960 at about 9.00 a.m. while Chanashyam Majhi (P.W. 1) the brother of the deceased Abhiram was doing carpentry work in the house of his uncle Thaku Majhi of village -Turki Niktimal, Bipin, Sual, the brother-in-law of the deceased informed that his brother was killed by accused Jagatram Magar by means of an axe. P.W. 1 rushed to the spot along with his uncle and found his brother dead with injuries on his person. P.W. 1 came to the village and related the incident to one Susanta Patel and then came to the Police Station in his scooter and reported the incident orally, which was reduced to writing by the officer-in-charge, Mahulapali Police Station and registered P.S. Case No. 27 of 1990 under Section 302, I.P.C. On examination of the in...
Tag this Judgment!