Nominal Index:

Dara Singh @ Rabindra Ku. Pal & Ors. v. State of Odisha, 2022 LiveLaw (Ori) 135

Anugraha Narayan Pattnaik v. State of Odisha & Ors., 2022 LiveLaw (Ori) 136

Harekrushna Naik & Ors. v. State of Orissa, 2022 LiveLaw (Ori) 137

Siddhachit Roy v. Rabindra Kumar Mallick, 2022 LiveLaw (Ori) 138

Abhiram Chatria v. State of Odisha & Ors., 2022 LiveLaw (Ori) 139

Judgments Reported in the Week:

Orissa High Court Upholds Conviction Of Dara Singh & Other Accused In 1999 Father Arul Doss Murder Case

Case Title: Dara Singh @ Rabindra Ku. Pal & Ors. v. State of Odisha

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ori) 135

The Orissa High Court upheld the conviction of Dara Singh alias Rabindra Kumar Pal and his co-accused for the murder of Father Arul Doss in Mayurbhanj district of Odisha in the year 1999. While affirming the conviction and sentence pronounced by the Trial Court in September 2007, a Division Bench of Chief Justice Dr. S. Muralidhar and Justice Chittaranjan Dash held,

"The charge as framed clearly indicates the manner of commission of the crime. As explained in Hamlet@ Sasi (supra) the common intention of four persons who came armed with lathis and committed the crime of killing father Arul Doss and burning the church has been clearly established. The two ingredients to attract the finding of the guilt for the substantive offences with which they have been charged, with the aid of Section 34 IPC, stands fully established."

S.37 Odisha Prevention Of Land Fragmentation Act | Tahasildar Can't Modify Record Of Rights Against Direction Of Revisional Authority: High Court

Case Title: Anugraha Narayan Pattnaik v. State of Odisha & Ors.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ori) 136

The Orissa High Court held that a Tahasildar cannot modify or improve upon the Records of Rights ('ROR') going against the directions of the revisional authority under Section 37 of the Odisha Consolidation of Holdings and Prevention of Fragmentation of Land Act, 1972 ('O.C.H. & P.F.L. Act'). While setting aside such a deviation, a Single Judge Bench of Justice Biswanath Rath observed,

"…the Tahasildar in his limited jurisdiction took a decision differing from the direction of the competent authority U/s.37(1) of the O.C.H. & P.F.L. Act, which is not permissible in the eye of law. For the opinion of this Court so long as the order of the competent authority U/s.37(1) of the O.C.H. & P.F.L. Act, 1972 remains intact, the Tahasildar being the subordinate authority is bound by the same.

"Orissa High Court Upholds Conviction Of Accused Basing Upon Testimony Of 'Injured Witness' In 22 Yrs Old Murder Case

Case Title: Harekrushna Naik & Ors. v. State of Orissa

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ori) 137

The Orissa High Court upheld the conviction of three persons charged with murder and the ensuing life sentence awarded to them in a '22-year-old' case. While affirming the said conviction, a Division Bench of Chief Justice Dr. S. Muralidhar and Justice Chittaranjan Dash considerably relied on the testimony of an 'injured witness' and held,

"Having carefully examined the evidence of P.W. 14, this Court is satisfied that his evidence is clear and consistent and lends assurance as to its truthfulness and reliability. It stands corroborated by the medical evidence as well as the evidence of P.W.7."

The Court also referred to the observations made in Ramvilas v. State of Madhya Pradesh, wherein it was pointed out that "evidence of the injured witnesses is entitled to a great weight and very cogent and convincing grounds are required to discard the evidence of the injured witnesses."

S.278 CrPC | Witness Can't Be Allowed To Seek Correction In Evidence After He Signs Deposition Sheet: Orissa High Court

Case Title: Siddhachit Roy v. Rabindra Kumar Mallick

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ori) 138

The High Court held that a witness cannot be allowed to seek modification or correction in his deposition statements, which are recorded through his examination-in-chief and cross-examination, after the evidence/ statements were read over to him and subsequently, he puts his signature on deposition sheets. While disallowing a revision petition against denial of such relief, a Single Judge Bench of Justice Sangam Kumar Sahoo held,

"The object of the reading over prescribed by this section, is not to enable the witness to change his story but to ensure that the record faithfully and accurately embodies the gist of what the witness actually said. The section is not intended to permit a witness to resile from his statement in the name of correction. The object underlying section 278 of the Code is to obtain an accurate record of what a witness really means to say and to give him an opportunity of correcting his evidence taken down by the Court, if any."

Art. 227 | Not Proper To Re-appreciate Evidence & Substitute Own Findings Only Because Second View Possible: Orissa High Court Reiterates

Case Title: Abhiram Chatria v. State of Odisha & Ors.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ori) 139

The High Court reiterated that it is not proper for the High Court to re-appreciate evidence while exercising jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution and thereby to substitute its own views in the place of views expressed by the Courts below only on the ground that a second or alternative view is possible. While dismissing the petition which called for reappreciation of evidence, a Single Judge Bench of Justice Krushna Ram Mohapatra observed, "This Court is in seisin of the matter under Article 227 of the Constitution. Hence, it will not be proper to re-appreciate the evidence and substitute its own finding only because a second view may be possible."