Back
S. MURALIDHAR, C. R. DASH
Kartika Chandra Swain @ Kartika Swain – Appellant
Versus
State of Odisha – Respondent
JUDGMENT
Dr. S. Muralidhar, CJ.—The present three sets of appeals (CRA Nos.227, 232 and 233 of 1996) are directed against a common judgment dated 13th August, 1996 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Khurda in S.T. No.22/111 of 1995 convicting the Appellants under Sections 148, 302, 307 read with Section 149 IPC and Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act.
2. It requires to be noticed at the outset that before the trial Court, there were 32 accused persons. One of the accused Kulamani Nayak, Accused No.26 (A26) was convicted under Section 302 IPC apart from the above offences. He had filed a separate Criminal Appeal No.268 of 1996. After he had served more than 10 years in custody, he was enlarged on bail by this Court by an order dated 1st February, 2007. However, during the pendency of the present appeal, he expired on 7th June, 2019. The appeal filed by Kulamani Nayak, (A26) i.e. Criminal Appeal No.268 of 1996 was disposed of by this Court as having abated by an order dated 30th August, 2022.
3. As far as the remaining accused are concerned, during the pendency of the Appeals, Udayanath Pradhan-A18 (who was also Appellant No.1 in Criminal Appeal No.227 of 1996) and Mak
Failure to properly examine delay in lodging FIR can be fatal to prosecution.
The need for caution in convicting accused based on the testimonies of injured eyewitnesses, especially in cases of free fights where injuries on the accused are not properly explained.
Prosecution must substantiate charges with reliable evidence; significant discrepancies in witness statements and medical evidence warrant acquittal.
(1) Murder – Omission on part of prosecution to explain injuries on person of accused assumes much greater importance where evidence consists of interested or inimical witnesses.(2) When parties are ....
The appellate court can set aside a trial court's finding of acquittal if it finds that the finding is perverse and against the weight of evidence.
Murder conviction quashed for lack of proof that specific appellants inflicted fatal blow; eyewitness contradictions, medical evidence allowing death by fall, parity with acquitted co-accused, and un....
(1) Investigating Officer being a public servant is expected to conduct investigation fairly – While doing so, he is expected to look for materials available for coming to a correct conclusion.(2) Th....
Conviction upheld for grievous hurt under IPC 326, but quashed for attempted murder under IPC 307 due to lack of evidence of intent.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
