SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

1950 Supreme(Ori) 47

JAGANNADHA DAS, PANIGRAHI
HADU – Appellant
Versus
THE STATE – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
B.M.PATNAIK, B.N.RATH

JAGANNADHADAS, J.

( 1 ) THE appellant before us has been convicted under Sections 302 and 201, penal Code, and sentenced to transportation for life under first count and to rigorous imprisonment for five years under the second count the sentences to run concurrently. He has been held guilty of having murdered one Bhima Panda on the night of 19-5-1949 and caused the disappearance of the dead body from the scene of the offence with the intention of screening himself. At the trial, there was another accused, A-2, the brother of the appellant but he has been given the benefit of doubt by the learned Sessions Judge and acquitted.

( 2 ) THE appellant Hadu Samanta is a resident of Humma Gada. The deceased bhima Panda is a resident of the village Nadapandapalli, some distance away. The evidence on the side of the prosecution shows that the appellant and the deceased were on friendly terms and that the deceased was placing implicit confidence in the appellant. The appellant had taken a lob of gold and money from the deceased under the inducement that he would teach him some vidya whereby he could get gold and that he would perform a homa which would, bring out to him golden pots from the












Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top