Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
D.DASH, S.K.PANIGRAHI
Aru @ Arabinda Bhoi – Appellant
Versus
State of Orissa – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. conviction based on prosecution's case. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. trial court finds death as homicidal. (Para 5) |
| 3. defense argues about evidentiary discrepancies. (Para 6 , 7) |
| 4. prosecution relies on oral dying declarations. (Para 10) |
| 5. witness credibility questioned; evidence unreliable. (Para 11) |
| 6. judgment of conviction set aside; appeal allowed. (Para 12) |
JUDGMENT :
D.Dash, J.
The Appellants, by filing this Appeal, from inside the jail, have called in question the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 24.03.2003 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Angul in Sessions Trial No.77 of 2002/16 of 2002 arising out of G.R. Case No.269 of 2001) on the file of the learned S.D.J.M., Athamallick. The Appellants (accused persons) thereunder have been convicted for commission of offence under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, ‘the IPC ’). Accordingly, they have been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life.
2. The prosecution case, in short, is that on 22.11.2001 around 7.00 p.m., Dhruba Dip had been to the house of Satyabhama Sahu (P.W.1). It is stated that seeing the deceased proceeding towards the house of Satyabhama, the accus
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
