Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
D.DASH, S.K.PANIGRAHI
Tapomaya Panda – Appellant
Versus
State of Odisha – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. introduction of the case and charges. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. details of the prosecution case and evidence. (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 3. contentions of the appellant. (Para 7 , 8) |
| 4. analysis of witness testimonies and evidence. (Para 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18) |
| 5. finding discrepancies leading to acquittal. (Para 19 , 20) |
| 6. conclusion and order of acquittal. (Para 21 , 22) |
JUDGMENT :
S.K. Panigrahi, J.
1. This is a case of patricide.
2. In this CRLA, the convict/ Appellant (Tapomaya Panda) assails the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 23.09.2016 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bhanjanagar in S.T. No.79 of 2012, whereby the Appellant was convicted and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.5000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo S.I. for a period of 3 months for commission of offence under Section 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code/ 1860 (hereinafter referred to as “the I.P.C.” for brevity).
I. CASE OF THE PROSECUTION
3. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that one Sasmita Kumari Panda wife of Sridhartha Sankar Dash of Simanchal Marg, Buguda reported in writing to the I.I.C., Buguda
The prosecution must prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, particularly in circumstantial evidence cases, where mental health concerns can significantly impact culpability.
Prosecution must prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt through a complete chain of circumstances; mere conjecture is insufficient for conviction.
The prosecution must establish a complete chain of circumstantial evidence beyond reasonable doubt for a conviction under Section 302 IPC.
The conviction for murder was upheld based on substantial eyewitness testimony and evidence of motive, affirming the principle that direct evidence substantiates a guilty verdict beyond reasonable do....
Prosecution must prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt; lack of motive and unreliable witness testimonies undermine conviction.
There was no eye witness as to actual assault on body of deceased which lead to her death and as such, it can be said that conviction of appellant is based on circumstantial evidence.
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
