Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
MANASH RANJAN PATHAK, SASHIKANTA MISHRA
Rameya Sethi – Appellant
Versus
State Of Orissa – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
SASHIKANTA MISHRA, J.
Both these appeals, though filed against separate judgments, arise out of the same incident and were heard together. As such, both appeals are disposed of by this common judgment.
2. The appellants in CRA No. 36 of 1999 faced trial in SC Nos.142/98 and 244/98 in the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Ganjam-Gajapati at Berhampur for the offences under Sections 148 , 302/149 and 307/149 of IPC . They were convicted by judgment dated 11.01.1999 for the aforementioned offences and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life for the offence under Section 302 /149 and R.I. for 5 years and 2 years respectively for the offence under Sections 307 /149 and148 of . The sole appellant in CRA No.5 of 2000 faced trial in SC No. 369 of 1998 for committing the offences under Sections 302 /149 and 307/149 in the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Ganjam-Gajapati at Berhampur. He was convicted vide judgment dated 07.12.1999 for the said offences and sentenced to imprisonment for life for the offence under /149 and R.I. for 5 years under /149 and 2 years under Section of 148 .
It is pertinent to note that the appeal in respect of appellant No.2- Narayan Ghadei and
Eyewitness accounts, particularly from injured witnesses, are pivotal in establishing guilt despite minor discrepancies; prior enmity reinforces motives for violent offenses.
Eyewitness testimony, especially from injured witnesses, is crucial in establishing guilt, and minor inconsistencies do not negate the overall reliability of their accounts.
Prosecution must substantiate charges with reliable evidence; significant discrepancies in witness statements and medical evidence warrant acquittal.
Testimony of interested witnesses is not a sole criterion to disbelieve their versions.
A conviction cannot stand when there are significant contradictions between ocular and medical evidence, raising doubts about the prosecution's case.
The court modified the conviction from murder to culpable homicide not amounting to murder, emphasizing the lack of intent to kill and the nature of injuries inflicted.
The court affirmed the conviction for murder and grievous hurt, emphasizing the reliability of eyewitness testimony and medical evidence in establishing guilt.
The appellants' conviction for murder was altered to culpable homicide not amounting to murder due to lack of intent, despite their involvement in the unlawful assembly and rioting.
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
