Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
SIBO SANKAR MISHRA
Pankaj Baliarsingh – Appellant
Versus
State of Orissa – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
S.S. Mishra, J.
The present Criminal Appeal, filed by the appellant under Section 374 of Cr.P.C. is directed against the judgment and order dated 19.09.2005 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.3, Bhubaneswar in S.T. Case No.9/419 of 2004/2003, whereby the appellant has been convicted for the offence under Section 324 of I.P.C. and on that count, he has been sentenced to undergo S.I. for two years.
2. The present appeal has been pending since 2005. When the matter was called for hearing, consistently none appeared for the appellant. Therefore, this Court requested Mr. Amit Prasad Bose, learned counsel, who was present in Court to assist the Court as Amicus Curiae. He has readily accepted the same and after obtaining entire record, assisted the Court very effectively. This Court records appreciation for the meaningful assistance rendered by Mr. Bose, learned counsel.
3. Heard Mr. Amit Prasad Bose, learned Amicus Curiae for the appellant and Mr. Ashok Kumar Apat, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State.
4. The prosecution case, in brief, is that the informant, Ashok Kumar Pradhan (P.W.1), lodged a report stating that on 26.07.2002
Non-examination of the Investigating Officer and critical medical witnesses raises doubts about the prosecution's case, necessitating acquittal due to insufficient evidence beyond a reasonable doubt.
Prosecution must provide reliable evidence, including original injury reports, to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt; inconsistencies and lack of corroborating evidence may lead to acquittal.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the testimony of witnesses, even if related to the deceased, should not be automatically discarded, and minor discrepancies in the evidence sh....
The prosecution must establish charges beyond reasonable doubt, and the failure to seal samples and examine the investigating officer can impact the credibility of the evidence.
The court emphasized the prosecution's burden to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, highlighting inconsistencies and the absence of independent corroboration in witness testimonies.
Conviction upheld for grievous hurt under IPC 326, but quashed for attempted murder under IPC 307 due to lack of evidence of intent.
The prosecution failed to prove the charges of attempted murder and grievous hurt due to lack of evidence regarding intent and the nature of injuries.
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
