DILLIP PRADHAN Vs. STATE OF ORISSA
LAWS(ORI)-2021-3-7
HIGH COURT OF ORISSA
Decided on March 04,2021

Dillip Pradhan Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF ORISSA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

S.K.MISHRA,J. - (1.) The sole appellant-Dillip Pradhan assails his conviction under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as the "Penal Code" for brevity) by the learned Ad hoc Addl. Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Athagarh in S.T. Case No.332 of 2004 by virtue of the judgment dated 12th April, 2005. He has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life. The appellant has been acquitted of the charges under Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act.
(2.) The prosecution case is that the deceased Ashok Biswal, on 17.1.2004 had gone to village Mandiapalli along with the appellant. Since he did not return, his brother Saroj went to Mandiapalli to enquire regarding his whereabouts. In the village Mandiapalli, Saroj was informed by Jhunu Pradhan that she had seen the deceased along with the company of the appellant-Dillip Pradhan as they were proceeding towards Mandap Mundia field side and the appellant was holding a gun. (Jhunu Pradhan has not been examined in this case). She further disclosed that after some time Dillip alone returned to his home. Subsequently, the mother of the deceased, P.W.2, got information from one Purushottam Rout that the deceased has been murdered and his dead body was lying at Mandap Mundia forest with gun shot wound. P.W.2-Gouri Biswal lodged an F.I.R. before the O.I.C., Baramba Police Station on 19.1.2004. A criminal case was registered for the offence under Section 302 of the Penal Code against the appellant and investigation of the case was taken up.
(3.) During course of investigation, the O.I.C., Baramba Police Station, P.W.12, examined the informant and other witnesses, recorded their statements, held inquest on the dead body of the deceased, dispatched the dead body for post mortem examination, arrested the appellant, recorded the statement of the appellant under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act and the appellant gave recovery of the weapon of offence, i.e, S.B.M.L. (country made gun) and after obtaining medical opinion as well as ballistic report submitted, charge sheet against the appellant under Section 302 of the Penal Code and Section 25 and 27 of the Arms Act.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.