STATE OF ORISSA Vs. MATHURI MALLIK
LAWS(ORI)-1978-9-2
HIGH COURT OF ORISSA
Decided on September 19,1978

STATE OF ORISSA Appellant
VERSUS
Mathuri Mallik Respondents

JUDGEMENT

- (1.) IN an appeal against acquittal preferred by the State, accused are not entitled to challenge their conviction when they have not preferred any appeal against the same. Since they have not availed themselves of the right of appeal, a revision at their instance would be barred, as provided by sub -section (4) of Section 401, Criminal Procedure Code It is. however, open to the High Court to act suo motu to prevent miscarriage of justice. Revisional powers of the High Court do not create any right in the litigant, but only conserve the power of the High Court to see that justice is done in accordance with the recognised rules of criminal jurisprudence, and that the subordinate criminal courts do not exceed their jurisdiction, or abuse their powers vested in them by the Code. Suo motu revisional jurisdiction is to be exercised with extreme care and caution and it would be justified only where the interests of justice demand interference. 1962 (1) Cri LJ 207 (SC) Foll.
(2.) THE clause "Thirdly" of Section 300 I. P. C. requires that the bodily injury must be intended and the bodily injury intended to be caused must be sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. It is in two parts, the first part is a subjective one which indicates that the injury must be intentional and not accidental. The second part is objective, in that, looking at the injury caused, the Court must be satisfied that it was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. The doctor who conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased found lacerated injuries. Internal examination revealed fracture of ribs on either side, the fractured ends beinvicted person but the order of acquittal is not challenged by the State then it is only the order of conviction that falls to be considered by the Appellate Court and not the order of acquittal.
(3.) THE decision referred to above was followed in the case of Lakhan Mahto v. State of Bihar, AIR 1966 SC 1742 : (1966 Cri LJ 1349).;


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