Orissa High Court
Rankanidhi Behera vs State Of Odisha on 24 July, 2024
Author: S.K. Sahoo
Bench: S.K. Sahoo
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK
JCRLA No.29 of 2010
An appeal under section 374 Cr.P.C. from the judgment and
order dated 10.03.2010 passed by the Additional Sessions
Judge, Nayagarh in Sessions Trial No.126 of 2008.
-------------------------
Rankanidhi Behera ....... Appellant
-Versus-
State of Odisha ....... Respondent
For Appellant: - Mr. Sobhan Panigrahi
Amicus Curiae
For Respondent: - Mr. Priyabrata Tripathy
Addl. Standing Counsel
-------------------------
P R E S E N T:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.K. SAHOO
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHITTARANJAN DASH
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- --------------------------------
Date of Hearing and Judgment: 24.07.2024
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- --------------------------------
By the Bench: The appellant Rankanidhi Behera faced trial in the
Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nayagarh in Sessions
JCRLA No.29 of 2010 Page 1 of 23
Trial Case No.126 of 2008 for commission of offence punishable
under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter 'I.P.C.')
on the accusation that in the midnight of 11/12.05.2008 at
village Nathiapali under Odagaon police station, he committed
matricide by killing his mother Heera Behera (hereinafter 'the
deceased').
The learned trial Court vide impugned judgment and
order dated 10.03.2010 found the appellant guilty of the offence
charged and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life.
Prosecution Case:
2. The prosecution case, as per the first information
report (hereinafter 'F.I.R.') (Ext.1) lodged by one Duryodhan
Behera (P.W.1), the President of village committee on
12.05.2008 before the Officer in-charge of Odagaon, in short, is
that the appellant committed the murder of the deceased by
severing her head and threw the body in the backyard of his
house. Some villagers traced the headless dead body of the
deceased while going to attend call of nature, for which they
informed the same in the village. Upon getting such information,
members of the village committee along with other villagers
proceeded to the spot and noticed that the head was missing
from the dead body.
JCRLA No.29 of 2010 Page 2 of 23
Chiranjibi Dalabehera (P.W.8) A.S.I. of Police
attached to Odagaon Police Station drew up the formal F.I.R.
vide Ext.1/3 in the absence of Officer-in-Charge and he himself
took up investigation of the case. He deputed two constables to
guard the spot where the dead body of the deceased was lying
and subsequently he proceeded to the spot at 8.30 a.m., which
was the dwelling house of the appellant. He visited the back side
of the said house locally called as Kamarapada where the
beheaded body of the deceased was found. He went to the house
of the appellant and after repeated calls, the appellant opened
his door and came out. The I.O. recorded the statement of the
appellant wherein he confessed to have committed the murder of
the deceased and the said statement was recorded vide
Ext.11/1. He then arrested the appellant and conducted inquest
over the headless body of the deceased and after that, the
appellant led him to his room and brought out a bag containing
the severed head of the deceased, which was seized as per
seizure list Ext.6. At about 10.30 to 10.50 a.m. on the same day,
P.W.8 conducted inquest over the severed head of the deceased
and prepared the inquest report vide Ext.3/3. He also conducted
inquest over the dead body of the deceased by joining the
JCRLA No.29 of 2010 Page 3 of 23
severed head to the beheaded body and prepared the inquest
report vide Ext.4/2. The I.O. then sent the dead body of the
deceased to Odagaon Hospital for post mortem examination and
collected earth and blood stained sample earth, which were
seized as per seizure list Ext.7. He searched for the weapon of
offence i.e. sickle and was able to trace it out which was lying in
an open field at Kamarapada and seized the same as per seizure
list Ext.8. P.W.8 seized the wearing apparels of the appellant as
per seizure list Ext.10/1. On the same day, at about 1.15 p.m.,
he searched the house of the appellant and recovered one
country made pistol and seized the same. He prepared the spot
map of the house of the appellant vide Ext.16 and gave
requisition to doctor to collect the nail of the appellant. On
13.05.2008, he forwarded the appellant to Court and thereafter,
he examined some witnesses on 17.05.2008 and he also
produced the seized sickle before Medical Officer and made a
query as to the possibility of the injuries by such weapon. On
23.05.2008, he received the nail scraping of the appellant and
query opinion from the doctor (P.W.7). Subsequently, he handed
over the charge of investigation to Bimal Kumar Mallick (P.W.9),
the Officer-in-Charge of Odagaon Police Station.
JCRLA No.29 of 2010 Page 4 of 23
After taking over the charge of investigation, P.W.9
made a prayer to the learned S.D.J.M., Nayagarh for sending the
exhibits for chemical analysis and received the chemical
examination report (Ext.20). Upon completion of the
investigation, he submitted charge sheet against the appellant
on 18.07.2008 under section 302 of I.P.C.
Framing of Charges:
3. After submission of charge sheet, the case was
committed to the Court of Session after complying due
formalities. The learned trial Court framed charge against the
appellant as aforesaid and since the appellant refuted the
charge, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried, the sessions
trial procedure was resorted to prosecute him and establish his
guilt.
Prosecution Witnesses, Exhibits and Material Objects:
4. During the course of trial, in order to prove its case,
the prosecution has examined as many as nine witnesses.
P.W.1 Duryodhan Behera was the President of the
village committee and also the informant in this case. He stated
that during the dawn hours, while he had gone to attend the call
of nature, he saw the headless body of a woman lying at a
distance of 500 feet. Seeing the same, he shouted, for which
JCRLA No.29 of 2010 Page 5 of 23
many persons gathered at the spot and some of the persons
identified the dead body of the deceased. He is also a witness to
the inquest held over the headless body and severed head of the
deceased.
P.W.2 Jitendra Behera is the minor son of the
appellant and grandson of the deceased. He categorically stated
that on the night of occurrence, the appellant strangulated the
deceased for which she struggled for life but after a while, she
became calm. He also stated that upon seeing this in front of his
eyes, he cried but the appellant threatened him not to shout.
The witness further stated that the appellant asked him to
accompany and took the dead body of the deceased to
Kamarapada and severed the head from the body of the
deceased by means of a sickle. He further stated that the
appellant brought the severed head in a bag and returned to the
house but threw away the sickle outside.
P.W.3 Mini Behera is the wife of the appellant and
daughter-in-law of the deceased. She stated that the appellant
had assaulted her prior to the incident for which she had left for
her maternal home along with her elder daughter. Upon getting
the news of the death of the deceased, she returned to the
marital home.
JCRLA No.29 of 2010 Page 6 of 23
P.W.4 Kubera Behera stated that when the police
asked the appellant about the severed head of the deceased, he
agreed to give recovery of the same and led the police to the
spot where he had kept the severed head. He is also a witness to
the seizure of blood stained earth and sample earth as per
seizure list Ext.7, sickle as per seizure list Ext.8 and seizure of
one jacket and burnt pieces of pant and shirt as per seizure list
Ext.9.
P.W.5 Chakradhar Naik stated that P.W.1 and he
himself found the headless body at the dawn hours which they
identified to be that of the deceased. While both of them were
proceeding to the house of the appellant, they saw the appellant
coming. He further stated that on being asked, the appellant
informed that he was searching for the deceased but when P.W.1
insisted to know about the whereabouts of the deceased, the
appellant rushed to his house and bolted the door from inside.
He also stated that about 400 villagers guarded at the house of
the appellant to prevent his escape. Subsequently, the police
arrived and persuaded the appellant to open the door and
thereafter the police took him to the place where the headless
body was lying. The appellant then led the police to his house
and brought out the head of the deceased kept in a polythene
JCRLA No.29 of 2010 Page 7 of 23
bag. He is a witness to the conduct of inquest over the headless
body as well as the severed head of the deceased.
P.W.6 Panu Charana Behera is a co-villager and a
post-occurrence witness who stated that at about 06.00 a.m., on
being called by P.W.1, he went to Kamarapada and saw the
headless body of the deceased. He also stated to have seen the
head of the deceased in the house of the appellant. He is also a
witness to the conduct of inquest over the headless dead body of
the deceased vide Ext.2 and severed head of the deceased vide
Ext.3.
P.W.7 Dr. A.K. Mohapatra was posted as the Medical
Officer at Kural P.H.C.(New). On police requisition, he conducted
post mortem examination over the dead body of the deceased
and proved his report vide Ext.12. He, vide Ext.13, responded to
the query made by the I.O. as to the possibility of causing of the
injuries through the recovered sickle.
P.W.8 Chiaranjibi Dalabehera was working as the
Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police at Odagaon police station and
he is the initial investigating officer of this case.
P.W.9 Bimala Kumar Mallick was working as the
Officer-in-Charge of Odagaon police station. He took over the
JCRLA No.29 of 2010 Page 8 of 23
charge of investigation from P.W.8 and upon completion of
investigation, he submitted charge sheet against the appellant.
The prosecution exhibited twenty documents. Ext.1
is the F.I.R., Ext.2/3 is the inquest report, Ext.3/3 is the inquest
report, Ext.4/2 is the inquest report., Ext.5 is the zimanama,
Exts.6, 7, 8, 9, 17 and 19 are the seizure lists, Ext.10/1 is the
seizure list, Ext.11/1 is the statement of accused recorded by
Police, Ext.12 is the post mortem report, Ext.13 is the reply of
P.W.7 on query of I.O., Ext.14 is the command certificate, Ext.15
is the dead body challan, Ext.16 is the spot map., Ext.18 is the
copy of forwarding letter of S.D.J.M. and Ext.20 is the chemical
examination report.
The prosecution also proved twenty material objects.
M.O.I is the seized Sickle, M.Os.II & III are the Gold Nolis,
M.O.IV is the Mali having 10 Gold Beads, M.O.V is the Mali
without Gold Bead, M.O.VI is the an one Rupee Tamba Paise,
M.O.VII is the one athana tamba Paise, M.O.VII is the Gold Naka
Fulla, M.O.IX is the Gold Naka Fulla, M.O.X is the Metal Karata
(Container), M.Os.XI and XIIare the sarees of the deceased,
M.O.XIII is the jean pant of the appellant, M.O.XIV is the half
banian, M.Os.XV, XVI, XVII, XVIII and XIX are the sample
packets and M.O. XX is the nails scraping sample packet.
JCRLA No.29 of 2010 Page 9 of 23
Defence Plea:
5. The defence plea of the appellant was one of denial.
Defence has neither examined any witness nor exhibited any
document to dislodge the prosecution case.
Findings of the Trial Court:
6. The learned trial Court after assessing the oral as
well documentary evidence on record came to hold that the
death of the deceased Heera, the sexagenarian widow, mother of
the appellant on the midnight of 11/12.05.2008 was homicidal in
nature. The learned trial Court also accepted the evidence of the
child witness (P.W.2), who is the son of the appellant and
grandson of the deceased Heera, to be wholly reliable. The
statement of the appellant recorded under section 313 of the
Cr.P.C., in which he has admitted his guilt, has also been taken
into account so also the recovery of the severed head at the
instance of the appellant and the opinion of the doctor regarding
possibility of the injury caused with the weapon. Accordingly, it
has been held that the prosecution evidence proves the charge
against the appellant and the irresistible conclusion is that the
appellant is the culprit behind the murder of his mother and he
intentionally killed her. It was further held that intra-familial
tension is not a satisfactory explanation for the crime and
JCRLA No.29 of 2010 Page 10 of 23
resultantly, the learned trial Court held that the prosecution has
proved the charge under section 302 of the I.P.C. against the
appellant.
Contentions of the Parties:
7. Mr. Sobhan Panigrahi, learned Amicus Curiae
contended that the conviction of the appellant is mainly based on
the solitary evidence of the child witness (P.W.2), who is the son
of the appellant and grandson of the deceased and there are
contradictions in his evidence and therefore, it would be too risky
to place implicit reliance on his testimony to find the appellant
guilty under section 302 of the I.P.C. The learned counsel further
submits that the appellant appears to have been under the
influence of 'ganja' when he committed the crime and therefore,
the benefit of doubt should be extended in favour of the
appellant.
Mr. Priyabrata Tripathy, learned counsel for the State
on the other hand submitted that the learned trial Court has
rightly accepted the evidence of P.W.2, whose presence at the
scene of occurrence is very natural and which is also accepted by
the appellant in the accused statement and the contradictions
which are appearing in the evidence of P.W.2 do not go to the
root of the matter or demolish his version and his evidence is
JCRLA No.29 of 2010 Page 11 of 23
getting corroboration from the medical evidence adduced by the
doctor (P.W.7), who after verification of the weapon of the
offence answered to the query made by the Investigating Officer
that not only the injuries are fatal but also it could have been
caused by the weapon which was produced before him. The
learned counsel further submitted that at the instance of the
appellant, the head of the deceased was recovered from his
house and the evidence of Kabir Behera (P.W.4) in that respect
is also very clear coupled with the evidence of the I.O. (P.W.8)
and therefore, the learned trial Court is justified in convicting the
appellant under section 302 of the I.P.C.
Whether the solitary testimony of the child witness
(P.W.2) regarding culpability of the appellant is reliable?:
8. Since the case is mainly based on the evidence of the
solitary eye-witness P.W.2, who was a child aged about 12 years
at the time of deposition, we have to carefully go through it to
see whether the same is acceptable or not. Law is well settled
that in order to record a conviction on the evidence of a solitary
witness, the Court has to be satisfied that the evidence is clear,
trustworthy and above-board. Additionally, when the solitary
witness happens to be a child, the Court has to be even more
cautious so as to ensure that immature answers, influenced by
JCRLA No.29 of 2010 Page 12 of 23
the tender age, given by the child do not affect his otherwise
impeccable evidence. The Hon'ble Supreme Court so also this
Court have time and again reiterated the law governing the
recording of testimony of child witnesses. In the case of Pramila
-Vrs.- State of U.P. reported in (2021) 12 Supreme Court
Cases 550, while appreciating the sole testimony of an eleven-
year-old child, the Hon'ble Supreme Court noted as follows:
"5. Criminal jurisprudence does not hold that
the evidence of a child witness is unreliable
and can be discarded. A child who is aged
about 11 to 12 years certainly has reasonably
developed mental faculty to see, absorb and
appreciate. In a given case the evidence of a
child witness alone can also form the basis for
conviction. The mere absence of any
corroborative evidence in addition to that of
the child witness by itself cannot alone
discredit a child witness. But the courts have
regularly held that where a child witness is to
be considered, and more so when he is the
sole witness, a heightened level of scrutiny is
called for of the evidence so that the court is
satisfied with regard to the reliability and
genuineness of the evidence of the child
witness. PW 2 was examined nearly one year
after the occurrence. The Court has,
therefore, to satisfy itself that all possibilities
JCRLA No.29 of 2010 Page 13 of 23
of tutoring or otherwise are ruled out and
what was deposed was nothing but the truth."
Since P.W.2 is a child witness, the learned trial Court
put some questions to test his competency, which is also known
as the 'voir dire' test in the legal parlance. After noting down the
questions put and the answers given by the witness, the learned
trial Court observed that the witness understood the questions
and is a competent witness to answer and accordingly, the
statement was recorded. P.W.2 has stated that the appellant is
his father and the deceased Heera Bewa was his grandmother
and he stated that in the night of occurrence, he was sleeping
with the deceased on the outer verandah of the house when the
appellant woke them up and asked to come inside and after a
while, he along with the deceased came back and slept in the
outer verandah. After some time, the appellant strangulated the
neck of the deceased for which the deceased struggled for the
life and then she became calm. He further stated that when he
cried, the appellant threatened him not to shout and then the
appellant asked him to accompany and took the dead body of
the deceased to Kamarpada which is at a distance of 100 meters
and there the appellant separated the head of the deceased from
the body by means of a sickle and brought the beheaded head in
JCRLA No.29 of 2010 Page 14 of 23
a bag and returned to the house. P.W.2 also followed the
appellant and the appellant threw away the sickle outside.The
witness further stated that the appellant kept him inside the
room and closed the door from outside and went to take bath
and on the next day morning, the appellant opened the door and
the villagers came and he told the villagers about the incident. In
the cross-examination, the witnesses stated that he has read
upto Class-V and further stated that out of fear, he could not
shout during the incident and the appellant was sleeping in the
Danda Ghara when he along with the deceased grandmother
were sleeping in the Badi Ghara. The previous statement of
P.W.2 recorded under section 161 of Cr.P.C. was confronted to
him and it has been proved through the I.O. (P.W.8) that he has
not stated before him that due to summer, he was sleeping
outside and while he along with the deceased were sleeping on
the verandah, the appellant called them to come inside and that
he disclosed the incident before the villagers and he was kept
inside the room and the door was closed from outside. Even
though these contradiction has been proved by the defence, we
are of the view that the same in no way affects the credibility of
P.W.2 and his version that his father (appellant) strangulated the
neck of the deceased inside the Danda Ghara and subsequently
JCRLA No.29 of 2010 Page 15 of 23
took the dead body to Kamarapada and there he separated the
head of the deceased by means of a sickle has not at all been
shattered and the witness appears to be truthful and nothing has
been brought out in the cross-examination to disbelieve his
evidence.
The witness has further stated that the appellant was
always expressing disgust over the deceased and the appellant
kept the bag containing the head of the deceased in the bamboo
basket of the house. The learned trial Court has noticed the
demeanor of the witness and mentioned that P.W.2 continued to
remain confident throughout the examination and cross-
examination while the appellant was standing in the accused
dock. Section 280 Cr.P.C. empowers the Presiding Judge while
recording the evidence of witnesses, to also record such remarks
(if any) as he thinks material, respecting the demeanour of such
witness whilst under examination. The demeanour of the witness
is the appearance of credibility that the witness has during
testimony and examination at trial or hearing. The look or
manners of a witness while in the witness box, his hesitation and
doubts or confidence and calmness etc. are the facts which only
the trial Judge is in a position to, and is expected to observe.
Though the Court is quite free to make a note of demeanour of
JCRLA No.29 of 2010 Page 16 of 23
the witness, it is desirable to avoid remarks of an apparently
exclusive character. The observations of a trial Judge as regards
the demeanour of witnesses are entitled to grant weight. When
the Court has found the witness to be a competent one and he
being the son of the appellant, his presence at the scene of
occurrence cannot be disputed and he has narrated the incident
in detail as to how the appellant committed the murder of the
deceased and subsequently beheaded her and his version has
not at all been shattered in the cross-examination, we are of the
view that the learned trial Court has rightly placed reliance on
the evidence of P.W.2.
Above all, the doctor (P.W.7), who was conducted
post mortem examination over the dead body of the deceased
has noticed the following injuries:-
"On examination, externally I found one cut
injury in between the chin and thyroid
cartilage on the front of the neck going
backwards to involve the whole, of neck
leading to decapitation of head from body just
below the third survicalvertebra from the
posterior aspect. Margins of the injury are
ragged and bruised. The injury cuts from
anterior to posterior. Hyoid bone, phyranx,
JCRLA No.29 of 2010 Page 17 of 23
muscles of neck, vessels, nerves and just
below the 3rd cervical vertebrae.
(ii) Abrasion of size 2 c.m. x 1 c.m. behind the
right elbow backside red-brown in colour.
(iii) Abrasion of size 1 cm. x 1 c.m. on the
back of left elbow red-brown in colour.
All the above three injuries were ante-
mortem in nature. Injury on neck was only
grievous while two others were simple in
nature. Injury on neck might have been
caused by sharp cutting weapon with serrated
margins (sickle like). Injury Nos. II, III might
have been caused by hard and blunt weapons.
On dissection internally he found as
follows:-
(I) The cut injury on neck leading to
decapitation has transected the spinal cord at
the level below C-3 above C-4 thyroid
cartilage and hyoid bone, are cut through."
Therefore, the version of this child witness (P.W.2) is
not only reliable and trustworthy but the same is also getting
sufficient corroboration from the medical evidence. The backing
received from the doctor's (P.W.7) evidence ramparts the
evidence of P.W.2 and fortifies the prosecution case.
JCRLA No.29 of 2010 Page 18 of 23
Whether the recovery evidence adduced by the appellant
corroborates the prosecution case?:
9. P.W.4 has stated that while the appellant was in
police custody, he stated before the police that he could point
out the place where the severed head of the deceased has been
concealed and accordingly, he led the police to the spot and gave
recovery of the same.The police prepared the seizure list which
has been marked as Ext.6. P.W.4 further stated about the
seizure of the headless body from Nandi Bila as per seizure list
Ext.9. Apart from the seizure of the sickle lying at Kamarapada,
which was seized as per seizure list Ext.8 and sample earth and
blood stained earth as per seizure list Ext.7, the I.O.(P.W.8) has
also stated that after the appellant was taken into custody, he
made a statement before him which was recorded in a separate
sheet and the same has been marked as Ext.11/1. He further
stated that the appellant led him to his room and brought out a
bag from Kunda Doli having severed head of the deceased. The
I.O. has also stated about the seizure of the weapon of offence
and the beheaded body of the deceased and therefore, the
versions of P.W.4 and P.W.8 also indicate that at the instance of
the appellant basing on his statement recorded under section 27
JCRLA No.29 of 2010 Page 19 of 23
of the Evidence Act, the head of the deceased was recovered
from the house of the appellant.
The appellant was asked a pertinent question in the
accused statement recorded under section 313 of the Cr.P.C.,
which is reflected under Question No.34, as to what he has to
say about the case, wherein he has stated that he was under
intoxication and the deceased asked him to commit her murder
otherwise the villagers would create disturbance and accordingly,
he took 'ganja' and killed his mother by way of strangulation and
then asked his son (P.W.2) to accompany him and went to the
land where he beheaded the deceased and came with the head
to his house.
It is needless to mention that a person cannot seek
exemption from liability for commission of murder on the ground
of 'voluntary intoxication'. The Penal Code does not provide for
any provision which can potentially protect an accused from
liability for commission of any crime, much less a heinous crime
like murder, merely because he chose to intoxicate himself
before executing his culpable intention. In the case of Paul
-Vrs.- State of Kerala reported in (2020) 3 Supreme Court
Cases 115, while adjudicating criminal liability of a self-
intoxicated persons, the Hon'ble Apex Court held as follows:
JCRLA No.29 of 2010 Page 20 of 23
"32. Section 86 IPC enunciates presumption
that despite intoxication which is not covered
by the last limb of the provision, the accused
person cannot ward off the consequences of
his act. A dimension however about
intoxication may be noted. Section 86 begins
by referring to an act which is not an offence
unless done with a particular knowledge or
intent. Thereafter, the law-giver refers to a
person committing the act in a state of
intoxication. It finally attributes to him
knowledge as he would have if he were not
under the state of intoxication except
undoubtedly, in cases where the intoxicant
was administered to him either against his will
or without his knowledge. What about an act
which becomes an offence if it is done with a
specific intention by a person who is under the
state of intoxication? Section 86 does not
attribute intention as such to an intoxicated
man committing an act which amounts to an
offence when the act is done by a person
harbouring a particular intention."
The instant case has exposed this Court to a very
unfortunate set of facts where a son did not think twice before
killing his creator, i.e. the mother. As per the above position of
law, the knowledge of the appellant for commission of the crime
can be well inferred, notwithstanding the fact that he was
JCRLA No.29 of 2010 Page 21 of 23
intoxicated. Furthermore, no evidence was led from the side of
the defence to show that the intoxication was so intense that it
affected the ability of the appellant to form intention to commit
the crime. Therefore, when the evidence is consistent and well-
corroborated, the defence cannot be permitted to derail the
prosecution case flippantly raising a superfluous plea of
intoxication.
When Question No.35 was put to the appellant as to
whether he wants to cite any evidence in defence, he responded
in negative and further stated that since the murder has been
witnessed by his own son (P.W.2), no further evidence remained
to be adduced.
Conclusion:
10. In view of the foregoing discussions, we are of the
view that the version of the child witness (P.W.2), is not only
clear, cogent, reliable and trustworthy but his evidence is getting
corroboration from the medical evidence and the recovery of the
head of the deceased at the instance of the appellant. Therefore,
the learned trial Court is quite justified in holding the appellant
guilty under section 302 of the I.P.C. and accordingly, we do not
find any merit in this JCRLA.
JCRLA No.29 of 2010 Page 22 of 23
Accordingly, the JCRLA stands dismissed.
Before parting with the case, we would like to put on
record our appreciation to Mr. Sobhan Panigrahi, the learned
Amicus Curiae for rendering his valuable help and assistance
towards arriving at the decision above mentioned. The learned
Amicus Curiae shall be entitled to his professional fees which is
fixed at Rs.7,500/- (rupees seven thousand five hundred only).
This Court also appreciates the valuable help and assistance
provided by Mr. Priyabrata Tripathy, learned Additional Standing
Counsel.
..........................
S.K. Sahoo, J.
................................ Chittaranjan Dash, J.
Orissa High Court, Cuttack The 24th July 2024/AKPradhan/Bijay Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: ANANTA KUMAR PRADHAN Designation: Sr. Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA JCRLA No.29 of 2010 Date: 02-Aug-2024 13:31:59 Page 23 of 23