Orissa High Court
Kailash Sahu & Ors vs State Of Orissa on 24 July, 2023
Author: S.K. Panigrahi
Bench: D. Dash, S.K. Panigrahi
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
CRLA No.214 of 2022
(From the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated
14.02.2022/21.02.2022 passed by the learned Sessions Judge,
Dhenkanal in C.T. (Sessions) Case No.142 of 2017.)
Kailash Sahu & Ors. .... Appellants
-versus-
State of Orissa .... Respondent
Advocates appeared in the case:
For Appellants : Ms. Agnisikha Ray, Adv.
-versus-
For Respondent : Mr. S.K. Nayak, AGA
CORAM:
MR. JUSTICE D. DASH
DR. JUSTICE S.K. PANIGRAHI
DATE OF HEARING:-04.07.2023
DATE OF JUDGMENT:-24.07.2023
Dr. S.K. Panigrahi, J.
1. In this CRLA, the Convicts/ Appellants (Kailash Sahu, Prakash @ Hauda @ Hauda Sahu and Mataji Sahu) have Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR pg. 1 Designation: Assistant Registrar-cum-Senior Secretary Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK Date: 24-Jul-2023 18:08:40 assailed the correctness of the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 14.02.2022/21.02.2022 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Dhenkanal, in CT (Sessions) Case No.142 of 2017, whereby they have been convicted and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default of payment of fine, to suffer further imprisonment of one year for the offence under Section 302 of the I.P.C., to undergo imprisonment for seven years for the offence under Section 304-B of the I.P.C., to undergo imprisonment for one year and to pay fine of Rs.1000/-, in default of payment of fine, to suffer further imprisonment of three months for the offence under Section 498-A of the I.P.C., and to undergo imprisonment for six months and to pay fine of Rs.1000/- , in default of payment of fine, to suffer further imprisonment of one month for the offence under Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. It was further directed that the substantive sentences shall run concurrently. I. CASE OF THE PROSECUTION:
2. The case of the prosecution, in short, is that the informant gave his daughter Sumitra Sahoo (the deceased) in marriage with accused Kailash Sahu in the month of June, 2015 in a temple as per custom by giving cash of Rs.50,000/- and Rs.45,000/- for purchase of a motor cycle, gold and other household articles. Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR pg. 2 Designation: Assistant Registrar-cum-Senior Secretary Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK Date: 24-Jul-2023 18:08:40 After the marriage, the deceased led her marital life in the house of the accused persons. It is alleged that all the accused persons started ill-treatment on the deceased demanding more money during her stay in their house. After being got the said information, the informant came to the house of the accused persons, took the deceased to his house and after delivery the informant left the deceased in the house of the accused persons. Again on 18.08.2016, the informant and his son visited the deceased in her matrimonial house on the day of Rakhi Pumima to ascertain her wellbeing. But, they got to know from the deceased that the accused persons to have assaulted her two days back demanding Rs.50,000/- and threatened her to kill. The informant begged one year time to fulfill the said demand and returned home. But on 31.08.2016 at 6.00 A.M the informant received a telephone call from a co-villager of the accused persons that the accused persons to have burnt the deceased to death with kerosene. The informant rushed to the house of the accused persons along with others and found his deceased daughter lying dead with burn injuries on her person. Suspected foul play, he reported the matter to the I.I.C., Nihalprasad Police Station. The concerned I.I.C., on receipt of such report, registered Nihalprasad P.S Case No.106 of 2016, took up investigation and on completion of investigation, charge-sheeted the accused persons under Signature Not Verified pg. 3 Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Designation: Assistant Registrar-cum-Senior Secretary Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK Date: 24-Jul-2023 18:08:40 Sections 498-A/ 304-B/ 302/ 406/ 34 of the I.P.C. read with Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.
II. TRIAL COURT'S JUDGMENT:
3. Upon consideration of materials on record, the trial court framed charge under Sections 498-A/ 304-B/ 302/ 406/ 34 of the I.P.C. read with Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act against all the aforesaid Appellants.
4. The defence took the plea of denial and false implication. It was also their plea that the deceased had committed suicide on account of her mental illness on the fateful day of occurrence.
5. In order to establish the charges, the prosecution examined as many as 18 witnesses. Prosecution also placed reliance on certain documents marked as Exts.1 to 7 and material objects marked as M.Os.1 to 3.
6. No defence evidence, oral or documentary, was adduced.
7. Out of the 18 prosecution witnesses, P.W.11 is the informant and father of the deceased. P.W.12 is the wife, P.W.14 is the brother-in-law, P.W.15 is the brother and P.W.16 is the son of the informant. P.Ws.1, 2, 3, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 13 and 17 are the independent witnesses to the alleged occurrence. P.W.5 is the Medical Officer who conducted post mortem examination over the dead body of the deceased. P.W.4 is a Constable in whose Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR pg. 4 Designation: Assistant Registrar-cum-Senior Secretary Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK Date: 24-Jul-2023 18:08:40 presence the Investigating Officer seized some of the material objects. P.W.18 is the Investigating Officer in this case.
8. Placing reliance on the evidence of the family members of the deceased i.e. P.Ws.11, 12 and 16 and the medical evidence that the deceased sustained 90% deep burn injuries as per the post- mortem examination report marked as Ext.2 and other incriminating circumstances, the trial court held the Appellants guilty under Section 498-A/ 304-B/ 302/ 34 of the I.P.C. and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and sentenced them as stated supra. However, the Appellants have been acquitted of the charge under Section 406/ 34 of the I.P.C. by the learned trial court as there was absence of entrustment of the alleged dowry articles and cash to the accused persons and misappropriation and conversion of the same to their own use by the accused persons. III. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANTS:
9. In assailing the impugned judgment, learned Counsel for the Appellants submitted that all the above witnesses i.e. P.Ws.11, 12 and 16 being the parents and brother of the deceased are close relations of the deceased, their evidence should not be accepted.
10. He further submitted that the Appellants' presence inside the room at the time of accident has not been proved by any of the Signature Not Verified pg. 5 Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Designation: Assistant Registrar-cum-Senior Secretary Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK Date: 24-Jul-2023 18:08:40 prosecution witnesses which is a missing link. No doubt, Appellants have not explained circumstances under which the deceased died. Learned counsel for the Appellants submitted that the accused/ Appellants would not suppose to explain the circumstance and the prosecution was to stand on its own leg and conviction made on such presumption is bad in law imposing life imprisonment.
11. It is also submitted that the post mortem report vide Ext.2 is an ambiguous report. The cause of death has been described due to burn injury but silent about the nature of injury i.e. suicidal or homicidal. In the inquest report vide Ext.(P-4) it has particularly been mentioned that the front portion hair of the head of the deceased is completely burnt leaving the back portion of hair intact. It is contended that in a case of suicide by pouring kerosene a person can make suicide, whereas in a case of homicidal death the entire portion of hair of the head will be burnt. In such circumstance, the finding of the trial court about commission of murder of the deceased by the Appellants is erroneous. Moreover, by sprinkling the Kerosene or throwing the kerosene from a little distance will also burn the domestic assets like furniture, clothes and other assets, and also there will be sign of violence in other places of the particular house. But, in this case, the prosecution has not Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR pg. 6 Designation: Assistant Registrar-cum-Senior Secretary Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK Date: 24-Jul-2023 18:08:40 uttered a single word which goes to show that it is case of homicide.
12. Learned counsel for the Appellants further submitted that the trial court has come to a wrong conclusion that the police have seized two broken bangles and a broken cup which indicates that the deceased was subjected to violence before her death and the broken pieces are sign of the same. This assumption is wrong, erroneous and without any supporting evidence of violence/ forcible assault. A lady committing suicide by pouring kerosene on her is likely to struggle for her life, stretch her hands and legs and rolled on earth, growling in pain, and while doing so, such stretching her bangles and cups might have been broken/ damaged. It was contended that based upon such presumption, conviction cannot be sustained.
13. It was further submitted that prosecution witnesses have brought out two stories which can be believed to be the cause of death. P.Ws.11 and P.W 12 who are parents of the deceased admit that their deceased daughter gave birth to a still born child. Thereafter, she suffered from mental ill-ness, depression and loss of mental equilibrium. In such circumstance, a person suffering from deep depression likely to commit suicide. On the other hand, the prosecution has alleged murder of the deceased without support of any expert opinion and eye Signature Not Verified pg. 7 Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Designation: Assistant Registrar-cum-Senior Secretary Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK Date: 24-Jul-2023 18:08:40 witness. Moreover, the burning sign of the front portion of the body of the deceased clearly indicates that it is a case of suicide.
14. It was further submitted that in absence of evidence of any direct, positive and eye-witness, the opinion of the doctor who conducted post-mortem is vital. But, in the present case, the doctor who conducted post mortem examination described that burn injury of 90% may cause death. But, unfortunately, the conducting doctor has forgotten to opine as to whether the death was suicidal or homicidal in nature. In his cross- examination, the doctor admitted his fault of not describing such cause. Moreover, no external injury is found to lead to a conclusion that violence has been committed just before her death. In such circumstance, doctor's opinion is of no value excepting dragging the prosecution allegation to be a case of homicide instead of suicide. He further submitted that it is not the case of the prosecution that the accused persons fled away from the place of occurrence or absconded from the place of occurrence but waiting silently for action of Law. This conduct of the accused persons shows their innocence and ignorance. So far as the demand of dowry is concerned, it was submitted that P.W.12, the mother of the deceased, deposed the traditional items to have given at the time of marriage. P.W.11, who is the father of the deceased, exaggerated his version of Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR pg. 8 Designation: Assistant Registrar-cum-Senior Secretary Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK Date: 24-Jul-2023 18:08:40 demand of dowry and has stated different items in different times. In the F.I.R. (Ext.P-3), P.W.11 has mentioned the number of items such as Godrej Almirah, Freeze, Motor Cycle etc. which are not perishable items. But, surprisingly, neither P.W.12 the mother of the deceased has stated so nor P.W.18, the I.O has seized the items. Moreover, in comparison to the daily income of the informant a daily labour, the items given as dowry are impossible. In such circumstance, allegation of demand of dowry is a falsity and not believable.
15. It was further submitted that the learned Sessions Judge has committed error by concluding that the seized materials are evidence of violence inflicted on the deceased just before her death. It was contended that a person affected by a burn injury and sustain pain shall stretch her hands and legs before her death in critical pain which must have caused damages to the seized items.
16. It was also submitted that the post-mortem report of the doctor (Ext.2) indicates that the front internal and external limbs of the body sustain heavy burn injury. A person committing suicide by pouring kerosene on her/his body shall do it from the front side and the back side of the body shall sustain less burn injury. In the present case also, the deceased Signature Not Verified pg. 9 Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Designation: Assistant Registrar-cum-Senior Secretary Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK Date: 24-Jul-2023 18:08:40 has sustained born injury on her front side which clearly indicates that this is a case of suicide.
17. He further submitted that the learned Sessions Judge has committed error in observing that the deceased lived in the company of the accused persons in their house at the time of occurrence which is nothing but a wrong presumption of the trial court more so when none of the prosecution witnesses has deposed so. The time of death as described by the doctor in the post-mortem report reveals that 30 hours before conducting of post-mortem examination the death might have been caused. In absence of evidence or deposition of any of the prosecution witnesses, it cannot be concluded that the Appellants were present in the same room at the time of occurrence.
18. It was also submitted that though the learned Sessions Judge has rightly acquitted the Appellants for the offence punishable under Section 406/34 I.P.C. but believed that there was demand of Rs.50,000/- for which the deceased was subjected to violence. There is lot of inconsistency, exaggeration and embellishment in the deposition of P.W.11 (father of deceased) who deposed that in the beginning of 4 months of marriage the deceased was leaving happily with her husband. The evidence with regard to demand is hearsay evidence and not Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR pg. 10 Designation: Assistant Registrar-cum-Senior Secretary Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK Date: 24-Jul-2023 18:08:40 corroborated by the depositions of any other prosecution witnesses even not by his son (P.W.16).
19. He further submitted that a cumulative evidence of P.Ws.11 and 12 will go to show that neither there was any pre-marriage demand or post marriage demand of dowry. The basis of conviction and sentence is made on a poor foundation which is liable to be collapsed and benefit of doubt must go in favour of the Appellants.
20. It was further submitted that the trial court without going to the evidence available on record only based on circumstantial evidence has recorded the conviction against the Appellants. Hence, the judgment of conviction and the order of sentence passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Dhenkanal in the aforesaid case may be set aside.
IV. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE STATE
21. In defending the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence learned Counsel for the State submitted that there is trustworthy evidence in respect of demand of cash made by the accused persons following the marriage and for non- fulfillment of the said demand, the accused persons were subjecting the deceased to cruelty in their house. He contended that there is no rule of law that evidence of relation witnesses cannot be accepted in absence of independent Signature Not Verified pg. 11 Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Designation: Assistant Registrar-cum-Senior Secretary Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK Date: 24-Jul-2023 18:08:40 corroboration. The motive of the accused persons to kill the deceased has been well proved as the deceased died within 14 months of her marriage in her bed room in the early hours of the fateful day. He further submitted that recovery and seizure of two broken pieces of glass bangles and presence of the kerosene jerrycan and broken pieces of cup found in the bed room of the deceased are additional links in support of the case of the prosecution indicating commission of violence in the bed room of the deceased. She was also subjected to some sort of forcible assault. He also submitted that presence of all the accused persons in their house during the occurrence is well established, as the Appellants had not taken any plea of alibi that at the time of occurrence they were not present in their house or they were present elsewhere. Moreover, they had not taken any step to rescue the deceased while she was burning in her bed room and they had not raised any hullah soliciting the help of their neighbours to put out the fire is another important link as to the role played by the accused persons when the occurrence took place leading to commission of offence of murder of the deceased. Therefore, their plea that the deceased committed suicide on account of loss of mental equilibrium is out and out a false one which is only to extricate themselves from this case. Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR pg. 12 Designation: Assistant Registrar-cum-Senior Secretary Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK Date: 24-Jul-2023 18:08:40
22. In such view of the matter, he submitted that there is no scope to interfere with the impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence rendered by the learned trial court.
V. COURT'S ANALYSIS AND REASONING:
23. The accused persons have denied the charges leveled against them and claimed that they had been falsely implicated in this case. The prosecution story is that the death is homididal in nature. The entire case is based on circumstantial evidence. P.Ws.11, 12 and 16 support the prosecution case. There is no direct evidence with regard to torture. Another striking feature in this case is that the persons like P.Ws.13, 14, 15, 16 and 17 have turned hostile in this case. P.Ws.1, 2, 3, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 13 and 17 are independent witnesses to the alleged occurrence. P.W.5 is the medical officer who conducted post-mortem examination over the dead body of the deceased. P.W.4 is a constable in whose presence the I.O. seized some of the material objects. P.W.18 is the Investigating Officer in this case. Apart from the aforesaid witnesses examined on behalf of the prosecution, it has also relied on certain documents marked Exts. 1 to 7. It is also submitted on behalf of the Appellants that there is no independent evidence on record that the deceased was subjected to cruelty in connection with demand of dowry. Even there is no direct evidence against the accused persons Signature Not Verified pg. 13 Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Designation: Assistant Registrar-cum-Senior Secretary Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK Date: 24-Jul-2023 18:08:40 that they did pour kerosene on the deceased and set her ablazed. Learned counsel for the Appellants submitted that the deceased committed suicide on account of her depression after giving birth to a still baby. The deceased died within 14 months of her marriage in her bed room in the early hours the fate day. The recovery and seizure of two broken pieces of glass bangles and presence of the kerosene jerry cane found under the cot in the bed room of the deceased and broken pieces of cup found in the bed rood of the deceased are the additional links in support of the case of the prosecution. Thus finding of broken pieces cup etc. in the bed room of the deceased is also pointed the fact that there was commission of some violence in the bed room of the deceased. Further, the factum of not rescuing the deceased while she was burning in her bed room. They were also not raising any hullah seeking help of their neighbours to extinguish the fire. This is also strongly indicates the link of the Appellant with the crime and theory of suicide on account of mental illness cannot be linked. The accused persons in this case have stood indicted allegedly for having committed the offence under Section 4 of the D.P. Act, Section 498a/ 304-B/ 34 of the I.P.C. The post marriage demand of dowry at the instance of the accused persons has been slightly on a shaky ground.
Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR pg. 14 Designation: Assistant Registrar-cum-Senior Secretary Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK Date: 24-Jul-2023 18:08:40
24. In the case in hand, there is no dispute that co-accused Prakash is t he brother of the accused Kailash and the other co- accused Mataji is the mother of accused kailash. There is also no dispute that the accused Kailash got married to the deceased in the month of June, 2015 and while the deceased was staying in the house of the accused persons, , she died on 31.08.2016 in the early morning in her bed room sustaining burn injuries. The accused persons had clearly accepted the aforesaid facts. The evidence of parents of the deceased P.Ws.11 and 12 fully corroborates the F.I.R. version. P.W.11 has categorically has categorically reiterated the factum of demand of Rs.50,000/- and torture meted out to his deceased- daughter with an appeal to them not to subject to the deceased to cruelty and continuance of torture of the deceased at the hands of the accused persons for not meeting the demand of Rs.50,000/-. Despite cross-examination of this witness by the defence counsel, nothing substantial has surfaced during such cross-examination to disbelieve his testimony. There was completely absence of inconsistency, exaggeration or embellishment in the evidence of father of the deceased. His evidence appears to be clear, cogent and consistent as to making of the post-marriage demand by the accused persons and the torture meted out to the deceased at the hands of the accused persons. The evidence of P.W.11 stands corroborated Signature Not Verified pg. 15 Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Designation: Assistant Registrar-cum-Senior Secretary Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK Date: 24-Jul-2023 18:08:40 with that of P.W.12. P.W.16 is the brother of the deceased whose evidence also supported the prosecution case in respect of the demand of money made by the accused persons from the deceased and subjecting the deceased to cruelty on her failure to meet the same. This witness has also been cross- examined at length and nothing substantial has been elicited from the mouth of this witness to discredit such testimony.
25. Therefore, a conjoint reading of the evidence of P.W.s, 11, 12 and 16 goes a long way to prove that these accused persons not only made post-marriage demand of Rs.50,000/- from the deceased but also subjected the deceased to cruelty for non- fulfillment of such demand. However, the learned defence counsel has submitted that all the above witnesses being close relations of the deceased, their evidence should not be accepted. True, all the aforesaid witnesses being the parents and brother of the deceased are certainly close relations of the deceased. It is the settled position of law that close relations would be the most reluctant to spare the real culprits and falsely mention the name of other persons. But, merely because they are related to the deceased, the same cannot be a ground to discard their statements if otherwise the same is found to be credible.
Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR pg. 16 Designation: Assistant Registrar-cum-Senior Secretary Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK Date: 24-Jul-2023 18:08:40
26. In such view of the matter, we do not find anything to distrust the evidence of P.W.11, 12 and 16 and the same can be safely accepted. However, none of the witnesses has stated that all the accused persons were residing together at the time of occurrence.
27. Coupled with the above, absence of clear finding of the learned trial judge that all the accused persons were residing together at the time of occurrence, this Court is of the considered opinion that reasonable doubt arises in this case regarding complicity of the Appellant Nos.2 and 3 in commission of the crime pertaining to the offences under Sections 304B/ 302 of the I.P.C. . Since genuine and reasonable doubt arises regarding complicity of the Appellant Nos.2 and 3 in commission of the crime pertaining to the offences under Sections 304B/ 302 of the I.P.C, the Appellant Nos.2and 3 should be extended the benefit of doubt. So, this Court comes to the conclusion that the prosecution has failed to prove that all the accused persons were residing together at the time of occurrence. But, this Court is of the opinion that the learned trial judge did not commit any error in coming to the conclusion that offence under Section 498A / 34 of the I.P.C. and Section 4 of the D.P. Act is made out against all the accused persons and offence under Sections 304B/ 302 of the I.P.C. is made out against the Appellant No.1-Kailash Sahu in Signature Not Verified pg. 17 Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Designation: Assistant Registrar-cum-Senior Secretary Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK Date: 24-Jul-2023 18:08:40 this case. However, the conviction of the Appellant Nos.2- Prakash @ Hauda @ Hauda Sahu and 3- Mataji Sahu under Sections 304B/ 302 of the I.P.C. Penal Code recorded by the learned Sessions Judge, Dhenkanal is erroneous and is liable to be set aside.
28.In the result, the Appeal is allowed in part. The conviction of the Appellant Nos.2- Prakash @ Hauda @ Hauda Sahu and 3- Mataji Sahu under Sections 304B/302 of the I.P.C. recorded vide the judgment and order dated 14.02.2022 by the learned Sessions Judge, Dhenkanal in C.T.(Sessions) Case No.142 of 2017 are hereby set aside. The conviction under Section 498A/34 of the I.P.C. and Section 4 of the D.P. against the Appellant Nos.2- Prakash @ Hauda @ Hauda Sahu and 3- Mataji Sahu being upheld, they stand acquitted of the charges under Sections 304B/302 of the I.P.C. Accordingly, they too are sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of one year for the offence under Section 498A of the I.P.C. However, the conviction under Section 498A/ 304B/ 302/ 34 of the I.P.C. and Section 4 of the D.P. against the Appellant No.1- Kailash Sahu being upheld, the order of sentenced as has been passed against him by the trial court, is confirmed.
29. Accordingly, this CRLA is allowed in part in respect of Appellant No.2- Prakash @ Hauda @ Hauda Sahu and Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR pg. 18 Designation: Assistant Registrar-cum-Senior Secretary Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK Date: 24-Jul-2023 18:08:40 Appellant No.3- Mataji Sahu are concerned as indicated above and the CRLA in respect of Appellant No.1-Kailash Sahu stands dismissed.
( Dr. S.K. Panigrahi ) Judge D. Dash, J. I agree.
( D. Dash ) Judge Orissa High Court, Cuttack, Dated the 24th July,2023/B. Jhankar Signature Not Verified pg. 19 Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Designation: Assistant Registrar-cum-Senior Secretary Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK Date: 24-Jul-2023 18:08:40