Orissa High Court
Padmalochan Barik vs State Of Odisha on 3 September, 2024
Author: Chittaranjan Dash
Bench: S.K. Sahoo, Chittaranjan Dash
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
JCRLA 9 of 2024
(Arising out of the Judgment of conviction on dated 4th of
December, 2023 passed by Shri Rajesh Dash, Addl. Sessions
Judge, Sundargarh in S.T. No. 78/17 of 2016-21, for the offence
under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860)
Padmalochan Barik ... Appellant
Ms. Bhaktisudha Sahoo,
Amicus Curiae
-versus-
State of Odisha ... Respondent
Mr. Priyabatra Tripathy,
Addl. Standing Counsel
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.K. SAHOO
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE CHITTARANJAN DASH
Date of Judgment: 03.09.2024
Chittaranjan Dash, J.
1. The Appellant, namely Padmalochan Pradhan, faced the trial on the charge under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (in short, hereinafter referred to as "IPC") before the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Sundargarh for committing the murder of his grandparents wherein, the learned Court found him guilty in the offence charged as above, convicted and sentenced the Appellant to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of ₹5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) in default to undergo further Rigorous Imprisonment for 3 (three) months.
2. The brief facts of the case are that the incident occurred in the village of Sipokachhar, on 02.04.2016, at approximately 6 AM. The informant, who is the paternal uncle of the Appellant, was outside his house engaged in conversation with Giridhari Chhatria, when his wife, Kamala, urgently reported to him that the Appellant was assaulting both Arjun (grandfather) and Phula (grandmother) inside their residence. The informant rushed to the house and discovered Arjun's lifeless body. Phula, meanwhile, was found critically injured but still alive. Upon arriving at the scene, the informant, along with another individual named Kapil Majhi, confronted the Appellant, who confessed to the assault. The informant's report also included an allegation that his own mother had been assaulted by the Appellant. Following these revelations, the informant lodged a written complaint at the Lephripada Police Station. This report led to the registration of Lephripada PS Case No. 45 on 02.04.2016, marking the commencement of the investigation.
JCRLA 9 of 2024 Page 2 of 233. In the course of investigation, the then Officer In- Charge (OIC) of Lephripada PS, Sri J. Bara (P.W.22) took immediate steps to gather evidence from the scene of crime. He sent requisition calling upon the services of the Forensic Department (SO, DFSL) to collect physical clues from the site. He then conducted inquest over the body of deceased Arjun and prepared the inquest report (Exhibit P-1). Additionally, he seized a blood-stained dhoti (Exhibit P-16) and other physical evidence, which includes the wooden plank believed to be used in the assault. The body of Arjun was sent to the District Headquarters Hospital (DHH), Sundargarh, for post-mortem examination.
After discovering that Phula also succumbed to the injuries, the OIC visited the hospital, held inquest over the dead body of Phula and seized her clothing and biological samples. Upon his transfer, the investigation was handed over to Sub-Inspector Sri A.K. Parida (P.W.23). The SI continued the investigation by re-examining witnesses, sending the weapon of offence to doctors for further examination, and sending the seized incriminating materials to the RFSL, Sambalpur, for chemical analysis. Upon completion of the investigation, charge sheet was submitted against the Appellant to face the trial based on the prima facie evidence.
JCRLA 9 of 2024 Page 3 of 23The record was subsequently committed to the Court of Sessions for trial.
4. The case of the defence is that the Appellant was insane at the time of occurrence of the crime.
5. To bring home the charge, the prosecution examined 23 witnesses in all. The prosecution began with P.W.1 and P.W.7, who testified as post-occurrence witnesses and provided insight into the events immediately following the incident. P.W.2 is the informant's daughter. P.W.3, P.W.4, and P.W.5 were independent witnesses who stated that the Appellant had made an extra-judicial confession regarding the crime. P.W.6 is the informant. P.W.8 to P.W.11 provided testimony about the seizure of various items relevant to the case. P.W.12 conducted autopsy of the body of Arjun, and P.W.20 conducted autopsy of Phula. P.W.13, the son of the deceased, offered further context and evidence related to the family and the victims. P.W.14, another doctor, examined the Appellant after his arrest. P.W.15, the Appellant's mother, also contributed her observations., P.W.16, his wife, provided essential testimony about the assault and P.W.17, the informant's nephew, provided additional testimony relevant to the case. P.W.18 and P.W.19 were witnesses to the inquest process, documenting the procedures followed during the investigation.P.W.21, the SO from the DFSL, collected JCRLA 9 of 2024 Page 4 of 23 physical clues from the crime scene, contributing crucial forensic evidence to the case. P.W.22, the first investigating officer, and P.W.23, the second investigating officer, followed through with the investigation, gathered evidence, examined witnesses, and submitted the charge sheet.
6. The learned trial Court having believed the evidence of the prosecution witnesses found the prosecution to have proved its case beyond all reasonable doubt and held the Appellant guilty and convicted him awarding sentence as described above.
7. Ms. Sahoo, learned Amicus Curiae, assisting the Court, contended that the trial Court failed to adequately consider the profound and debilitating mental illness from which the Appellant suffered at the time of the incident. The Appellant's history of mental health issues, diagnoses of conversion disorder, unspecified psychosis, and other severe psychiatric conditions, as documented by medical records and the treatment he received at VSS Medical College, Burla, strongly indicate that his mental state was compromised. This history is not only corroborated by the medical evidence but is also consistent with the testimonies of family members who confirmed his erratic behavior and need for continuous psychiatric medication. Ms. Sahoo further submits that despite the legal requirements for proving insanity under JCRLA 9 of 2024 Page 5 of 23 Section 84 of the Indian Penal Code, the cumulative evidence of his long-standing mental health issues should be sufficient to create a reasonable doubt as to his mental capacity during the commission of the crime. The Appellant's behavior, as described by witnesses, including his sudden and violent outburst, fits the pattern of an individual suffering from a severe mental breakdown, rather than a person acting with clear intent and rational understanding.
She also submits, the fact that the Appellant was undergoing psychiatric treatment before and after the incident, and his under-treatment mental condition as documented by the jail authorities, further supports the argument that his capacity to form the requisite mens rea was severely impaired. She concludes that the Appellant's defense rests on the argument that his profound mental illness at the time of commission of the crime should exonerate him from criminal liability, as it significantly impaired his ability to understand the nature and consequences of his actions.
8. Mr. Tripathy, learned ASC, argues that the trial Court's judgment in convicting the Appellant of the offences was well-founded and supported by substantial evidence, and that the defense's claim of legal insanity under Section 84 of the Indian Penal Code is without merit. The State emphasizes that while the Appellant may have been medically diagnosed JCRLA 9 of 2024 Page 6 of 23 with mental health conditions, this does not necessarily translate to legal insanity as defined by the IPC. The legal standard for insanity requires not only a mental illness but also a complete inability to understand the nature of one's actions or to recognize that they are wrong or contrary to law. The testimonies of prosecution witnesses, including those who witnessed the aftermath of the incident and observed the Appellant's behavior, suggest that the Appellant's actions were deliberate and not merely a result of an uncontrolled psychiatric episode. According to Mr. Tripathy, this is evident from the statement of P.W.15 who described how violently the Appellant attacked his grandparents and from the evidence of P.W.16, how the Appellant, after violently attacking his grandparents, started to run away and later confessed to the crime, which indicates a level of awareness and consciousness of the wrongful nature of his actions.
He further argues that the Appellant's defense did not meet the burden of proof required to establish legal insanity and the defense's reliance on the Appellant's medical history and treatment records fails to establish a direct link between his mental condition and his inability to understand the nature of his actions during the commission of the crime. Mr. Tripathy points out that the Appellant's actions before, during, and after the crime, including his attempt to flee the JCRLA 9 of 2024 Page 7 of 23 scene and the subsequent concealment of evidence, suggest a level of intentionality and awareness inconsistent with the defense's claim of total mental incapacity. The Appellant's behavior aligns more with a person who, despite having a mental health condition, was still capable of understanding the consequences of his actions and thus, the Appellant's claim of legal insanity does not meet the required threshold for overturning the conviction. The evidence supports the conclusion that the Appellant, despite his medical issues, had the requisite mens rea to be held accountable for the offenses committed. Therefore, the State seeks the affirmation of the trial Court's judgment and the dismissal of the Appellant's appeal.
9. The testimonies of the medical officers, P.W.12 and P.W.20, provide formidable evidence that the deaths of Arjun Pradhan and Phulmati were indeed homicidal. P.W.12, who conducted the post-mortem examination on the body of Arjun Pradhan, described multiple external injuries, including severe lacerations and fractures to the skull, as well as internal injuries like brain hemorrhage. She opined that these injuries were ante-mortem and could be possible with a wooden plank produced before her by the I.O., which was later confirmed to match the wounds found on the deceased. P.W.20, who conducted the post-mortem on Phulmati, JCRLA 9 of 2024 Page 8 of 23 similarly found severe injuries that were consistent with a brutal attack. Both medical officers concluded that the cause of death in both cases was due to shock and hemorrhage resulting from the injuries, which were sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. This medical evidence, in absence any evidence in the contrary coupled with the testimonies of several eye witnesses who saw the immediate aftermath of the assault and the condition of the deceased, points to the conclusion that the deaths were indeed homicidal.
10. Once the nature of death is held homicidal as rightly appreciated by the learned trial Court, next come is authorship of the crime, if it can be attributed to the Appellant.
11. The prosecution's case hinges on the testimonies of those who were either present at the time of the occurrence or arrived shortly after, as well as the circumstantial evidence provided by those who interacted with the Appellant shortly before or after the incident. Among the 23 prosecution witnesses, a few crucial ones have directly or indirectly related to the Appellant.
P.W.2, the daughter of the informant and granddaughter of the deceased, provided a vivid account of the events leading up to and following the attack. She JCRLA 9 of 2024 Page 9 of 23 testified that she saw the Appellant standing near the body of her grandfather, Arjun Pradhan, holding a wooden plank, and later witnessed him assaulting her grandmother, Phulmati, on the leg. This testimony is significant as it places the Appellant at the scene of the crime, armed with the weapon that was later confirmed to have caused the fatal injuries.
P.W.6, the informant and son of the deceased, did not witness the assault directly but testified that upon hearing from his wife, P.W.16, that something had happened to his parents, he rushed to the scene and saw the Appellant running away from the location. When he called out to the Appellant, the latter returned and sat on the verandah, exhibiting behavior that suggested a level of guilt or involvement in the incident.
P.W.13, the son of the deceased, although not an eyewitness, provided crucial information about the relationship between the Appellant and the deceased. He mentioned the Appellant's history of mental instability and previous violent outbursts, which adds a layer of motive or predisposition for such an act. He also relayed that the informant (P.W.6) had informed him that the Appellant quarreled with his mother and grandparents on the day of the incident, which escalated into the fatal assault.
JCRLA 9 of 2024 Page 10 of 23P.W.15, the Appellant's mother, is an injured witness to the incident as she was assaulted by the Appellant before he turned his aggression towards his grandparents. Her testimony describes how the Appellant violently attacked her and then his grandparents, resulting in serious injuries and fatalities. She observed the violent behavior of her son, which corroborates the testimonies given by other witnesses. Her direct experience with the Appellant's aggression, along with the detailed description of his actions, underscores the severity of his behavior. Furthermore, P.W.15's testimony indicates that there was no immediate indication of insanity during or after the incident. Although the Appellant had a history of mental health issues, P.W.15 did not report any abnormal behavior or a lack of understanding of the nature of his actions at the time of the crime. This testimony supports the argument that, despite the Appellant's medical condition, he was legally sane at the time of the offense, given the lack of evidence showing a total loss of reasoning or comprehension.
P.W.16, the wife of the informant, also directly implicated the Appellant, recounting how she saw him assaulting her mother-in-law with a lathi and then attacking her father-in-law when he tried to intervene. She further JCRLA 9 of 2024 Page 11 of 23 testified that when confronted, the Appellant admitted to the crime before fleeing the scene.
P.W.17, although did not witness the occurrence, saw the Appellant standing near the bodies of his grandparents and provided corroborative evidence regarding the mental state of the Appellant, which was echoed by other witnesses such as P.W.15, the mother of the Appellant.
From the evidence presented, it is clear that at least two witnesses, P.W.2 and P.W.16, directly saw the Appellant either committing the assault or standing over the victims immediately afterward, with a weapon in hand. Others, like P.W.6 and P.W.17, provided circumstantial evidence that further implicated the Appellant. The testimonies consistently point to the Appellant as the individual responsible for the deaths, with multiple witnesses observing his presence at the crime scene, his behavior before and after the incident.
12. While direct eyewitness accounts are vital, the circumstances surrounding the crime provide a broader context that strongly suggests the guilt of the Appellant. One key piece of circumstantial evidence is the behavior of the Appellant both before and after the incident. Several witnesses, including P.W.6, the informant, and P.W.16, his wife testified that the Appellant was seen running away from the scene of the crime immediately after the attack, only to JCRLA 9 of 2024 Page 12 of 23 return when called by the informant, which suggests a consciousness of guilt. Additionally, P.W.13 and P.W.15 highlighted the Appellant's history of violent outbursts and mental instability, which, created an environment of tension and potential for violence. The testimonies also reveal that the Appellant had previously quarreled with his mother and the deceased over his behavior, further indicating a motive. The Appellant's presence at the scene, coupled with his flight and subsequent return, as well as his earlier altercations with the victims, form a chain of circumstances that, when considered together, strongly and unequivocally point to his guilt in the crime. This circumstantial evidence, combined with the direct testimonies and medical findings, paints a sacrosanct picture attributing the Appellant as the perpetrator of the homicides.
13. To begin with, multiple witnesses, particularly P.W.2 and P.W.6, directly place the Appellant at the scene of the crime during the time of the attack. P.W.2 witnessed the Appellant standing near the body of her grandfather, Arjun Pradhan, holding a wooden plank, with her grandfather lying on the ground, bleeding from severe injuries. This is a critical observation as it not only places the Appellant at the scene but also ties him directly to the weapon used in the assault. Furthermore, P.W.16 and P.W.17 provided detailed accounts JCRLA 9 of 2024 Page 13 of 23 of how the Appellant was seen near the victims immediately after the attack, with P.W.16 recounting how she found the Appellant assaulting the victims, and P.W.17 witnessing the aftermath, with the Appellant standing over the bodies. These eyewitness testimonies are reinforced by the medical evidence, which aligns with the nature of the injuries inflicted on the victims, specifically injuries that could be caused by the wooden plank identified by P.W.2. The medical examination of the deceased, as conducted by P.W.8 and P.W.20, confirmed that the injuries were consistent with a blunt force object, matching the description of the weapon seen with the Appellant.
14. The Appellant's prior history of violent behavior and mental instability, as testified by P.W.15 and P.W.13, provides a psychological backdrop that explains a possible motive and the Appellant's capacity for such an act. P.W.15's testimony that the Appellant had previously assaulted her and had frequent quarrels with the deceased adds to this narrative. The fact that the Appellant fled the scene immediately after the crime, only to return when called, as mentioned by P.W.6, suggests a consciousness of guilt, further pointing to his culpability. Moreover, the Appellant's own mother, P.W.15, confirmed that she witnessed the Appellant attacking her mother-in-law and that the Appellant was known to have JCRLA 9 of 2024 Page 14 of 23 violent episodes due to his mental condition. This familial testimony is particularly compelling, as it comes from someone who might be expected to defend the Appellant, yet instead provides damning evidence against him.
15. In summation, the Appellant is the author of the crime is drawn from a robust combination of direct eyewitness accounts, consistent and corroborating testimonies from multiple sources, medical evidence that aligns with the described events, and the psychological profile of the Appellant, which collectively build an irrefutable case against him. The coherence of these elements, when woven together, leaves little room for doubt regarding the Appellant's guilt, thus firmly establishing him as the perpetrator of the heinous acts.
16. However, the primary ground of assailing the impugned judgment in the appeal is that the trial Court failed to properly consider the Appellant's plea of insanity. The defense of insanity under Section 84 of the IPC requires the Appellant to prove that, at the time of the commission of the act, he was suffering from a mental illness that rendered him incapable of knowing the nature of the act or understanding that what he was doing was wrong or contrary to law. In the entire gamut of case, the only piece of evidence suggesting that the Appellant suffered from a mental disorder, is JCRLA 9 of 2024 Page 15 of 23 indicated by his treatment at VSS College, Burla, for conditions such as conversion disorder and unspecified psychosis for which he is being prescribed medications as well.
17. It is pertinent to note that the plea of insanity was introduced at a late stage in the proceedings, surfacing only during the trial when the Appellant's behavior began to raise significant concerns. Initially, the defense did not raise any issues regarding the mental state of the Appellant prior to or during the incident. However, as the trial progressed, the Appellant's conduct in the courtroom prompted the learned trial Court to order a medical examination to assess his mental condition as mandated u/s 324 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
18. This medical examination was not a result of any proactive claim of insanity by the defense but rather a response to the apparent abnormalities in the Appellant's conduct observed by the Court during the trial. The trial Court's decision to seek a professional evaluation vide order dated 25.04.2017 was based on the incoherence, and lack of comprehension indicated by the Appellant, which created a doubt before the Court.
19. The findings from this medical examination later became a cornerstone of the defense's strategy, as the plea of JCRLA 9 of 2024 Page 16 of 23 insanity was then formally invoked to argue that the Appellant was not of sound mind at the time of the crime. This plea was intended to establish that the Appellant lacked the requisite mens rea necessary to be held criminally responsible. However, the timing of this plea, coming only after the Appellant's psychiatric evaluation had been scrutinized, raised questions about its legitimacy and whether it was a genuine reflection of his mental state at the time of the offense or a strategy employed to mitigate the legal consequences of his actions. The learned trial Court has correctly tasked the trial with balancing the evidence of the Appellant's historical mental health issues with the need to establish whether those issues impaired his ability to understand the nature of his actions at the critical moment when the crime was committed.
20. Thereafter, the Court determined that the evidence provided by the prosecution did not establish a probability of legal insanity at the time of the offense. The Appellant's subsequent mental condition, as observed after his arrest, was not enough to absolve him of responsibility for the crime. The Court rejected the defense's argument of insanity, holding that the prosecution had successfully proven the Appellant's guilt with the requisite mens rea, and thus, the JCRLA 9 of 2024 Page 17 of 23 Appellant could not be absolved of the grave offense of murder.
21. Section 84 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) refers to a mental condition where, at the time of committing the act, the Appellant was incapable of understanding the nature of the act or knowing that what they were doing was either wrong or contrary to law. Legal insanity requires the person to be so severely impaired by their mental illness that they are unable to distinguish right from wrong or comprehend the consequences of their actions at the precise moment of the offense. The burden of proving legal insanity lies on the Appellant, and it must be demonstrated that the mental incapacity was present at the time of the crime. The assessment of legal insanity focuses on whether the individual had the requisite mens rea (guilty mind) when committing the offense.
22. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Dahyabhai Chhaganbhai Thakkar v. State of Gujarat reported in AIR 1964 SC 1563 has held that:
"7. The doctrine of burden of proof in the context of the plea of insanity may be stated in the following propositions:
(1) The prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt that the Appellant had committed the offence with the requisite mens rea; and the burden of proving that always rests on the prosecution from the beginning to the end of the trial.JCRLA 9 of 2024 Page 18 of 23
(2) There is a rebuttable presumption that the Appellant was not insane, when he committed the crime, in the sense laid down by Section 84 of the Indian Penal Code:
the Appellant may rebut it by placing before the Court all the relevant evidence oral, documentary or circumstantial, but the burden of proof upon him is no higher than that rests upon a party to civil proceedings. (3) Even if the Appellant was not able to establish conclusively that he was insane at the time he committed the offence, the evidence placed before the Court by the Appellant or by the prosecution may raise a reasonable doubt in the mind of the Court as regards one or more of the ingredients of the offence, including mens rea of the Appellant and in that case the Court would be entitled to acquit the Appellant on the ground that the general burden of proof resting on the prosecution was not discharged."
23. The Hon'ble Apex Court has further held in the matter of Prakash Nayi @ Sen vs State of Goa reported in 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 71, that -
"4. Section 84 of the IPC recognizes only an act which could not be termed as an offence. It starts with the words "nothing is an offence". The said words are a clear indication of the intendment behind this laudable provision. Such an act shall emanate from an unsound mind. Therefore, the existence of an unsound mind is a sine qua non to the applicability of the provision. A mere unsound mind per se would not suffice, and it should be to the extent of not knowing the nature of the act. Such a person is incapable of knowing the nature of the said act. Similarly, he does not stand to reason as to whether an act committed is either wrong or contrary to law. Needless to state, the element of incapacity emerging from an unsound mind shall be present at the time of commission.
5. The provision speaks about the act of a person of unsound mind. It is a very broad provision relatable to the incapacity, as aforesaid. The test is from the point of view of a prudent man. Therefore, a mere medical insanity cannot be said to mean unsoundness of mind.JCRLA 9 of 2024 Page 19 of 23
There may be a case where a person suffering from medical insanity would have committed an act, however, the test is one of legal insanity to attract the mandate of Section 84 of the IPC. There must be an inability of a person in knowing the nature of the act or to understand it to be either wrong or contrary to the law.
6. The aforesaid provision is founded on the maxim, actus non reum facit nisi mens sit rea, i.e., an act does not constitute guilt unless done with a guilty intention. It is a fundamental principle of criminal law that there has to be an element of mens rea in forming guilt with intention. A person of an unsound mind, who is incapable of knowing the consequence of an act, does not know that such an act is right or wrong. He may not even know that he has committed that act. When such is the position, he cannot be made to suffer punishment. This act cannot be termed as a mental rebellion constituting a deviant behaviour leading to a crime against society. He stands as a victim in need of help, and therefore, cannot be charged and tried for an offence. His position is that of a child not knowing either his action or the consequence of it.
...
8. The burden of proof does lie on the Appellant to prove to the satisfaction of the Court that one is insane while doing the act prohibited by law. Such a burden gets discharged based on a prima facie case and reasonable materials produced on his behalf. The extent of probability is one of preponderance. This is for the reason that a person of unsound mind is not expected to prove his insanity beyond a reasonable doubt. Secondly, it is the collective responsibility of the person concerned, the Court and the prosecution to decipher the proof qua insanity by not treating it as adversarial. Though a person is presumed to be sane, once there are adequate materials available before the Court, the presumption gets discharged."
24. In the present case, the Appellant's mother, during her testimony, mentioned that the Appellant had a history of mental illness. However, no substantive evidence, such as JCRLA 9 of 2024 Page 20 of 23 medical records or testimonies from treating physicians prior to the incident, was produced to support this claim. The defense introduced the issue of insanity only after the commencement of the trial, and it failed to raise this issue during the initial stages of investigation, which weakens its credibility.
25. Furthermore, the medical evidence presented, including the Appellant's treatment for conversion disorder and psychosis after the incident, does not sufficiently establish that the Appellant was legally insane at the time of the offense. The crucial factor in determining the applicability of Section 84 IPC is the mental state of the Appellant at the time of the crime, not merely before or after the event. The trial Court rightly observed that the evidence did not prove that the Appellant was incapable of understanding the nature of his act when he committed the murders.
26. For instance, the Appellant's conduct during and after the crime, such as the manner of the assaults and his subsequent actions, did not demonstrate a loss of reasoning or an inability to comprehend his actions. The absence of any indication that the Appellant was disoriented or unaware of his actions at the time of the murders further weakens the argument for legal insanity. While the Appellant may have JCRLA 9 of 2024 Page 21 of 23 been medically insane, suffering from recognized mental health issues, this does not automatically qualify him for the defense of legal insanity. Legal insanity requires a much narrower and specific mental incapacity at the time of the crime, which could not be established in this case. Therefore, although the Appellant's medical condition is acknowledged, it does not absolve him of criminal responsibility under the law.
27. Upon a thorough examination of the evidence on record, this Court concurs with the findings of the trial Court as well as its findings in rejecting the Appellant's plea of insanity. Conversely, the evidence on record clearly establishes that the Appellant committed the murders with full knowledge of the nature and consequences of his actions. The subsequent mental health issues observed during his incarceration do not absolve him of his responsibility for the heinous crime. Since the sentence awarded is absolutely in accordance with law, there is nothing to interfere therewith.
28. As a result, the JCRLA stands dismissed being devoid of merit.
Before parting with this case, we place on record our appreciation to the learned Amicus Curiae and the learned JCRLA 9 of 2024 Page 22 of 23 Addl. Standing Counsel for the assistance rendered by them in disposing the Appeal.
(Chittaranjan Dash) Judge (S. K. Sahoo) Judge A.K.Pradhan/Bijay Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BIJAY KETAN SAHOO Designation: Jr. Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA Date: 03-Sep-2024 16:43:17 JCRLA 9 of 2024 Page 23 of 23