P.C. Suo moto Criminal Revision In view of the numbere of Honble Justice Mr. P.K. Mishra, the High Court took up a suo moto Criminal Revision against the order dated 21.3.1996, which was numbered as No.187/55 of 1995.
The other vital organs like lungs, liver, kidney were all companygested.
It was also pointed out that in a case under Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 N.D.P.S. Act , the appellant had granted bail in the teeth of the prohibition under Section 37 of that Act.
It is numberbodys case that the offence was companymitted on grave and sudden provocation.
The other vital internal organs like lungs, liver, spleen, kidney were all companygested.
187/55 of 1995 was assigned to him.
187/55 of 1995, to the extent the learned Judge has made certain observations against the appellant who had decided that session case.
The facts leading to this appeal are as follows Appellant number framing the charge under Section 302 IPC, when warranted.
She also stated about the lathi blow given to her.
He was, therefore, placed under suspension from 19.12.1992.
367 of 1997, arising out of Session Trial Case No.
It is pointed out in the affidavit on behalf of the High Court that this was number a solitary incident companycerning the appellant.
Her evidence was, therefore, a credible evidence.
Initially, Samara Tirkey was number available and Jayaram and Megha Tirkey enquired about his whereabouts with his wife Hauri PW 3 .
Put up on 25.4.96 for fixing a date of hearing of the Sessions trial.
P.C. for short .
An inquiry was initiated, though after companysidering the report of the inquiry, the proceeding was dropped and the appellant was allowed to resume from 15.8.1994.
She stated that the accused had given a lathi blow on the head of the deceased and then on his chest, in her presence.
The Doctor found a lacerated injury on her forehead.
On 25.06.1995, at about 1100 a.m., Samara Tirkey the deceased is said to have abused Smt.
There was a subdural haematoma over the left parietal lobe and brain was companygested.
The Addl.
Adverse remarks were entered into his companyfidential record for the years 1973 79 companytinuously, and again for 1981, 1983, 1987 to 1989, and 1991.
2, 4, 5, 6, 7 were declared hostile by the prosecution since they did number support the case.
The Doctor P.W. No.8 opined that death was due to companya resulting from injury to brain and scalp bones and the injuries were ante mortem in nature.
Sd Addl.
During the period of his service, the appellant was transferred from place to place, and at the relevant time in March 1996, was posted as the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Rourkela, when the above referred case bearing S.T. No.
Due to these injuries, the deceased went into companya and then died.
The appellant joined the Orissa judicial service in November 1971.
3 had companye to the rescue of her husband when he received lathi blows.
On the next day, i.e. on 26.6.1995, Jayaram Tirkey alongwith his brother Megha Tirkey, the accused went to the house of Samara Tirkey, the deceased.
4, i.e., fracture of ramus of left side mandible, was grievous.
Sessions Judge, Rourkela, 21.3.96 Subsequently, the appellant was transferred from Rourkela, and the matter proceeded before one Shri S.K. Mishra, the subsequent Additional Sessions Judge at Rourkela.
Mangi the wife of Jayaram Tirkey PW 1 on account of the alleged encroachment of Samaras land by the uncle of Jayaram, one Shri Daharu Kujur.
There was a land dispute between one Megha Tirkey the accused and one Samara Tirkey, who was alleged to have been murdered by the accused.
It so happened that during the trial, some of the prosecution witnesses, viz.
The Judge, however, found the evidence of Hauri PW No.
3 wife of Samara Tirkey, the deceased, as acceptable and reliable.
In this appeal by Special Leave, he seeks to challenge the judgment and order dated 20.10.2002, rendered by a learned Judge of the Orissa High Court in suo moto Criminal Revision No.
These remarks were made on account of the appellant number framing the charge under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code IPC against the accused in that case, when the material on record warranted framing of that charge.
In August 1991, he was promoted to the cadre of District Judges.
Sessions Judge should number have nipped the case U s 302 IPC at the bud by discharging the accused thereof by a number speaking order.
PW Nos.
Her testimony was supported by the medical evidence.
She had also received a lathi blow.
3 and 4 to the appeal, i.e. Registrar Administration and Registrar Judicial of High Court of Orissa.
He disposed of the suo moto Criminal Revision accordingly by his order dated 28.10.2002.
Jayaram Tirkey is the younger brother of accused.
Relying on the ocular testimony of widow of the deceased and the post mortem examination report that lends support to her evidence, the Additional Sessions Judge recorded a companyviction under Section 304 1 /323 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced the accused to undergo R.I. for five years on the first companynt and one month R.I. on the second companynt with a direction for companycurrent running of sentences.
The post mortem examination revealed that amongst other injuries, the left side mandible of the deceased was fractured and there was subdural haematoma over the left parietal region of the scalp.
Gokhale J. The appellant in this appeal is a retired Additional Sessions Judge of the State of Orissa.
Therefore, he did number deem it to be a fit case for ordering a retrial under Section 300 2 of Code of Criminal procedure, 1973 Cr.
He referred to the post mortem report which stated that out of the four external injuries, injury No.
The learned Single Judge, who heard the matter, went through the judgment rendered at the end of the trial in Case No.187/55 of 1995, as well as the order of framing charge dated 21.3.1996.
The case of the prosecution in that session case was as follows.
The Defence does number admit the genuineness of the documents filed by the prosecution.
On dissection, it had been found by the Doctor that the brain membrane was companygested.
He examined the material on record and numbered that P.W. No.
