Orissa High Court refuses to quash criminal proceedings against widow of ACF Soumya Ranjan
A single judge bench of Justice Sibo Sankar Mishra disposed of Panda's petition challenging the April 19, 2023 order of the SDJM, Paralakhemundi, which had taken cognisance of a murder complaint naming her and two others as accused. Soumya Ranjan Mohapatra had suffered 90 per cent burn injuries on the night of July 11, 2021, in his official quarters at Paralakhemundi. He succumbed to his injuries two days later, on July 13, at a private hospital in Cuttack.
His father Abhiram Mohapatra, subsequently lodged a complaint accusing Bidyabharati, the family cook Manmath Kumbha, and the then DFO Sangram Kesari Behera of murder. Although a Crime Branch investigation gave a clean chit to the accused, the SDJM court took cognisance of the murder complaint in April 2023 and summoned all three.
Challenging the summons, Bidyabharati approached the high court under Section 482 of the CrPC seeking quashing of the proceedings. However, Justice Mishra observed that the case was at a preliminary stage and involved contested facts, which made it appropriate for trial rather than early judicial intervention. 'The inherent power under Section 482 CrPC should be exercised sparingly and only in exceptional circumstances. The competing versions presented by both parties and the existence of disputed questions of fact make this an inappropriate case for quashing at this stage,' the judgment read.
Justice Mishra clarified that refusal to quash the case did not prevent the petitioner from seeking discharge during the trial. 'It is well settled that at the stage of issuing process, the magistrate is mainly concerned with the allegations made in the complaint or the evidence led in support of the same,' he said.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Time of India
12 hours ago
- Time of India
Gang rape by group constitutes joint liability: Chhattisgarh HC upholds conviction of nine accused
The Chhattisgarh High Court upheld the conviction of nine individuals in a 2020 gang rape case involving two minor victims from the Scheduled Caste community. The court dismissed appeals, affirming the Special Court's decision, emphasizing that each member of a group involved in such a crime is equally liable. RAIPUR: The Chhattisgarh High Court has upheld the conviction and sentences of nine accused in a gang rape case from Balodabazar-Bhatapara district. A division bench of Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Bibhu Datta Guru dismissed four criminal appeals filed by the accused, affirming the decision of the Special Judge (Atrocities) Balodabazar. The court observed, "Where a victim is raped by one or more persons forming a group or acting in furtherance of a common intention, each member of such group shall be deemed to have committed the offence of rape, in accordance with the principles of joint liability and common intention as defined under the applicable laws." The case, registered as Special Case (Atrocities), involves the gang rape of two minor victims in May 2020. The High Court noted that the appeals, filed under Section 374(2) of the CrPC, were heard together and disposed of by a common judgment. Notice regarding the appeals had been served to the victims' father, who was listed as PW-3 in the case. According to the prosecution, the incident took place on the night of 30 May 2020. The victims received a call from one of the accused, who along with another accused, forced them onto a motorcycle and took them to a house in village Amera. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like 새로 나온 "실손보험" 최적가 가입인기! "주요 보험사별 맞춤설계+비교견적"... 굿리치 [등록번호:제2006038313호)굿리치 보험대리점 (등록번호:제2006038313호] 가격 받기 Undo They were later taken to a cremation ground in Amera. While returning, their motorcycle was intercepted near Kesla gate by six other accused, along with two juvenile delinquents. The accused forcibly pulled the victims off the motorcycle and gang-raped them. One of the accused recorded a video of the act on his mobile phone. The accused threatened the victims with death and viral dissemination of the video if they reported the incident. Due to fear, the victims initially kept the incident hidden. Later, an accused obtained the video and began harassing the victims and their father, demanding sexual favours and threatening to circulate the video. On 28 July 2020, this accused issued an ultimatum to the victims, prompting them to finally disclose the incident to their parents. The Court confirmed that both victims were below 18 years of age and belonged to the Scheduled Caste community at the time of the incident, as stated in their depositions. The Court observed that the victims concealed the incident for two months due to death threats, which deeply impacted them. The judgment cited established legal principles regarding the testimony of sexual assault victims, emphasising that their evidence is entitled to great weight and does not always require corroboration, particularly in a society where victims are often reluctant to report such crimes. Referring to previous Supreme Court judgments, including Rameshwar v. The State of Rajasthan, State of Punjab v. Gurmeet Singh, and Rai Sandeep @ Deenu v. State of NCT of Delhi, the High Court reiterated that the testimony of a prosecutrix, if it inspires confidence, can form the sole basis of conviction. It also highlighted the stringent approach required in cases under the POCSO Act, as emphasised in Nawabuddin v. State of Uttarakhand and State of UP v. Sonu Kushwaha, stressing that no leniency should be shown to offenders. The Court noted that the victims' consistent statements, corroborated by electronic evidence and prosecution witnesses, proved the commission of aggravated penetrative sexual assault by gang rape. The Court found no illegality or irregularity in the trial court's findings. Three of the appellants, who were on bail, had their bail bonds cancelled and sureties discharged. They were directed to surrender to the trial court immediately to serve their sentences. Failure to do so would result in their arrest and incarceration. The remaining appellants are in jail and will serve out their sentences.
New Indian Express
16 hours ago
- New Indian Express
Two get jail for illegal timber transport in Mayurbhanj
BHUBANESWAR/BARIPADA: A Mayurbhanj court has sentenced two persons to three year imprisonment for illegal transport of forest timber in Mayurbhanj district in what is seen as an important judgement. Ajay Dandapat (30) and Dayanidhi Behera (45), both from Sendhakacha village under Kaptipada police limits, were also fined `1,000 by the Udala SDJM court. The duo was arrested on December 2, 2016, while transporting timber on a motorcycle, in violation of the Orissa Timber and Other Forest Produce Transit Rules, 1980. Delivering the verdict, SDJM Anurag Dehury observed that the measure of punishment in a case of offence against environment and ecology must depend upon the nature, manner and time of conduct of the offenders and gravity of the offence alleged against them. 'Protection of ecological balance can be achieved only by imposing appropriate sentence prescribed,' the order stated. Forest authorities said, invoking this principle, the court has established that the severity and context of the offence, particularly the illicit timber transportation, will warrant such sentences. Illegal timber transportation has long threatened forest ecosystems in Mayurbhanj and other parts of the state. The verdict will send a clear message against such offence and uphold ecological integrity, they added.
New Indian Express
19 hours ago
- New Indian Express
Karnataka HC allows trial against UP man over voyeurism
BENGALURU: The Karnataka High Court allowed the trial against a 31-year-old man from Uttar Pradesh for allegedly blackmailing a woman by recording her private videos on the promise of marriage, after he came in contact with her while preparing for the UPSC examination in Delhi. Quashing the charges of stalking, the court said, insofar as the allegation of voyeurism as obtained under Section 354C is concerned, the contents of the complaint and the summary of the charge sheet clearly meet the offence of voyeurism. 'The petitioner is alleged to have shot several videos of intimate moments, or even videos of the parts of the body of the complainant. If this is the allegation, and it is sustained while filing the charge sheet, it would undoubtedly meet the allegation of voyeurism', said Justice M Nagaprasanna while partly allowing the petition filed by the accused questioning the legality of the crime registered by the complainant against him. The complaint was registered under the provisions of the IPC, Information Technology Act and in light of the fact that the complainant belongs to a Scheduled Tribe, the provisions of the Act were also invoked. Additional State Public Prosecutor BN prayed the court to dismiss the petition, saying that the allegations in the charge sheet are quite vivid for the offences that are laid. The court said: 'The case at hand, except the offence of stalking, revolves around seriously disputed questions of fact, which would require further proceedings before the concerned court. Therefore, this court declines to exercise jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr P C, to obliterate the proceedings qua all offences except the offence under Section 354D - stalking, as permitting further trial qua the said offence would undoubtedly become an abuse of the process of law'.
