The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK CRA Nos.182 & 202 of 1992 (In the matter of application under Section 374(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973). CRA No.182 of 1992 Manua Swain … Appellant Mr. S.Das, Senior Advocate -versus- State of Orissa … Respondent Mr.S.S. Pradhan, A.G.A. CRA No.202 of 1992 Gatia @ Gatindra Swain and another … Appellants Mr. G.Mishra, Amicus Curiae -versus- State of Orissa … Respondent Mr.S.S. Pradhan,A.G.A. JUSTICE G. SATAPATHY CORAM: DATE OF JUDGMENT :28.06.2023 G. Satapathy, J. Since these two criminal appeals arise out of one and same judgment passed in Sessions Trial Case No. CRA Nos.182 & 202 of 1992 Page 1 of 29 47/275 of 1991 and 01/405 of 1992/1991 (split up case) of the Court of Assistant Sessions Judge, Puri and for better appreciation as well as to avoid confusion, both these appeals were heard together and disposed of by this common judgment with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties. 2. These aforesaid two criminal appeals U/S. 374(2) of the code of criminal procedure, 1973 (In short “Cr.P.C.”) assail the conviction of the appellants for offences punishable U/Ss. 461/395 of Indian Penal Code (In short “IPC”) and U/S. 9(b) of the Indian Explosive Act (In short “IE Act”) with sentence to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment(RI) for seven years for offence U/S. 395 of IPC, three years for offence U/S. 461 of IPC and one year for offence U/S. 9(b) of the IE Act with direction for running of the sentences concurrently as passed on 08.05.1992 by leaned Assistant Sessions Judge, Puri, in Sessions Trial Case CRA Nos.182 & 202 of 1992 Page 2 of 29 No. 47/275 of 1991 and 01/405 of 1992/1991 (split up case). 3. The prosecution case arises out of oral report made at about 11am on 21.01.1991 by P.W.2 against some unknown persons before the O.I.C., Nimapara, who reduced such oral report into writing and after obtaining the signature of P.W.2 on it, registered the same as Nimapara P.S. Case No.21
Facts
dated 21.01.1991. In such FIR, P.W.2 was found to have stated that he has a wooden cabin shop by the side of the road of the village Chaulabasta where articles like sweets, betel & stationary items are being sold and on the previous night at about 9.30PM, he and his minor nephew aged about 9 years namely Mitu Sahoo as usual like other days slept in the cabin by bolting the door from inside and the northern side door of the cabin was also locked from outside, but at about 2am in the mid night i.e. on the intervening night of 20/21.01.1991, he woke up on hearing some sound CRA Nos.182 & 202 of 1992 Page 3 of 29 from outside and at that time, the wooden cabin was illuminated by lantern and after the bolt broke out, two miscreants trespassed into the cabin and at that time, gossip of five to seven persons was also audible from outside. All of a sudden, one of the miscreants caught hold up him from behind and asked him to deliver whatever he has (P.W.2) and the other miscreant brought out Rs.500 from the self of the cabin by removing biscuit, chocolate and mixture packets and such miscreant sneaked through the small door of the cabin, whereas the persons holding him, tried to take him outside the cabin, but when he did not go, the said miscreant by wielding a knife on his hand stabbed on the back of his head and when the miscreant moved out of the cabin, he (P.W.2) brandished one Katuri (Sharp cutting weapon) kept in his cabin and he strongly believed that blow of Katuri might have been hit on the miscreant. When the miscreant went away, he screamed for help from one Baidhar Nayak, a nearby inhabitant by saying “Baya Bhai Baya Bhai CRA Nos.182 & 202 of 1992 Page 4 of 29 Chora Mate Maridele”. At that time, he heard explosion sounds of two bombs and on hearing his commotion, the wife of Baidhar Nayak namely Pramila Nayak came and wiped out blood from his head, but there was explosion sound of two to three bombs came out of one ditch (Manika Dhipa Gahira) and someone raised commotion “Deba Marigali”. On this, the husband of Pramila Nayak called her out of fear and they went to their house and thereafter the villagers including his brother Bishnu Charan Sahoo reached at the spot and they took away him to his house. P.W.2 had also stated in the FIR that the person who caught hold of him inside the cabin was an obese person aged about 35 years having dark complexion and short height with mustache and he was wearing a cap on his head and was cladded with a bed sheet and the person who took away the articles from the shop was a fair complexion person having height of 5” 2’ and aged about 25 years with a thin body and long face and was covered by a Chaddar and the persons who were outside the cabin, CRA Nos.182 & 202 of 1992 Page 5 of 29 were calling each other as Gatia, Maga and Manu and he had seen the two miscreants who had entered into his cabin and he can identify those two miscreants. P.W.2 had given in the FIR the following list of stolen articles, such as six packets of mixture, two packets of Ampro biscuits, two packets of orange chocolates, two kgs of small biscuits and cash of Rs. 500/- in the shape of four numbers of Rs. 100 GC notes and five numbers of Rs. 20 GC notes. 4. On the above FIR, the OIC, Nimapara himself took up the investigation in the course of which he found one Deba Bhoi in nearby place called Gohira with burn injuries and shifted Deba to Nimapara hospital for treatment by requesting the doctor for recording of his dying declaration which was ultimately recorded by the Tahasildar, Nimapara. On the same day i.e. on 21.01.1991, he also found one miscreant namely Nabaghana Swain in an injured condition undergoing treatment at PHC,Charichhaka CRA Nos.182 & 202 of 1992 Page 6 of 29 where said Nabaghana Swain died in the course of treatment. In the course of the investigation, the I.O. also got the two miscreants who had entered into the cabin identified by the informant in a TI Parade held in the jail at Puri and on conclusion of investigation, the I.O.-cum-P.W.16 placed a charge-sheet against the appellants and others resulting in trial in the present case. 5. In support of its case, the prosecution has examined altogether 16 witnesses and relied upon documents under Ext. 1 to 16 and Material Object under MOI as against one witness by the defence. Of the 16 witnesses examined for the prosecution, P.W.2 is the informant-cum-identifying witness, P.W.1 is the Magistrate who conducted TI Parade, P.W. 13 is also another identifying witness,P.Ws.3, 4 and 6 were the witnesses to disclosure made by deceased-miscreant Nabaghana Swain uttering the name of co-accused persons for committing dacoity, P.Ws. 7 & 10 were CRA Nos.182 & 202 of 1992 Page 7 of 29 the witnesses to disclosure/extra judicial confession of deceased-Appellant Deba Bhoi, P.Ws. 11 and 12 were the witnesses who had seen one of the injured lying near the Gadia(ditch), P.W.14 is the Tahasildar, who recorded the statement of one of the miscreant Deba Bhoi and P.W.15 is the Doctor who had examined the injured-informant. The plea of the appellants in the course of trial was one of complete denial and innocent of the offences. In addition, the plea of appellant Golekha was that he was shown to the identifying witness before conducting the T.I. Parade. 6. After appreciating the evidence upon hearing the parties, the learned trial Court passed one common judgment in both these cases arising out of one incident in Nimapara PS Case No. 21 of 1991 and convicted the appellants and two others while acquitting two accused persons for want of CRA Nos.182 & 202 of 1992 Page 8 of 29 evidence and, accordingly, sentenced the appellants named above to the punishment indicated (supra). 7. Feeling aggrieved with judgment of conviction and order of sentence, all the five convicts filed three separate appeals, but during the pendency of these appeals, the appellants Deba Bhoi and Raju Das died and the appeals filed by them in CRA Nos. 368 of 1992 and 182 of 1992 (Partly) stood abated vide order No.8 dated 21.02.2023 and vide order no. 14 dated 29.03.2023 respectively. 8. Assailing the impugned judgment of
Legal Reasoning
45. Another crucial decision was rendered by this Court in Sk. Umar Ahmed Shaikh v. State of Maharashtra; (1998) 5 SCC 103, where it was held:(SCC p. 107, Para-8) to the witnesses before “8. …. But, the question arises: what value could be attached to the evidence of identity of accused by the witnesses in the Court when the accused were possibly the shown identification parade in the police station. The Designated Court has already recorded a finding that there was strong possibility that the suspects were shown to the witnesses. Under such circumstances, when the accused were already shown to the witnesses, their identification in the Court by the witnesses was meaningless. The statement of witnesses in the Court identifying the accused in the Court lost all its value and could not be made the basis for the recording conviction against accused….” 13. In coming back to the evidence of P.W.1, it transpires that P.W.2 (Informant) had only identified deceased Appellant Raju Das and present Appellant Golekha Sethy correctly in TIP, but the evidence of P.W.2 transpires that he had attended the TIP held at Puri Jail about one and half months of CRA Nos.182 & 202 of 1992 Page 18 of 29 the occurrence and he had identified the present Appellant Gatindra Swain, Golekha Sethy and deceased Appellant Raju Das, out of the seven co- accused persons present in the Dock in the Court. P.W.2 had also deposed in the Court that he found along with others, a man lying injured due to explosion of bombs inside the Gohira (Ditch) and that man was one who entered along with accused Deba inside his cabin. At this juncture, this Court feels it proper to narrate the significant factor i.e. “P.W.2 while lodging an FIR had given the physical descriptions of two of the miscreants who had entered into his cabin and further stated that he had seen the said two persons in the light of lantern and can identify the aforesaid two persons”. When the aforesaid facts were considered in the light of admitted evidence of P.W.2, one of the suspects who had entered into his cabin was Deba Bhoi and the other one was the man who lying injured due to CRA Nos.182 & 202 of 1992 Page 19 of 29 explosion of bombs inside the Gohira (ditch) which itself belied his identification of the Appellants Gatia @ Gatindra Swain, Golekha Sethy and deceased Appellant Raju Das in the Court, out of whom he had identified Appellant Golekha Sethy for the first time in the Court without identifying him in the TIP. Again at the cost of repetition, it is stated here that identification of suspects / miscreants who were not being identified by the identifying witness in the TIP, but subsequently identified by the same identifying witness in the Court for the first time looses all its significance. On consideration of evidence of all the witnesses examined to establish the identification of the suspects, one thing emerged that there was absolutely no evidence to indicate identification of Appellant Manua Swain and the other thing was the evidence of identification of P.W.2 appears to be shaky not only for identifying one of the suspect namely Gatia @ Gatindra Swain for the first time in CRA Nos.182 & 202 of 1992 Page 20 of 29 the Court, but also for identifying other two Appellants Golekha Sethy and Raju Das in TIP when his evidence was clear that the person who had entered into his cabin were deceased Appellant Deba Bhoi and one person who was lying injured due to explosion of bombs inside a Gohira and the same does not find any support/corroboration from the “FIR in which P.W.2 had stated that two persons entered into his cabin and he had seen them by the light of lantern and could identify such persons”. In his evidence, P.W.2 had proceeded to identify three suspects in the Court and two in the TIP which he had no occasion to see and, therefore, the learned trial Court has erroneously relied upon mainly the evidence of P.W.2 and considering the same to have been corroborated by the evidence of P.W.1 had believed the evidence of identification which in the circumstance cannot be believed by any stretch of imagination. CRA Nos.182 & 202 of 1992 Page 21 of 29 14. Law is well settled that TIP is not a substantive piece of evidence, but the same is admissible U/S. 9 of the IE Act and it can be used to corroborate the evidence given by witnesses before a Court of law at the time of trial regarding identification of the suspect/accused as the perpetrator of the criminal act. It is also equally true that the earlier identification made by the witness at the time of TIP by itself has no independent value, unless such identification of the perpetrator of the crime is confirmed by the indentifying witness in the Court during the trial. Law is also very clear on the subject that while conducting a TIP, the Investigating Agency has to a very careful in maintaining and following the settled principles of the identification parade, such as mixing the suspect with non-suspect of the same age group having similar physical appearance as far as practicable in height, weight, color, beard, scar marks etc. and while preparing TIP, CRA Nos.182 & 202 of 1992 Page 22 of 29 the concerned Officer should also take all such precaution for ensuring the credibility of TIP. What is the purport and object of conducting TIP has been explained by the Apex Court in a very recent decision in Gireesan Nair (supra), wherein the Apex Court in paragraph Nos. 28 and 29 has been pleased to observe as under:- to enable the witnesses “28. The object of conducting a TIP is threefold. First, to satisfy themselves that the accused whom they suspect is really the one who was seen by them in connection with the crime. Second, to satisfy the investigating authorities that the suspect is the real person whom the witnesses had seen in connection with the said occurrence. Third, to test the witnesses’ memory based on first impression and enable the prosecution to decide whether all or any of them could be cited as eyewitnesses to the crime. 29. TIPs belong to the stage of investigation by the police. It assures that investigation is proceeding in the right direction. It is a rule of prudence which is required to be followed in cases where the accused is not known to the witness or the complainant.” 15. A careful scrutiny of evidence of the identifying witness P.W.2, it transpires that he had CRA Nos.182 & 202 of 1992 Page 23 of 29 identified in the TIP those accused persons, to whom he had not seen at the time of occurrence and reiterated in evidence such identification of those accused persons while deposing in the Court by additionally identifying another accused-appellant Gatindra Swain, but in the course of elaborating the evidence of identification, P.W. 2 had stated that a man was lying injured due to explosion of bombs inside the Gohira and that man is one who had entered along with accused Deba inside his cabin. For a moment, coming back to the FIR, P.W.2 had stated therein that he had seen two persons who had entered into his cabin by the light of lantern and he can identify such persons and he had given their physical descriptions in the FIR, but instead of identifying such persons namely accused Deba and another in TIP, P.W.2 had identified them in the course of his evidence for the first time as the persons who had entered into his cabin. It is, CRA Nos.182 & 202 of 1992 Page 24 of 29 therefore, very clear that the identification of the Appellants by Informant-P.W.2 cannot and should not be safe to rely upon to find out the guilt of the Appellants, especially when P.W.2 had admitted in cross-examination, “after the accused were arrested and taken to Police Station, he had identified the dacoits and the person to whom he identified at the P.S. also identified by him in the jail”. 16. The prosecution in this case has not only tried to built up its case on the basis of identification of the Appellants, but also on the evidence of P.W.2 hearing the utterance of name of different accused persons, such as “Gatia, Manga, Raju”, but such evidence of P.W.2 cannot be wholly relied upon to hold the Appellants guilty of the offences, more particularly when P.W.2 had neither seen them at the time of occurrence nor had he any acquaintance with their voices. The learned trial Court had also relied upon another piece of evidence of extra judicial CRA Nos.182 & 202 of 1992 Page 25 of 29 confession of deceased-Appellant Deba Bhoi before the Tahasildar P.W. 14, who had recorded such statement of accused Deba Bhoi under Ext. 7 as a dying declaration on police requisitions, but the said accused Deba Bhoi had recovered from the injuries and had faced the trial by retracting such confession. On the other hand, a careful perusal of evidence of P.W.14, nowhere the witness was found stated in his evidence as to what the accused had stated in such statement. Merely, marking a document as exhibit does not dispense with its formal proof nor such marking of document extend to the whole contents of the document, unless the witness deposes as to what the accused had stated specifically before him is revealed in evidence. Besides, extra judicial confession is a weak piece of evidence and as a prudence, but not as a rule, it cannot be acted upon unless being corroborated and there appears no evidence to corroborate Ext. 7. CRA Nos.182 & 202 of 1992 Page 26 of 29 17. Now coming back to the last piece of evidence which is the oral dying declaration of accused Nabaghana, it appears that prosecution had examined P.Ws. 3, 4 and 6 to prove such oral dying declaration of deceased accused Nabaghana. It is surprising enough that P.Ws.3 and 4 had given a complete go-bye to the prosecution case and they were found stating before the Court that the deceased accused Nabaghana Swain sustained injuries due to Bullet Motor Cycle accident, whereas P.W.6 stick to the prosecution case that the deceased Nabaghana took the names of Appellant Gatia, deceased Appellants Raju and Sukanta and three to four others, but what was more significant is that P.W.6 had admitted in cross-examination that he had not been examined by police and he had no occasion to tell about the facts before the police. In such situation, it is highly unsafe to act upon the evidence of P.W.6 who had stated in evidence that he does not CRA Nos.182 & 202 of 1992 Page 27 of 29 recollect the names of three to four other accused persons. 18. A cumulative reappraisal of evidence on record, this Court neither finds the evidence of identification of Appellants by P.W.2 to be reliable nor the circumstances conclusively pointing towards the guilt of the Appellants for commission of the crime and the prosecution had not been able to establish its case beyond all reasonable doubt, but the learned trial Court had mis-appreciated the evidence to hold the Appellants guilty of the offence. In such situation on the backdrop of discussion made hereinabove and conspectus of evidence placed on record, this Court is of the considered view that the learned trial Court was incorrect in holding the appellants guilty of the charge for offences punishable U/Ss. 461/395 of IPC r/w Section 9-b of IE Act, which were not being established against them, beyond all reasonable doubt and, therefore, the judgment of the conviction CRA Nos.182 & 202 of 1992 Page 28 of 29 as well as order of sentence passed against the above named appellants in this case are liable to be set aside. Accordingly, the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed against the appellants herein on 08.05.1992 by learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Puri, in Sessions Trial Case No. 47/275 of 1991 and 01/405 of 1992/1991 (split up case) are hereby set aside. The appellants are admittedly on bail and they are thereby discharged of their bail bonds.
Arguments
conviction and order of the sentence, Mr. S.D. Das, learned Senior Counsel for the Appellant in CRA No. 182 of 1992 has submitted that the learned trial Court has wholly rest its finding on the basis of the identification of the Appellant which was contrary to the evidence of identification of the suspect making it unsustainable in the eye of law because the Appellant Manua Swain was neither identified by the identifying CRA Nos.182 & 202 of 1992 Page 9 of 29 witness in the TI Parade nor in the Court, but the trial Court has erroneously convicted the Appellant Manua Swain without any appreciation and discussion of evidence purely on the basis of identification and inadmissible evidence of extra judicial confession made by co-accused Deba Bhoi before P.W.14, the Tahasildar, who although stated to have recorded the statement of such accused under Ext.7, but had failed to disclose in evidence as to what the co-accused stated before him and, therefore, the conviction of the Appellant Manua Swain is not only unsustainable in the eye of law, but also suffers from illegality for want of evidence. Accordingly, learned Sr. Counsel has prayed to allow the appeal and set aside the conviction of the Appellant Manua Swain by consequently, recalling the sentence imposed upon him. 9. More or less, Mr. G. Mishra, learned Sr. Counsel appearing on behalf of Appellants Gatia @ CRA Nos.182 & 202 of 1992 Page 10 of 29 Gatindra Swain and Manga @ Golekha Sethy in CRA No. 202 of 1992 has submitted that although the identifying witness P.W.2 had identified only the deceased-Appellant Raju Das and present Appellant Golekha Sethy in TI parade, but while tendering evidence, P.W.2 identified present Appellants Gatia @ Gatindra Swain, Golekha Sethy and deceased- Appellant Raju @ Raju Das only in the Court, but his evidence clearly belies such identification of the present Appellants in view of the fact that he had got the opportunity to see only two suspects inside his cabin at the time of occurrence and he found along with others a man lying injured due to explosion of bomb inside the Gohira (Ditch) and that man is one who entered along with deceased-Appellant Deba Bhoi inside his cabin, but fact remains that none of the present Appellants was found injured and lying inside ditch nor were they found to have entered into his cabin. It is further submitted by the learned Sr. CRA Nos.182 & 202 of 1992 Page 11 of 29 Counsel that the present Appellants have been convicted merely on conjecture and surmise together with on the basis of inadmissible evidence and, thereby, the conviction and sentence of the present Appellants being unsustainable in the eye of law may kindly be set aside by acquitting them of the charges. 10. In repelling the submissions advanced on behalf of the Appellants in both these appeals, Mr. S.S. Pradhan, learned AGA has, however, supported the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence and he has inter alia submitted that the present Appellants have convicted not only on the basis of the evidence of identifying witnesses, but also on the evidence of extra judicial confession made by the deceased-Appellant Deba Bhoi as well as oral dying declaration of co-accused Nabaghana Swain and others circumstantial evidence like the evidence of informant listening the names of co-accused calling each other as Deba, Gatia, Manga and Manu. In CRA Nos.182 & 202 of 1992 Page 12 of 29 summing up his argument, learned AGA has prayed to dismiss the appeal and confirm the conviction and sentence of the Appellants. 11. A careful conspectus and mindful perusal of the impugned judgment of conviction of the Appellants upon bestowing and anxious consideration to the rival submission, it appears that the learned trial Court had mainly relied upon the evidence of identification of the Appellants, extra judicial confession of deceased-Appellant Deba Bhoi before the Additional Tahasildar, P.W.14 vide Ext. 7 and the oral dying declaration of co-accused Nabaghana Swain as well as the evidence of Informant with regard to hearing the utterance of names of Appellants and other co-accused by each other outside his shop at the time of occurrence to convict the Appellants and in this regard, the learned trial Court had relied upon mainly the evidence of P.Ws. 1,2,6,10,14 and 15. Since neither there was any CRA Nos.182 & 202 of 1992 Page 13 of 29 dispute with regard to occurrence nor was there any challenge by defence to the occurrence, the learned trial Court had rightly found the commission of dacoity in the cabin of the Informant P.W.2 to have been established by the prosecution, but the real question crops up in this appeal as to the establishment of guilt of the Appellants by prosecution for commission of the offences with which they were charged in the trial. In the aforesaid situation, adverting to the first item of evidence of identification of the Appellants relied on by the trial Court, there appears hardly any dispute that prosecution had mainly relied upon the evidence of P.Ws.1, 2 and 13 to establish the identification of the Appellants in the crime, but P.W.13 had become hostile and she had failed to identify any of the Appellants in the Court, no matter she had identified the Appellant Gatia @ Gatindra Swain and deceased Appellant Raju Das in the Test Identification Parade CRA Nos.182 & 202 of 1992 Page 14 of 29 (In short “TIP”) as per the evidence of P.W.1, the Magistrate conducting TIP and, therefore, the evidence of P.W.13 appears to be insignificant to establish the identity of the Appellants in the commission of crime and her evidence cannot be used to link the Appellants with commission of the crime. Law is fairly well settled that the evidence of test identification although is admissible U/S. 9 of the Indian Evidence Act, but it is not a substantive piece of evidence and, thereby, the failure of P.W.13 to identify the suspects-cum-Appellants in the Court even though she had identified one of them in TIP lost all its value and cannot be used against any of the Appellants for recording conviction on the basis of her such evidence. Although this being the position of law, but the learned trial Court was not in a mood to disbelieve the evidence of P.W.13 with regard to her identification of Appellant Gatia @ Gatindra Swain and deceased Appellant Raju Das by substituting its CRA Nos.182 & 202 of 1992 Page 15 of 29 own view that the witness stated before the I.O. about those two persons coming and asking her to provide the Dibiri to light Bidi and, thereby, she had occasion to identify them in TIP. On such analogy, the learned trial Court had relied the evidence of P.W.13 for identification of the suspects/miscreants, but fact remains that these facts stated to be admitted by P.W.13 to have stated before the I.O. when she was confronted by the prosecution with her previous statement made to the I.O in the trial may be regarded as proof of her statement only, but not a substantive piece of evidence and the same could not be used against the appellants. Besides, P.W.13 in her reply to question by the Court U/S. 165 of the Evidence Act transpires that she could not identify any of the persons who went to her asking for match box and lighted Dibiri from out of the accused persons present in the Dock at the time of her examination in Court. CRA Nos.182 & 202 of 1992 Page 16 of 29 12. The evidence of P.W.1 who had conducted TIP transpires that the Appellant Gatindra Swain @ Gatia and deceased Appellant Raju Das had complained before him during TIP that the lady witness Pramila Dei had seen them, when they were arrested and they were her neighbouring villagers, which assumes much significance by the evidence elicited from P.W.13 in cross-examination made by prosecution U/S. 154 of the Indian Evidence Act that Police brought one or two persons to her and told that they were the thieves. In such situation, this Court is alive with the principle that when the identity of the suspect was already known to the witness, the TIP report does not hold much value. In this regard, this Court is fortified with the decision in Gireesan Nair and others Vrs. State of Kerala; (2019) 1 SCC 180 wherein the Apex Court at paragraphs-44 and 45 has held as follows: “44… this Court has categorically held that where the accused has been shown to the CRA Nos.182 & 202 of 1992 Page 17 of 29 witness or even his photograph has been shown by the investigating officer prior to a TIP, holding an identification parade in such facts and circumstances remains inconsequential
Decision
19. In the result, both the appeals in CRA No. 182 of 1992 and CRA No. 202 of 1992 stand allowed on contest, but in the circumstance there is no order as to costs. As a necessary corollary, the appellants herein are acquitted of the charge in Sessions Trial Case No. 47/275 of 1991 and 01/405 of 1992/1991 (split up case). Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: PRIYAJIT SAHOO Designation: Jr. Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA Date: 29-Jun-2023 15:52:28 (G. Satapathy) Judge CRA Nos.182 & 202 of 1992 Page 29 of 29