The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK JCRLA NO.108 OF 2005 An appeal under section 374 Cr.P.C. from the judgment and order dated 25.04.2005 passed by the Adhoc Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Rourkela in S.T. Case No.270/2 of 2004-05. ----------------------------- Chara Oram ....... Appellant -Versus- State of Odisha ....... Respondent For Appellant: - Ms. Sasmita Nanda Amicus Curiae For Respondent: - Mr. Sonak Mishra Addl. Govt. Advocate ----------------------------- P R E S E N T: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.K. SAHOO AND THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.K. MISHRA --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Date of Hearing and Judgment: 31.01.2024 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- By the Bench: The appellant Chara Oram faced trial in the Court of learned Adhoc Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Rourkela in S.T. Case No.270/2 of 2004-05 for commission of offence punishable under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter the ‘I.P.C.’) on the accusation that on 17th July, 2004, // 2 // at about 8.30 p.m., at Khatangkudar under Bisra police station in the district of Sundargarh, he committed murder of Mamata Mohato (hereinafter ‘the deceased’) by intentionally causing injury to her by means of a tangia (axe). The learned trial Court vide judgment and order dated 25.04.2005 found the appellant guilty under section 302 of I.P.C. and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- (rupees five thousand), in default, to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for six months. Prosecution Case: 2. The prosecution case, as per the first information report (hereinafter ‘F.I.R.’) lodged by Dilnath Mohato (P.W.2) before the Inspector-in-Charge of Bisra police station on 17.07.2004, in short, is that on that day at about 8.30 p.m., while he along with his son-in-law Makar Mohato (P.W.12) were taking their dinner, the appellant all on a sudden entered inside their house shouting “BANCHAO BANCHAO MOTE MARIDEBE”. The appellant was holding a weapon (Rampha). The informant (P.W.2) challenged the appellant as to why he had come to his house. In reply, the appellant told that somebody was chasing to assault him and he was angry and he would kill one person. Hearing such thing from the appellant, the informant (P.W.2) and P.W.12 told Page 2 of 25 // 3 // the appellant to immediately leave the house. P.W.12 also took away that weapon from the hands of the appellant. The appellant all on a sudden picked up one tangia from the house of P.W.2 and said that he would kill one person. Out of fear, P.W.2 along with his brother Nanda (P.W.9) proceeded to the house of one Uda to make a telephone call to the police station. Since he could not succeed in making the contact, he came back to his house and found that the deceased had already been killed by the appellant with tangia. It is stated further in the F.I.R. that Dasami Mohato (P.W.5), Subhadra Mohato (P.W.4) and Makar Mohato (P.W.12), who are the wife, daughter and son-in-law of the informant (P.W.2) respectively, had seen the occurrence. When P.W.12 resisted to the appellant, the latter chased him to assault. P.W.12 snatched away the tangia from the hands of the appellant and gave two blows on the legs of the appellant for which he received bleeding injuries and was lying in the house of the informant. P.W.2 informed the incident to the Ward Member Purna Chandra Mohato (P.W.16), who went to Bisra police station, informed the police about the incident. Then the police came to the spot where P.W.2 lodged the written report before P.W.20 Samir Kumar Panda, S.I. of Police attached to Bisra police station. Accordingly, the I.I.C. of Bisra police station registered Bisra P.S. Case No.61 Page 3 of 25 // 4 // dated 17.07.2004 under section 302 of I.P.C. against the appellant. As per the direction of the I.I.C., P.W.20 took up investigation of the case, examined the informant (P.W.2) and scribed the report of Ramdeo Mohato (P.W.3), prepared the spot visit report, sent requisition for medical examination of the appellant to Rourkela Government Hospital, held inquest over the dead body of the deceased in presence of the witnesses and prepared the inquest report (Ext.4), seized the sample earth and blood stained earth from the house of P.W.2 as per seizure list Ext.5. The axe was seized from the place of incident as per seizure list Ext.6. The dead body was sent for post-mortem examination and the wearing apparels of the deceased were produced by the constable, who escorted the dead body for post mortem examination, which were seized as per seizure list Ext.10. When P.W.20 received telephonic message from the Medical Officer, Rourkela Government Hospital about the discharge of the appellant, he proceeded to the said hospital and arrested the appellant. The medical examination report of the appellant so also three numbers of x-ray plates and one full pant on production of the appellant were collected as per seizure list Ext.8 and then the appellant was forwarded to the Court. The seized axe was sent to Page 4 of 25 // 5 // the Medical Officer, who conducted post-mortem examination for seeking his opinion regarding possibility of injury sustained by the deceased with such weapon. The Medical Officer gave his opinion that the injuries sustained by the deceased were possible by the seized axe. Steps were taken by the Investigating Officer for sending the exhibits to S.F.S.L. for examination. On completion of investigation, the I.O. submitted charge-sheet against the appellant on 06.10.2004 under section 452/302 of I.P.C. Framing of charges: 3. After submission of charge sheet, the case was committed to the Court of Session after complying due committal formalities. The learned trial Court framed charges against the appellant as aforesaid. Since the appellant refuted the charges, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried, the sessions trial procedure was resorted to prosecute him and establish his guilt. Prosecution Witnesses & Exhibits: 4. During course of the trial, in order to prove its case, the prosecution examined as many as twenty witnesses. P.W.1 Dr. Dileswar Jit was the Medical Officer attached to Bisra C.H.C., who examined the appellant and proved his report vide Ext.1. He conducted the post mortem examination over the dead body of the deceased and proved his report vide Page 5 of 25 // 6 // Ext.2. He also examined the axe on production by the Investigating Officer and gave opinion vide his report marked as Ext.3. P.W.2 Dilanth Mohato is the informant in the case. He supported the prosecution case and stated about the incident. P.W.3 Ramdeo Mahato is a witness to the inquest over the dead body of the deceased and also a witness to the seizure of badi, blood stained earth, sample earth and RAMPHA as per seizure list vide Ext.5. P.W.4 Subhadra Mohato is the daughter of the informant (P.W.2) and an eye witness to the occurrence. She supported the prosecution case and stated about the incident. P.W.5 Dasami Mohato stated that the appellant inflicted injury to the deceased by means of an axe while the deceased was asleep. She further stated that the appellant caused injury on the neck and hand of the deceased for which she died. P.W.6 Damayanti Mohato stated that the appellant came inside the house of P.W.2 with stick in hand and picked up RAMPHA and threatened that he would kill whosoever would come and the appellant assaulted the deceased by means of an axe while she was asleep. She further stated that the appellant dealt Page 6 of 25 // 7 // two blows to the neck and two blows to the right hand of the deceased for which she died. P.W.7 Sagar Mohato stated that he had seen the deceased with injuries. P.W.8 Bhaga Mohato stated that the appellant assaulted the deceased by means of an axe while she was asleep and she had seen the appellant dealing blows by means of an axe. P.W.9 Nanda Kishore Mohato is a witness to the inquest over the dead body of the deceased. P.W.10 Dr. Sudharani Pradhan was the O.G. Specialist attached to Rourkela Government Hospital, who examined the appellant and proved her report vide Ext.7. P.W.11 Nagia Oram, who is the wife of the appellant, did not support the prosecution case. P.W.12 Makar Mohato is the son-in-law of P.W.2 and an eye witness to the occurrence. He stated that the appellant dealt blows by means of an axe on the neck and hand of the deceased while she was asleep for which she died. He further stated that he assaulted on the legs of the appellant. Page 7 of 25 // 8 // P.W.13 Deonice Soreng and P.W.14 Kishore Kumar Dungdung were the Havildars attached to Bisra police station, who are the witness to the seizure of blood stained pant and x- ray plate as per seizure list vide Ext.8. P.W.15 Dr. S. Kabisatpathy was working the Assistant Surgeon in Rourkela Government Hospital, who collected the blood sample and nail clippings of the appellant and handed over to the escorting police constable as per report vide Ext.9. P.W.16 Purna Chandra Mohato was the Ward Member of village Khatangkudar. He is a witness to the seizure of sample earth, blood stained earth and Rampha, thenga and other articles as per seizure lists vide Ext.5 and Ext.6 respectively. P.W.17 Bhaga Mohato is the co-villager of P.W.2, who stated that P.W.2 and P.W.9 came to his house and told that the appellant had entered into his house and shouted to assault and murder and they wanted him to inform to police over phone. He further stated that he tried to contact with the police but could not be contacted and while hearing hullah from his house, they went back. P.W.18 Prahallad Mohato and P.W.19 Laxman Kumar Patel were working as police constables and witnesses to the Page 8 of 25 // 9 // seizure of blue colour nicker and one command certificate as per seizure list vide Ext.10. P.W.20 Samir Kumar Panda was the S.I. of Police attached to Bisra police station, who is the Investigating Officer of the case. The prosecution exhibited eleven documents. Ext.1 is the injury report, Ext.2 is the post mortem report, Ext.3 is the report on examination of weapon, Ext.4 is the inquest report, Exts.5, 8 & 10 are the seizure lists, Ext.7 is the injury report, Ext.9 is the report regarding collection of blood sample and nail clippings and Ext.11 is the written report. Defence Plea: 5. The defence plea of the appellant was one of denial. No witness was examined on behalf of the defence.
Legal Reasoning
Findings of the Trial Court: 6. The learned trial Court, after assessing the oral as well as documentary evidence on record, came to hold that the eye witnesses are independent, disinterested and as such reliable. It was further held that the deceased, who was an eight years old innocent girl was brutally assaulted on the vital parts of the body like neck and other parts of body with deadly weapon like axe. Page 9 of 25 // 10 // Relying on the post mortem report findings and the seizure of axe from the spot and the opinion given by the doctor, who examined the axe and gave his opinion regarding possibility of the injuries on the deceased with such weapon and oral evidence on record, the learned trial Court came to the conclusion that the appellant committed the gruesome crime, having murdered the sleeping girl in the night of occurrence. Accordingly, the appellant was held guilty under section 302 of I.P.C. Contentions of the Parties: 7.
Legal Reasoning
Ms. Sasmita Nanda, learned Amicus Curiae argued that there was no motive on the part of the appellant to kill the deceased, a girl who was aged about eight years old. The materials available on record indicate that the appellant was having unsoundness of mind at the time of occurrence and he was incapable of knowing the nature of the act or that he was doing what was either wrong or contrary to the law and therefore, benefit of section 84 of I.P.C. is to be extended to the appellant. Reliance has been placed on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Prakash Nayi -Vrs.- State of Goa, reported in (2023) 5 Supreme Court Cases 673. The learned counsel further submitted that the trial Court hurriedly disposed of the trial. Although the occurrence took place on 17.07.2004, charge Page 10 of 25 // 11 // sheet was submitted on 06.10.2004, the case came to the Court of Session after commitment on 29.11.2004 and the charge was framed on 05.02.2005, on a single day i.e. 03.03.2005, the learned trial Court examined P.Ws.1 to 9, out of which four are eye witnesses to the occurrence i.e. P.W.4, P.W.5, P.W.6 and P.W.8. Similarly, P.Ws.10 to 14 were examined on the next day i.e. on 04.03.2005, out of which P.W.12 is an eye witness. The learned counsel argued that sufficient time has not been given to the appellant to prepare his case thoroughly and to consult his advocate and on account of such speedy trial, the appellant has been seriously prejudiced. Learned counsel further submitted that taking into account the manner in which the trial has been conducted hurriedly, that too in a case under section 302 of I.P.C. and particularly in view of available materials on record that the appellant was having unsoundness of mind, benefit of doubt should be extended in favour of the appellant. Mr. Sonak Mishra, learned Additional Standing Counsel, on the other hand, supported the impugned judgment and submitted that even though at the time of framing of the charge, State Defence Counsel was engaged, but the appellant engaged his own counsel on 05.02.2005, which was almost a month prior to the commencement of the trial. If the defence Page 11 of 25 // 12 // counsel engaged by the appellant could not properly conduct the case, then the same cannot be a ground to hold that the appellant has been seriously prejudiced. Had it been a case of State Defence Counsel conducting the trial, the matter would have been different. The learned counsel further argued that the evidence of the eye witnesses is consistent and most of them are related to the deceased and therefore, they are not likely to spare the real culprit and implicate someone falsely. He argued that even though the prosecution has not established any motive behind the commission of the crime, but when the case is based on direct evidence of five eye witnesses like P.Ws.4, 5, 6, 8 & 12 and their evidence has not been shattered in the cross-examination, absence of proving any motive on the part of the appellant to commit the crime cannot be a ground to disbelieve the prosecution case. It is further argued that the manner, in which a girl aged about eight years, while in a sleeping position, has been brutally assaulted on the vital parts of the body with an axe, the trial Court has rightly found the appellant guilty under section 302 of I.P.C. He further argued that the case cited by the learned counsel for the appellant is quite distinguishable from the factual scenario of this case. Neither any medical evidence nor any clinching material evidence was brought on record by the appellant to discharge his burden in view of section 105 of the Page 12 of 25 // 13 // Evidence Act. Therefore, there is no infirmity or illegality in the impugned judgment and the appeal should be dismissed. Whether the deceased met with a homicidal death?: 8. Adverting to the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the respective parties and before going to the evidence of the eye witnesses, let us see the evidence on record how far the prosecution has established that the deceased met with a homicidal death. The inquest report marked as Ext.4 and the evidence of doctor (P.W.1), who conducted the post mortem examination on 17.07.2004 over the dead body of the deceased, are vital in that respect. P.W.1 noticed the following external injuries: “1) Incised wound 3” x 2 ½” x 3” present on the right side of root of the neck in an oblique position. Incised neck vessels and muscles underlying the injuries; 2) Incised wound of size 6” x 4” x 3” present left side root of the neck extended obliquely to the chin bisecting left mandible underlying vessels and muscles incised; 3) Incised wound of size ½’ x ½” right upper arm present obliquely. Right radius bone was fractured; Page 13 of 25 // 14 // 4) Incised wound present obliquely on right forearm and fracture of the right radius bone of ½” x ½”. He has opined that all the above injuries might have been caused by a sharp cutting weapon. Injuries were ante mortem in nature. The cause of death was due to injury to vital blood vessels to the root of the neck. The cause of death was due to profuse hemorrhage and shock. Time since death was opined to be fifteen to twenty four hours before the time of his examination. The doctor has also examined the axe which was produced before him by the Investigating Officer with regard to the possibility of injuries sustained by the deceased and he opined as per his report Ext.3 that the injuries sustained by the deceased were possible by the axe produced. From the evidence of P.W.1, post mortem report (Ext.2) so also the inquest report (Ext.4) and other materials available on record, we are of the view that the prosecution has proved that the deceased met with a homicidal death. The learned Amicus Curiae has also not challenged this aspect. Therefore, we are of the view that the trial Court has rightly come to the conclusion about the homicidal death of the deceased. Page 14 of 25 // 15 // Assessment of evidence of eye witnesses: 9. There are five eye witnesses to the occurrence i.e. P.Ws. 4, 5, 6, 8 & 12. P.W.4 Subhadra Mohato has stated the deceased was the daughter of her sister and remaining in their house and continuing her studies. The appellant entered inside their house on 17.07.2004 night, picked up an axe from their house and dealt blows to the neck and right hand of the deceased, who was sleeping on a cot and as a result of injuries inflicted, the deceased died. He further stated that when the appellant was escaping after assault, his brother-in-law (P.W.12) tried to catch him, but the appellant also attempted to assault him, however P.W.12 caught hold of him and detained him in the house. In the cross- examination, P.W.4 has stated that when the appellant came to their house, he was telling himself to give him marriage elsewhere and he would obey everything. He further stated in the cross-examination that when the appellant dealt blows to the deceased, they were on the verandah of the room and though no electricity light was there in the house but a dibri (kerosene lamp) was burning on the verandah. Nothing has been elicited in the cross-examination to disbelieve the evidence adduced by P.W.4 relating to the assault made by the appellant to the deceased. Page 15 of 25 // 16 // P.W.5 Dasini Mahato has stated about the assault on the deceased by the appellant with an axe on the neck and hand while the deceased was sleeping which led to her instantaneous death. Except putting a suggestion in the cross-examination that she had not seen the occurrence, nothing further has been elicited. P.W.6 Damayanti Mahato has also stated that the appellant came inside the house of P.W.2, assaulted to the deceased by an axe on the neck and right hand and at that time, the deceased was sleeping on the cot. He further stated that the appellant dealt two blows to the neck and two blows to the right hand of the deceased as a result of which she died. In the cross- examination, she has stated that she was present in the house when the appellant dealt blows to the deceased. Except giving a suggestion that she did not see the occurrence, nothing has been elicited from P.W.6. P.W.8 Bhaga Mahato has stated the appellant assaulted the deceased by means of an axe while she was sleeping in the house of Dilnath Mohato (P.W.2). She further stated that she had seen appellant dealing blows by an axe and just a suggestion has been given in the cross-examination that he had not seen the occurrence. Page 16 of 25 // 17 // P.W.12 Makar Mahato has stated that the appellant dealt blows by axe on the neck and hand of the deceased while she was sleeping in the house of Dilnath Mohato (P.W.2) and as a result of the assault, the deceased died. P.W.12 further stated that he assaulted on the legs of the appellant and detained him. In the cross-examination, he has stated that there was no enmity of the appellant with the deceased and the appellant had no relationship with the family of the deceased and that he himself had also no enmity with the appellant. Thus, the evidence of all the five witnesses have remained unchallenged. The eye witnesses’ version that axe was used to assault the deceased is getting corroboration from the medical evidence adduced by P.W.1. The axe was also seized and it was sent for chemical examination and human blood was found on it. However, on account of laches on the part of the Public Prosecutor, even though the chemical examination report is available on record, the same has not been marked as an exhibit. Therefore, from the oral evidence of the eye witnesses so also the medical evidence, it is clearly established that the appellant is the author of the crime and on account of his assault, the deceased had sustained injuries as noticed in the post-mortem report. When the eye witnesses have deposed about the involvement of Page 17 of 25 // 18 // the appellant in the crime in question, failure to prove motive is not a factor to disbelieve the prosecution case. Motive being a state of mind, direct evidence to prove motive is seldom available. One cannot normally see into the mind of another. Motive is the emotion which impels a man to do a particular act. Such impelling cause need not necessarily be proportionally grave to do serious crimes. Motive for doing a criminal act is generally a difficult area for prosecution to prove. Whether the appellant is entitled to get the benefit under section 84 of I.P.C.?: 10. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that since there was no motive on the part of the appellant and he did not try to escape from the spot and P.W.2 has stated about the mental derangement of the appellant, the benefit of section 84 of I.P.C. should be extended to the appellant. In case of Prakash Nayi (supra) it is held as follows:- “8. The burden of proof does lie on the accused 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 Page 18 of 25 // 19 // 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 presumed to be sane, once there are adequate materials available before the Court, the presumption gets discharged. 9. Section 105 of the Evidence Act, 1872, which places the burden of proving, has its exceptions. Though, as a general principle, the onus is upon the person accused to bring his case under the exception, dealing with the case under Section 84 I.P.C., one has to apply the concept of preponderance of probabilities. The aforesaid provision has to be read along with section 8 of the Evidence Act, 1872. The better way to reconcile the aforesaid provision would be to have a look into the behaviour and conduct before, during and after the occurrence. xx xx xx xx xx 11. The Court on its part has to satisfy itself as to whether the act was done by a person with an unsound mind within the rigour of section 84 of I.P.C.” Page 19 of 25 // 20 // In this context, the evidence of P.W.2 is relevant. In the cross-examination, he has stated that ten years before, Makar Mohato developed mental derangement. He has not stated anything so far as the appellant’s mental ailment at the time of occurrence is concerned. The learned counsel submitted that it may be a typographical error and in place of ‘Makar Mohato’, it should be read as ‘Chara Oram’ (the appellant). We are unable to accept such a submission. When private defence counsel was engaged in the case and he cross-examined the witnesses, it was expected of him to verify the deposition copy. If any typographical error cropped up in the evidence of P.W.2, it should have been brought to the notice of the trial Court immediately so that it could have been corrected in the presence of the witness and the appellant as per the satisfaction of the trial Court in view of the provision under section 278 of Cr.P.C. Since the same has not been done, we are not able to accept that what P.W.2 meant to say was that ten years before the occurrence, the appellant developed mental derangement. Section 278(1) of the Cr.P.C. states that as evidence of each witness taken under section 275 or section 276 of Cr.P.C. is completed, it should be read over to him in the presence of the accused, if in attendance, or of his pleader, if he appears by pleader, and shall, if necessary be corrected. Similarly, sub-section (2) of section 278 of Cr.P.C. Page 20 of 25 // 21 // states that if the witness denies the correctness of any part of the evidence when the same is read over to him, the Magistrate or Presiding Judge may, instead of correcting the evidence, make a memorandum thereon of the objection made to it by the witness and shall add such remarks as he thinks necessary. The object of section 278 of Cr.P.C. is twofold, firstly, to ensure that the evidence of the witness, as recorded, is accurate and secondly, to give the witness concerned an opportunity to point out mistakes, if any. If the correction suggested by the witness is one which the Judge considers necessary, he will make it at once as required by sub-section (1), but if the correction is such that the Judge does not consider necessary, sub-section (2) requires that a memorandum of the objection be made and the Judge to add his remarks, if any, thereto. (Ref: Mir Mohd. Omar and Ors. -Vrs.- State of West Bengal : (1989) 4 Supreme Court Cases 436). All the Courts, whether civil or criminal, have obligation to read over the deposition to the witness before he is called upon to affix the signature. The object of reading over the depositions is to obtain an accurate record from the witness of what he really means to say and to give him an opportunity of correcting the words which the Magistrate has taken down. The object of the reading over prescribed by this section, is not to enable the witness to change his story but to ensure that the record faithfully Page 21 of 25 // 22 // and accurately embodies the gist of what the witness actually said. The section is not intended to permit a witness to resile from his statement in the name of correction. The object underlying section 278 of the Code is to obtain an accurate record of what a witness really means to say and to give him an opportunity of correcting his evidence taken down by the Court, if any. Where the certificate of the Magistrate endorsed on the deposition sheet states that the deposition was read out to the witness and that the witness admitted it to be correct, the Court is bound to accept this as correct under section 80 of the Evidence Act until it is proved to be untrue. Before a deposition is closed, a witness is given an opportunity of explaining and correcting any contradictions which it may contain and the statement which the witness finally declares to be the true one and that statement only must be taken to be the statement which the witness intended to make. In this case, the deposition of P.W.2 was read over to him before obtaining his signature thereon. The endorsement of the Court is available in the deposition sheet. P.W.2 or the counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant did not object to any part of it nor did they point out any mistake that the name ‘Chara Oram’ has been wrongly recorded as ‘Makar Mohato’ and P.W.2 Page 22 of 25 // 23 // accepted his version to be correct and put his signature. When no objection was raised by any side during that stage, i.e. when the evidence was read over to the witness, we deem it inappropriate and highly unwarranted to construe the meaning of statement in a manner which was not meant by the relevant witness. Even the wife of the appellant being examined as P.W.11 has stated in her cross-examination that she did not know what the mental condition of the appellant was while he was in house. However, she stated that three days before the appellant was sent to jail, he was not living with her and he was moving like a mad man. She further stated that she did not know if he had previously become mad. Antecedent, attendant and subsequent behaviour of the appellant are the relevant factors for adjudging the mental condition and it should not be remote in time as per the settled position of law. Nothing has been brought on record by the defence and no medical documents have been proved regarding the mental condition of the appellant. Absence of proving the motive behind the commission of the crime will not automatically bring the case within an act of unsoundness of mind. Hence, we are of the view that the contention of the learned Amicus Curiae that benefit under section 84 of the I.P.C. is to be extended in favour of the appellant is bereft of merit. Page 23 of 25 // 24 // Conclusion: 11. In view of the foregoing discussions, the eye witnesses’ account, the post mortem report finding and the manner in which occurrence has taken place and a nine year girl was killed in her sleeping position, we are of the view that the trial Court has rightly found the appellant guilty under section 302 of I.P.C. dismissed. Accordingly, the JCRLA being devoid of merit stands Considering the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant regarding the socio-economic background of the appellant, as the appellant is in jail custody since 26.07.2004, it is made clear that the confirming judgment passed by this Court shall not be a bar for the authority concerned i.e. the State Sentence Review Board, to review the sentence awarded to the appellant so also recommend his case for premature release in terms of the guidelines prevalent on the date of conviction of the present appellant by the learned trial Court so also the amended guidelines made, whichever is more beneficial to the appellant, in accordance with law. Page 24 of 25 // 25 // Before parting with the case, we would like to put on record our appreciation to Ms. Sasmita Nanda, the learned Amicus Curiae for rendering her valuable help and assistance towards arriving at the decision above mentioned. The learned Amicus Curiae shall be entitled to her professional fees which is fixed at Rs.7,500/- (rupees seven thousand five hundred only). This Court also appreciates the valuable help and assistance provided by Mr. Sonak Mishra, learned Additional Standing Counsel. S.K. Sahoo, J. …………………………… S.K. Mishra, J. …………………………… Orissa High Court, Cuttack The 31st January, 2024/Prasant Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: PRASANT KUMAR PRADHAN Designation: Secretary Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack. Date: 20-Feb-2024 14:29:00 Page 25 of 25