The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK JCRLA No.43 of 2012 (From the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 03.02.2012 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Boudh in Sessions Trial Case No.29 of 2010) Madhaba Pradhan …. Appellant -versus- State of Odisha …. Respondent Advocates appeared in the case: For Appellant : Mr. B.K. Sahoo, Adv. -versus- For Respondent : Mr. S.K. Nayak, AGA CORAM: MR. JUSTICE D. DASH DR. JUSTICE S.K. PANIGRAHI DATE OF HEARING:-05.07.2023 DATE OF JUDGMENT:-24.07.2023 Dr. S.K. Panigrahi, J. 1. In this JCRLA, the convict/ Appellant (Madhaba Pradhan) challenges the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 03.02.2012 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Designation: Assistant Registrar-cum-Senior Secretary Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK Date: 29-Sep-2023 13:43:11 pg. 1 Judge, Boudh in Sessions Trial Case No.29 of 2010, whereby the Appellant has been convicted and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life for commission of offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as “the I.P.C.” for brevity). I. CASE OF THE PROSECUTION: 2. The case of the prosecution in brief is that the daughter (“victim”) of the informant, namely Namita was married to the accused. They had three sons out of their wedlock. On 20.02.2010 at around 8 p.m., while the informant was at his under-construction house in the village, the eldest son of the victim namely, Pratap Pradhan, aged about 7 years reached his place and informed him that, the accused has slain the daughter of the informant. Hearing this, when the informant immediately rushed to the house of the accused, he found that his daughter was lying dead in the kitchen and she had sustained cut injuries on her head and neck. Thereafter, he found that the accused being armed with a tangia has kept himself locked inside a room. According to the allegations of the informant, the accused had earlier physically assaulted Namita several times. On being informed of the incident, the then in-charge of Baghipada Police Outpost namely P.C. Mohanty, proceeded to the house of the accused and tried to persuade him to come out of the room however, it was of no Signature Not Verified
Facts
Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Designation: Assistant Registrar-cum-Senior Secretary Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK Date: 29-Sep-2023 13:43:11 pg. 2 avail. On the said night, the informant and others guarded the room and on the following morning, the then IIC of Boudh
Legal Reasoning
credential to the depositions. Parrot like statements are disfavoured by the courts. In order to ascertain as to whether the discrepancy pointed out was minor or not or the same amounted to contradiction, regard is required to be had to the circumstances of the case by keeping in view the social status of the witnesses and environment in which such witness was making the statement. This Court in Ousu Varghese v. State of Kerala5 held that minor variations in the accounts of the witnesses are often the hallmark of the truth of their testimony. In Jagdish vs. State of Madhya Pradesh6 this Court held that when the discrepancies were comparatively of a minor character and did not go to the root of the prosecution story, they need not be given undue importance. Mere congruity or consistency is not the sole test of truth in the depositions. This Court again in State of Rajasthan vs. Kalki & Anr.7 held that in the depositions of witnesses there are always normal discrepancy, however, honest and truthful they may be. Such errors of discrepancies are due observation, normal errors of memory due to lapse of time, due to mental disposition such as shock and horror at the time of occurrence, and the like. Material discrepancies are those which are not normal, and not expected of a normal person.” 20. P.W.14 (In-charge of P.S.) in his deposition has stated that the to normal accused opened the door and came out with the weapon of offence which was a tangia having blood stain thereon. The wearing apparels of the accused were also found to be blood stained. Thereafter, P.W.14 has added, on being asked, the 5 (1974) (3) SCC 767 6 (1981) SCC (Crl.) 676 7 (1981) (2) SCC 752 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Designation: Assistant Registrar-cum-Senior Secretary Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK Date: 29-Sep-2023 13:43:11 pg. 14 accused in the presence of witnesses disclosed before P.W.15 that he himself with the said tangia had murdered his wife during the last evening and simultaneously produced the said tangia before P.W.15 who seized the same. Accordingly, when the testimony of P.W.15 is referred, it is found that, he has also mentioned that after much persuasion and deliberations finally the accused opened the door and came out of the room with the incriminating tangia and disclosed to have killed his wife by that tangia. According to this P.W.15, so disclosing, the accused handed over the tangia to him for which he instantly seized the same by preparing a seizure list marked Ext.4/2. Regarding this production of tangia before the police coming out of the room as has been stated by P.W.14 supported by P.W.15 no other witness except P.W.4 reflects the same. However, P.W.4 the minor son of the deceased has substantially supported the versions of the above mentioned police officers P.Ws.14 and 15. He has testified that when the police called his father (accused) he came out of the room and at that time he was holding a tangia. Further, he has added that being asked by the police, the accused handed over that tangia. So, the above testimony of P.Ws 14 and 15 gets ample support from this child witness P.W.4 whose evidence as a whole on its value seems to be quite untainted. Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Designation: Assistant Registrar-cum-Senior Secretary Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK Date: 29-Sep-2023 13:43:11 pg. 15 21. This Court is of the opinion that the Trial Court has rightfully relied on the deposition of the P.Ws.11 and 12 even after the said person being directly related to the deceased. P.Ws.11 and 12 are the parents of the deceased. It is pertinent to note that the deposition of P.Ws.11 and 12 has been corroborated by P.Ws.14 and 13 who are not related to the deceased and the post-mortem report. It is well settled by the Supreme Court that in cases where there is a relation between the witness and the deceased, it is the duty of the court to scrutinize the evidence with proper caution. In the case of State of Uttar Pradesh v. Jagdeo8, the Apex Court held that the testimony of the witness cannot be discarded on the ground that the witness is connected to the deceased if the evidence given by him is consistent and supported with other witnesses. 22. The law is well settled that in a case of circumstantial evidence, the cumulative effect of all the circumstances proved, must be such as to negative the innocence of the accused and to bring home the charge beyond reasonable doubt. It has been held by a series of decisions of the Supreme Court that the circumstances proved must lead to no other inference except that of guilt of the accused. In the present case, the Appellant was present at the murder spot while the incident occurred. All the post occurrence witnesses have 8 2003 AIR 660 SC Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Designation: Assistant Registrar-cum-Senior Secretary Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK Date: 29-Sep-2023 13:43:11 pg. 16 testified and simultaneously corroborated the fact that he had locked himself inside the room and the weapon of offence was seized from him. Even though, it cannot be construed from the above-mentioned fact that the Appellant was the one who murdered the deceased; it establishes a chain so complete that there is no escape from the conclusion that within all human probability the crime was committed by the Appellant and no one else. Moreover, the deposition of P.W.4 also reveals that the Appellant assaulted the deceased at the back of his head with a tangia. The very conduct of the Appellant in dealing a fatal blow with an axe to the head of deceased and the gravity of the injury that the deceased suffered to the extent that his brain matter came out, establishes the Appellant’s guilty intention. For establishing the guilt on the basis of the circumstantial evidence, the circumstances must be firmly established and the chain of circumstances must be completed from the facts. In this case, the requisite chain has been established by the prosecution in the form of chemical examination report and depositions of the prosecution witnesses and the conjoint interpretation of both these factors points towards the guilt of the accused. Moreover, the accused appellant has not provided any explanation and the failure to do so yields an additional link in the chain of circumstances to make it complete. Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Designation: Assistant Registrar-cum-Senior Secretary Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK Date: 29-Sep-2023 13:43:11 pg. 17 23. In this regard, the Trial Court concluded that the post mortem report prepared by the doctor corroborated through the evidence of P.Ws.4, 11 and 12 coupled with the plea of the defence i.e. no dispute to the homicidal nature of death of the deceased points to the irresistible conclusion that, the nature of death suffered by the deceased is neither accidental nor suicidal, rather, the same is purely homicidal one. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the prosecution has been able to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the act of the appellant has led to the death of the deceased. 24. The result is that this Appeal is without merit and the same is liable to be dismissed. We do so, confirming the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 03.02.2012 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Boudh in Sessions Trial Case No.29 of 2010. 25. The trial court is directed to take all such effective steps immediately in accordance with law to secure the presence of the Appellant to undergo the sentence as imposed. D. Dash, J. I agree. ( Dr. S.K. Panigrahi ) Judge ( D. Dash ) Judge Orissa High Court, Cuttack, Dated the 24th July, 2023/ Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Designation: Assistant Registrar-cum-Senior Secretary Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK Date: 29-Sep-2023 13:43:11 pg. 18
Arguments
P.S., namely Sri S.K. Dash arrived at the spot. The informant lodged a written FIR with Mr. Dash on the spot. Thereafter Sri Dash instantly made necessary endorsement on the said FIR of the informant and instantly resumed investigation at the spot by examining the informant and other witnesses present there, and recorded their statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C. Then with much persuasion and deliberations, the accused who had kept himself confined in a room of the house locking the door from inside, finally opened the door and came out of the room carrying the weapon of offence i.e. a tangia. At that time, on interrogation the accused instantly admitted to have killed his wife by that tangia and handed over the same to Mr. Dash in presence of witnesses. Mr. Dash instantly seized the same tangia as well as the wearing apparels of the accused all of which were blood stained. II. SUBMISSION OF THE APPELLANT: 3. Learned Counsel for the Appellant strenuously argued that the appellant is innocent. The plea of the defence is one of complete denial and false implication. The specific case/plea of the defence as it borne out from the statement of the accused under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. is that he (accused) is in no way connected or concerned with the death of the Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Designation: Assistant Registrar-cum-Senior Secretary Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK Date: 29-Sep-2023 13:43:11 pg. 3 deceased. He had further deposed that he cannot say who has killed the deceased, however, he was not involved in the incident. 4. The Trial Court has relied on the P.W.11 and P.W.4. However, P.W.11 is the father of the victim and therefore is an interested witnesses and his depositions should not be relied upon. Similarly, P.W.4 is only 5 years old which puts him in a position to be tutored and therefore his deposition can also not be relied upon. 5. Learned Counsel further contended that if at all, the accused should be charged under culpable homicide not amounting to murder. None of the witnesses of the prosecution have been able to prove that there was any previous quarrel between the accused and the victim. Therefore, the attack on the deceased by the accused was not premeditated, rather, it was sudden and in the heat of the moment. III. SUBMISSIONS OF THE STATE/ RESPONDENT 6. The prosecution in order to bring home the charges has examined as many as 15 witnesses. Among the prosecution witnesses, P.W.1 is an independent witness, P.W.2 is the wife of P.W.1. Both are the residents of the same village, Jamkhol. P.W.3, aged about 2.5 to 3 years is the son of the accused and the deceased. P.W.4 is the elder son of the accused and the deceased, aged about 5 years. P.W.5 is the elder sister of the Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Designation: Assistant Registrar-cum-Senior Secretary Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK Date: 29-Sep-2023 13:43:11 pg. 4 accused. P.W.6 is another independent witness, P.W.7 is the then police constable attached to Baghipada police outpost, P.W.8 is a cousin brother-in-law of the accused, P.W.9 is the A.S.I. Of Police attached to Boudh P.S., P.W.10 is the Police Havildar of Boudh Police Reserve. P.W.11 is the father of the deceased and the informant of this case who has lodged the FIR marked Ext.1 before the Police. P.W.12 namely Laxmi Sahu is the wife of P.W.11 and as such is the mother of the deceased. P.W.13 is the present Asst. Surgeon of the District Headquarters Hospital, Boudh who, on 22.02.2010 on police requisition; had conducted the post mortem examination on the dead body of the deceased Namita and has submitted the Post mortem examination report marked as Ext.10. 7. Learned Counsel for the State submitted that in the post mortem report (Ext.10), the doctor has clearly stated that, the nature of death suffered by the deceased is homicidal one and possible by blow by hard and blunt object and the cause of death is due to coma as a result of injuries to the head and brain and the injuries are sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. 8. Learned Counsel for the State submitted that from the unassailed testimony of the witnesses i.e. P.Ws.4, 11 and 12 which finds ample corroboration with each other coupled with the medical evidence i.e. the evidence of the doctor Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Designation: Assistant Registrar-cum-Senior Secretary Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK Date: 29-Sep-2023 13:43:11 pg. 5 (P.W.13), it can be safely concluded that, none else but the accused is the author of the injuries found on the body of the deceased. IV. COURT’S REASONING AND ANALYSIS: 9. It is very clear that there are no eye witnesses to the occurrence of the crime. All the witnesses are post occurrence witnesses. Therefore, the case rests on circumstantial evidence. 10. Heard both the parties and went through the judgment of the Trial Court. After extensively perusing the documents adduced by the prosecution and the depositions of the witnesses, this Court is of the view that there are two points of determination in the present case: i. Whether the death of the deceased is homicidal in nature? ii. Whether the prosecution has managed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the act of the appellant led to the death of the deceased? V. Whether the death of the deceased is homicidal in nature? 11. In this regard, the evidence of the medical officer P.W.13, who has conducted the post mortem examination on the dead body of the deceased is to be examined. According to P.W.13, she on 22.02.2010 at 11 a.m. on Police requisition had conducted the post mortem examination on the dead body of Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Designation: Assistant Registrar-cum-Senior Secretary Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK Date: 29-Sep-2023 13:43:11 pg. 6 the deceased Namita Pradhan, wife of the present accused Madhab Pradhan. 12. According to her testimony vis-a-vis the medical examination report marked Ext.10 submitted by her, she found the following injuries on the body of the deceased:- (1) one incised wound of sized 8 cm x 4 cm x bone depth extending from right side neck to left side neck cutting the wind pipe and food pipe into two pieces along with the neck muscles, vessels, all the structures with profuse bleeding. (2) One incised wound of size 8 cm x 3 cm x 3 cm depth extending from right to left of the neck 1 cm below the above injury. (3) Another incised wound of size 7 cm x 3 cm x 3 cm over the right chest wall involving the right chest wall damaging the right lungs, pleura. (4) One injury above the right chest wall 2 cm below the above injury no.3 involving right lungs with profuse bleeding. (5) One incised wound of size 7 cm x 1 cm x 1 cm over the right chest wall laterally. (6) Another incised wound over the left ear middle of size 7 cm x 1 cm extending to face. (7) One defence wound over left wrist joint of size 6 cm superficial. Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Designation: Assistant Registrar-cum-Senior Secretary Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK Date: 29-Sep-2023 13:43:11 pg. 7 13. According to P.W.13, injury no.1 was fatal and lethal. This injury was sufficient to cause death of the person. Further P.W.13 has testified that, besides the above, injuries no. 2, 3 and 4 are also fatal in nature while, injury nos.5, 6, 7 were superficial in nature. Further according to P.W.13, all the above injuries are ante mortem in nature and were caused by sharp cutting heavy weapon like “tangia”. The injuries are homicidal in nature and are sufficient to cause death in natural course. P.W.13 has concluded that the death was homicidal in nature due to cut throat with profuse bleeding and the time since death was around 36 hours from the time of her conducting post mortem examination. Accordingly P.W.13 has proved the post mortem report marked as Ext. 10 having no manner of objecting being raised on behalf of the defence. From the above medical evidence, the injuries reported itself speak for themselves that those are fatal injuries and more particularly injury no.1. So it can be undoubtedly concluded that, the death of the deceased is one homicidal death. VI. Whether the prosecution has managed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the act of the appellant led to the death of the deceased? 14. P.Ws.2, 5, 6 and 8 have all turned hostile and the rest are post occurrence witnesses. There are no eye-witnesses to the Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Designation: Assistant Registrar-cum-Senior Secretary Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK Date: 29-Sep-2023 13:43:11 pg. 8 incident. Therefore, the case of the prosecution mainly rests upon the testimony of witnesses i.e., P.Ws.4, 11 and 12. 15. According to P.W.11 (“Informant”), around 5 to 6 months earlier, due to some dispute between the accused and the deceased, the former used to physically drive away the deceased from his house. Subsequently, P.W.11 himself had to pacify the accused to let the deceased back at his house. Such incidents have happened 2 to 3 times. However, on the fateful evening around 7 to 8 P.M., while the informant was at his house, the eldest son of the deceased, Pratap (P.W.4) rushed to him and informed that the accused has killed the deceased using a tangia. Thereafter, P.W.11 immediately rushed to the house of the accused with his wife (PW 12). There he found that the deceased lying dead in the kitchen. Subsequently, he also found cut injuries on her neck, chest below the breast, head etc. 16. During this time, the accused had kept himself in hiding in one of the rooms of his house. The accused had kept the door of that room locked from inside. Thereafter, he along with other witnesses gathered there, guarded the said room during that night. On the following morning, the police after being informed arrived at the scene and P.W.11 lodged a written FIR. This deposition of P.W.11 has been corroborated by his wife P.W.12. Furthermore, from the cross-examination of Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Designation: Assistant Registrar-cum-Senior Secretary Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK Date: 29-Sep-2023 13:43:11 pg. 9 P.Ws.11 and 12, nothing impeachable, improbable or incoherent could be found to view their testimony with any tinge of suspicion. Defense Counsel has contended that P.W.11 and 12 are interested witnesses (parents of the deceased) and therefore there depositions should not be relied upon. However, law is well settled in this regard that the mere fact that the witnesses were related to the deceased cannot be a ground to discard their evidence. In the case of Balraje @ Trimbak vs State of Maharashtra1, the Supreme Court held that: “The mere fact that the witnesses were related to the deceased cannot be a ground to discard their evidence. In law, testimony of an injured witness is given importance. When the eyewitnesses are stated to be interested and inimically disposed towards the accused, it has to be noted that it would not be proper to conclude that they would shield the real culprit and rope in innocent persons. The truth or otherwise of the evidence has to be weighed pragmatically. The court would be required to analyse the evidence of related witnesses and those witnesses who are inimically disposed towards the accused. But if after careful analysis and scrutiny of their evidence, the version given by the witnesses appears to be clear, cogent and credible, there is no reason to discard the same. Conviction can be made on the basis of such evidence.” 17. Additionally, the prosecution had summoned two sons of the accused and the deceased, such as Prakash (P.W.3) and Pratap 1 Criminal Appeal No. 1978 of 2008 (Supreme Court) Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Designation: Assistant Registrar-cum-Senior Secretary Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK Date: 29-Sep-2023 13:43:11 pg. 10 Pradhan (P.W.4). It is found that except saying his name as "Prakash" only, P.W.3 could not answer the name of his father, the name of his village etc. and also could not say where presently his mother is. It is found that, P.W.3 is only aged about 2 ‰ to 3 years and is quite in his infancy. Therefore, the prosecution did not examine him any further. Then Pratap Pradhan, who is said to be the eldest son of the accused and the deceased in the dock only could not tell his age and it is assessed by the court that he might be aged around 5 years. However, he could answer few questions put by the court for testing his power of understanding. The Trial Court observed that P.W.4 is having rational understanding and is thus examined on behalf of the prosecution. It would be better to reproduce his entire examination in chief and cross examination portion entirely. 18. From the deposition of P.W.4, it is found that he had seen his father when he came out of the room and was holding a tangia. It is to be noted that at para-2 of his deposition, he has stated that his mother died as his father inflicted tangia blow to her. Learned counsel for the defence submitted that, this piece of evidence of P.W.4 cannot be relied upon because, he is still at his infancy, and moreover he has stated during the cross examination that in the fateful evening he was asleep together with his two brothers and woke up around 9 p.m. Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Designation: Assistant Registrar-cum-Senior Secretary Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK Date: 29-Sep-2023 13:43:11 pg. 11 and by that time his mother was unable to talk. So it indicates that, he has not witnessed, as to who has inflicted blows on his mother. Hence, the above evidence of this child witness is highly dangerous to rely upon. On this score, it is to be stated that there is no doubt children are suspectable to tutoring. In Mangoo & Anr. v. State of Madhya Pradesh2, the Apex Court observed that while there is always an opportunity to tutore the kid, it could not be used as a sole basis for concluding that the child witness had been tutored. The Court must decide whether or not the child was tutored. If there are any indications of tutoring, it may be determined by reviewing the evidence and the contents thereof. Even if a child witness statement has been borne out of tutoring, it can be relied on if the taught component can be isolated from the untutored half, and the remaining untutored part inspires trust. In such a scenario, the untutored component can be believed or at the very least considered for corroborating purposes. In the present case, the deposition of P.W.4 can be used to corroborate the statements of P.Ws.11 and 12. 19. Moreover, there are minor contradictions in the statements of the P.Ws. However, this minor discrepancy does not discredit the testimony of the witness considering that these do not pertain to any material particulars of the facts of the incident. 2 AIR 1995 SC 959 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Designation: Assistant Registrar-cum-Senior Secretary Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK Date: 29-Sep-2023 13:43:11 pg. 12 It has been well established by law that only such omissions which amount to contradiction in material particulars can be used to discredit the testimony of the witness. In the case of Narayan Chetanram Chaudhary & Anr. v. State of Maharashtra3, the Supreme Court observed: the such amount “Only to omissions which contradiction in material particulars can be used to discredit the testimony of the witness. The omission in the police statement by itself would not testimony of witness render necessarily unreliable. When the version given by the witness in the court is different in material particulars from that disclosed in his earlier statements, the case of the prosecution becomes doubtful and not otherwise. Minor contradictions are bound to appear in the truthful witnesses as memory statements of sometimes plays false and the sense of observation differ from person to person.” Similarly, in State of Himachal Pradesh v. Lekh Raj & Anr4, dealing with discrepancies, contradictions and omissions, the Supreme Court held: in to be distinguished contradiction from "Discrepancy has contradiction. Whereas the statement of the witness is fatal for the case, minor discrepancy or variance in evidence will not make the prosecution’s case doubtful. The normal course of the human conduct would be that while narrating a particular incidence there may occur minor discrepancies, such discrepancies in law may render 3(2000) 8 SCC 457 4 1999 Supp(4) SCR 286 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Designation: Assistant Registrar-cum-Senior Secretary Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK Date: 29-Sep-2023 13:43:11 pg. 13