The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK JCRLA No.78 of 2004 An appeal under Section – 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. Simanchala Polai …. Appellant State of Orissa Versus … Respondent Advocates appeared in this case through Hybrid Mode : For Appellant : Mr. Partha Sarathi Das, Advocate For Respondent : Ms. S. Pattnaik, AGA CORAM: JUSTICE S. TALAPATRA JUSTICE SAVITRI RATHO .……………………………………………………………………… Date of Judgment :08.02.2023 ……………………………………………………………………….. S. Talapatra, J. By means of this appeal, the Appellant namely Simanchal Palai has challenged the judgment dated 31.05.2004 delivered in Sessions Case No. 24 of 2003 corresponding to S.C. No. 466/2003 (GDC) by the Additional Sessions Judge, Chatrapur. 2. By the said judgment, the Appellant has been convicted under Section 302 of the I.P.C. and sentenced to suffer Rigorous JCRLA No. 78 of 2004 Page 1 of 22 imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs.300/- with default imprisonment for three months. 3. Briefly stated the prosecution case is that after death of his first wife, the Appellant contracted the second marriage. The eldest daughter of the accused through the first marriage did not approve that marriage. As a result, there had been a breakdown of personal relation between the daughter and the father (the Appellant). Apart from that, it has been stated by the said daughter that the Appellant promised to pay a sum of Rs.20,000/- and a gold ring to her, but he did not keep that promise. For the aforesaid reason, the Appellant had been failing to maintain a cordial relation with his daughter and his son-in-law, the deceased. There had been occasional quarrels between the deceased and the Appellant on the question of payment of money. 4. On the night of 02.02.2003 after taking meal, the deceased went out of his home and met the appellant to demand money from him. They had engaged in a quarrel over that demand and at about 9.30 p.m., they were found quarrelling on the village road near Nuabandha. During the quarrel, the Appellant stabbed the deceased. The deceased fell down on the ground sustaining bleeding injuries. JCRLA No. 78 of 2004 Page 2 of 22 5. P.W.7, Congress Swain filed the complaint before the Kesinagar Police Station reporting that the appellant had killed Prahallad Swain, his son in law. The said complaint was filed at about 4.30 a.m. on 03.02.2003, whereas the occurrence had taken place on 10.30 p.m. on 02.02.2003. Based on the said complaint, the Police took up the investigation. After completing the investigation, the Police report under Section 173 (2) of the Cr.P.C was submitted sending up the Appellant to face the trial. 6. In due course, the Additional Sessions Judge, Chatrapur framed the charge under Section 302 of the I.P.C. against the Appellant for committing murder of Prahallad Swain, his son-in-law at about 10.30 P.M. on 02.02.2003. The Appellant denied the charge and claimed to be tried in accordance with law. 7. In order to substantiate the charge, the prosecution adduced
Legal Reasoning
as many as 11 witnesses including P.W.5, Smt. Khojani Routa who had claimed have witnessed the occurrence and P.W.9, Smt. Padma Routa who too had claimed to have witnessed the occurrence. P.W.11, Dr. Jyotin Kumar Dash is the Medical Officer who had carried out the autopsy on the dead body of the deceased. 8. Having recorded the prosecution evidence, the trial judge examined the Appellant under Section 313 (1) (b) of the Cr.P.C. for JCRLA No. 78 of 2004 Page 3 of 22 having his response to the incriminating materials which surfaced in the prosecution evidence. The appellant had reiterated his plea of innocence by describing the evidence against him as concocted. In his defence, the Appellant did not adduce any evidence. 9. On appreciating the evidence, the trial judge has observed that the Appellant made a disclosure statement while he was in the Police custody. Pursuant to the said disclosure statement, the weapon of offence (knife) was discovered from a rice bag from the house of the Appellant. It has been also observed by the trial judge that the knife was bloodstained. The knife was seized in presence of the witnesses on preparing the seizure list (Ext.8). As P.W.8 has testified that only the Police and he had entered the house of the Appellant and they brought out the knife from the rice bag being shown by the appellant. The said evidence cannot be discarded in as much as P.W.10 has independently corroborated the same transaction of leading to discovery of the weapon of offence. 10. It has been observed by the trial Judge as follows: <1. The Appellant had motive. There was a long standing feud between him and his son-in-law who had the issue of nonpayment of the amount that was promised at the time of marriage and also as regards the second marriage contracted by the Appellant. 2. In the same night when the occurrence took place, the deceased went to the house of the JCRLA No. 78 of 2004 Page 4 of 22 Appellant to ask for his money. Before taking out the journey, he had revealed to his wife (P.W.5) the reason for which he would meet her father. Soon thereafter, the deceased was found with the fatal injuries. 3. During the occurrence, P.W.3 heard the cry of the deceased 8Maridela Maridela9 and when he proceeded towards the spot he saw the Appellant coming from the place of occurrence and rushing towards his house. The deceased was lying behind him with bleeding injuries on his person. 4. The deceased had sustained stabbing injuries caused by the knife as per the report of the Medical Officer (P.W.11), who had conducted the post- martem examination. 5. The knife, that was recovered was stained with blood and the same was found inside rice bag in the house of the Appellant. 6. The lungi of the Appellant bore the blood stain. Blood Collected from the lungi matched with the blood group of the deceased. No attempt had been the Appellant to explain how the blood stain was available on his lungi which was seized by the Police from his possession.” taken by 11. It has further been observed that the Appellant had intention to do away with the life of the deceased and he had stabbed the deceased with intention of causing death. He had knowledge that those injuries as inflicted by him were sufficient to cause death of the deceased. Hence, the culpable act falls within the definition of murder as provided by Section 300 of the I.P.C. Accordingly, the Appellant was convicted. However, those findings of the trial Judge are challenged in this appeal. JCRLA No. 78 of 2004 Page 5 of 22 12. The prosecution has adduced 11 witnesses including P.W.7, Congress Swain, the daughter of Appellant, P.W.5 and P.W.9 who had claimed to have witnessed the occurrence and P.W.10, the Medical Officer who carried out the autopsy. Apart from that, as many as 19 documents, Ext. 1 to Ext.19; and 5 material objects, M.O.I to M.O.V have been admitted in the evidence by the prosecution. 13. Mr. P.S. Das, learned counsel appearing for the Appellant has quite emphatically stated that there is no evidence of worth for returning the finding that the Appellant had committed murder of Prahallad Swain, the husband of P.W.5. According to Mr. Das, learned counsel, while returning the judgment of conviction, the trial judge was prompted by assumptions and surmises and as such, his findings are to be held not based on legal evidence and therefore, are liable to be interefered with and set aside. 14. Mr. Das, learned counsel has placed an alternative argument that the Appellant had no intention to cause death of the deceased, but out of rage, tempered by sudden quarrel, he had committed the offence. According to P.W.11, the Medical Officer who had conducted the post mortem examination, there were four JCRLA No. 78 of 2004 Page 6 of 22 major injuries on the body of the deceased, out of which one injury i.e. stab-wound of the size of 4 c.m. x 1.5 c.m. which was located in the left side of the chest was fatal. The death was caused due to haemorrhage and shock resulting from the stab-injury. The external injuries were instrumental for the internal injuries. Mr. Das, learned counsel has further contended that theory of the last seen together and discovery of the weapon of offence with the help of the Appellant have been applied without conforming to the procedural safeguards and hence, those evidence are unreliable. 15. Mr. Das, learned counsel has asserted that it is not the Appellant but P.W.8 who took out the weapon from the rice bag as according to the prosecution, the weapon of assault was concealed in the said rice-bag. 16. Mr. Das, learned counsel has finally contended that no chain has been formed by the circumstantial evidence to point at the guilt of the Appellant in complete exclusion of the hypothesis of innocence. He has further added that even if the evidence led by the prosecution is totally believed, the charge under Section 302 of the I.P.C. cannot be held to have been proved to the hilt, in as much as the occurrence had taken place due to sudden fight and as such, it will come under the Exception 4 provided below Section 300 of the I.P.C. JCRLA No. 78 of 2004 Page 7 of 22 The conviction for committing murder, therefore, is liable to be set aside. 17. From the other side, Ms. S. Pattnaik, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the State has submitted that the circumstantial evidence as introduced by the prosecution has clearly formed an unbroken chain indicating only the guilt of the Appellant. 18. Ms. S. Pattnaik, learned Addl. Government Advocate appearing for the State has contended that P.W.7 and other co- villagers namely, Dayanidhi Dalai (P.W.3), Budhia Palai (P.W.4), Bhagaban Bhuyan (P.W.8) and Smt Padma Routa (P.W.9) have proved that the deceased had sustained bleeding injuries and he was shifted to Polsara Hospital. P.W.3 tied a towel to stop the bleeding. 19. Ms. Pattnaik, learned Addl. Government Advocate has further stated that from the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 10 and the document (Ext.1), it has been clearly established that one police constable was detailed to go to the Polosara Public Health Centre to guard the dead body. The evidence of P.Ws.1 and 10 shows that P.W.10 had visited the hospital and carried out the inquest. So far as the inquest report (Ext.4) is concerned, there is no dispute. The evidence of P.W.1 has been corroborated by P.Ws.1,2 and 7. It is apparent that the Investigating Officer (P.W.1) had done the inquest JCRLA No. 78 of 2004 Page 8 of 22 of the dead body of the deceased on 03.02.2003 and prepared the report (Ext.4). P.W.11, as pointed out by Ms. Pattnaik, learned Addl. Government Advocate, found 4 external injuries which are as follows: <i. Stabbed wound of size 4 cm x 1.5 cm x chest cavity on the left side of the chest. 3.5cm of medial and 3.5 cm below the left nipple. ii. Stabbed wound of size 2.5. cm x 1 cm. x muscle deep on the left side of the neck, 3 cm. below the left single of mandible. iii. Punctured wound 1 cm x 0.2 cm x scalp deep on the right side forehead. 5 cm. above the right eye brow. iv. Cut wounds of size 2 cm x 0.5cm. x skin deep on the back of left elbow.= 20. P.W.11 had noticed that all the injuries both external and internal injuries are ante mortem and observed that those might have been caused by pointed cutting weapon. According to him, the cause of death was haemorrhage and shock resulting from the stab-injury and its associated internal injury which punctured the heart. He was of the further opinion that the injury No.1 and the associated internal injury were fatal and sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature. 21. Ms. Pattnaik, learned Addl. Government Advocate has drawn our notice to a part of the testimony of P.W.3 where it has been stated that after the death of the first wife, the appellant had married JCRLA No. 78 of 2004 Page 9 of 22 for the second time. The deceased namely, Surendra had married to the eldest daughter of the appellant through his first wife. After the marriage between the eldest daughter of the appellant and the deceased, the appellant had contracted the second marriage. For the said second marriage, there was ill-feeling between the appellant on one hand and the deceased and his wife on the other hand. After the second marriage, the appellant did not take good care of his children. 22. P.W.7, in his examination-in-chief, has clearly stated that there was a continuing dispute regarding payment of dowry. It has been stated that the deceased had objected to the second marriage of the appellant and on that account there was ill-feeling between the appellant and the deceased. P.W.8 has also supported that over the payment of the dowry money there had been a fight. The appellant had allegedly threatened by stating that his daughter would be a widow very soon. But that part of the evidence has not been supported by any witness. The prosecution has proved squarely that there had been bad blood between the appellant and the deceased. 23. According to Ms. Pattnaik, learned Addl. Government Advocate that the following circumstances have been proved by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt: a. The appellant had the motive. There was a long standing feud between him and the deceased for non- JCRLA No. 78 of 2004 Page 10 of 22 payment of the amount promised at the time of marriage and on account of non-payment of money that he had taken from the deceased for treatment of his wife. b. In the same night, just before the occurrence i.e. at about 09.30 P.M. the deceased set out his journey towards the house of the accused to ask for his money and after revealing it to his wife (P.W.5) and soon thereafter the deceased was found with the fatal injuries. c. At the time of occurrence, P.W.3 heard the rueful grin of the deceased saying <Maridela Maridela= and when he proceeded towards the spot he saw the accused coming from the place of occurrence and had been proceeded towards his house and behind him, the deceased had reached near the house of P.W.3 with bleeding injuries on his person. d. The deceased had sustained stabbing injuries caused by knife, M.O.V, as per the report of the Medical Officer, P.W.11, who had conducted the post- mortem. e. The knife, (M.O.V) was stained with blood and recovered from the rice bag at the instance of the appellant. f. The Lungi of the appellant contained human blood of B_Group which tallied with the blood group of the deceased.= But the deceased did not give any explanation how the blood of the deceased was smeared on his lungi. 24. Ms. Pattnaik, learned Addl. Government Advocate has submitted that it is settled position of law that the circumstances relied upon by the prosecution shall be fully established and the chain of the evidence formed by those circumstances shall be completed leaving no space which allow to draw inference consistent with JCRLA No. 78 of 2004 Page 11 of 22 innocence. The prosecution has successfully established that the chain of circumstances in the present case. The prosecution’s evidence has proved the charge to the hilt without leaving any space for doubt. 25. The evidence as led by the prosecution has clearly established that it is none but the appellant who had committed the murder of his son-in-law. No other hypothesis is either suggested by the defence at the time of argument or is conceivable from those proved circumstances. The appellant had not given any explanation regarding the blood-stain which was found on his wearing apparel (Lungi), which matched with the blood group of the deceased. The evidence as led by the prosecution could not be challenged effectively by the appellant. The injury report is consistent with the circumstances incriminating the appellant. 26. Ms. Pattnaik, learned Addl. Government Advocate has reiterated that no explanation has come from the appellant even though the blood group of the deceased has matched with the blood group of the blood found on Lungi. Hence, from the proved circumstances, it can be safely inferred that the appellant had dealt those fatal blows on the person of the deceased. Even from the nature of the injuries, it can be inferred that there was clear intention to kill JCRLA No. 78 of 2004 Page 12 of 22 the deceased. The stab-wound on the left chest was fatal and that was caused by the knife which was recovered by the police. 27. Ms. Pattnaik, learned Addl. Government Advocate has further submitted that the Judgment of conviction cannot be interfered with. 28. For appreciation of the contentions as raised by the counsel for the parties, it would be apposite to carry out a meaningful survey of the evidence as recorded during the trial. 29. P.W.1, Bijaya Chandra Gouda was a police constable. By virtue of the Command Certificate (Ext.1), he had transported the dead body with its challan to the Berhampur F.M.T. Department for post mortem. He has stated that by preparing the seizure list, the officer-in-charge had seized the articles (M.O.1, M.O.2 & other materials). 30. P.W.2, Panchu Pradhan did not disclose anything of relevance. P.W.3 Dayanidhi Dalai, one of the co-villagers, has stated that the deceased fell down on the ground just in front of his house. He has stated that he rushed to the place where the deceased fell down. The deceased told him that <he was stabbed by his father-in- law=. The said statement was not confronted by the defence in the cross examination. JCRLA No. 78 of 2004 Page 13 of 22 31. P.W.4, Budhia Polai, is the witness who heard the cry of the deceased <Maridela Maridela=. He came out of his house and saw the deceased (Surendra) was lying with bleeding injuries on his chest. He had managed to stop the bleeding by tying a Gamucha around the injuries. 32. P.W.5, Smt. Khojani Rout is the widow of the deceased. She had stated that the appellant had promised to give her a sum of Rs.20,000/- and a gold ring but he did not do so and after death of her mother, the appellant married for the second time. She and her husband were opposed to the said second marriage. She has categorically testified in the trial that at about 9.30 p.m. her husband, while taking his meal had said that he would ask for his money from her father (the appellant). After having the meal, he went towards the house of the appellant. After sometime, she heard the row and she was told by the street people that her husband had been stabbed by her father. She ran towards the place and found her husband lying with injuries on his left chest near Nuabandha. She has denied the suggestions which were made contrary to what she had stated in the examination-in-chief. JCRLA No. 78 of 2004 Page 14 of 22 33. P.W.6, Prasanna Kumar Patnaik is a police constable. According to him, he had seized the sealed bottle containing the nail clippings of the appellant by preparing the seizure list (Ext.5). 34. P.W.7, Congress Swain was a close acquaintance of the deceased. His house is 50 mtrs away from the place of occurrence. He has stated that there was ill-feeling between the appellant and the deceased. He had also heard the cry <Maridela Maridela=. He came out from his house and rushed to the place of occurrence. When he went to the place of occurrence, he found Dayanidhi wrapping a towel around the injuries of Surendra (the deceased). In the cross examination, nothing much could be extracted from him to discredit his evidence. 35. P.W.8, Bhagaban Bhuyan has stated that on the following day of occurrence, the police came at about 10.00 a.m. and seized blood-stained earth and sample earth from the place of occurrence by preparing the seizure list (Ext.7). He had signed on that seizure list. He has identified his signature over the seizure list (Ext.7) in the trial. He was witness to the recovery of knife which was recovered from the rice bag. He had identified his signature on the said seizure list. He stood by his statements made in examination in chief during the cross-examination. JCRLA No. 78 of 2004 Page 15 of 22 36. P.W.9, Smt. Padma Routa has testified that on the fateful night at about 8.00 p.m. Surendra had returned to his house with his auto rickshaw. On the said night at about 10.00 p.m, she was sitting at the outer verndah of her house. She made following statement thereafter: <2. At that time I saw the accused and his son-in- law Surendra were sitting at the verandah of the school which situates just in front of my house. Then the accused went outside and again came to the school and thereafter both the accused and Surendra came to the road and had picked up quarrel with each other exchanging words, and also blows and proceeded up to the house of Budhia Palai. 3. Just by then the accused had stabbed Surendra by a kinfe and Surendra cried saying <Marigali=. My other villagers including me had reached near Surendra. After stabbing, the accused went to his house.= 37. In the cross examination she had further explained that she went to the spot after hearing the cry of the deceased saying <Marigali=. The place of occurrence was about 20 cubits away from her house. At the time of assault, the deceased was facing towards her and the appellant by standing in his front, stabbed Surendra. He has confirmed the presence of Dayanidhi, Santosh & Congress. 38. P.W.10, the officer-in-charge of K.S. Nagar Police Station had narrated briefly how he had received the first information report, registered the case and took up the investigation. He had on the very JCRLA No. 78 of 2004 Page 16 of 22 day examined the witnesses and prepared the site map. He had arrested the appellant on the same date. In the police station, the appellant gave a statement that he had kept the knife inside the rice bag which was kept in his house. He had recorded that statement of the accused (the appellant) in a plain paper. He identified that statement and stated that after the statement was recorded, the appellant led him to his house and he himself brought out the knife from inside a rice bag and handed the same to him. He has also stated that he had made the inquest over the dead body of the deceased (Surendra) at the Polsara Hospital. He had admitted the inquest report (Ext.4) in the evidence. P.W.10 had requisitioned for assistance of the Forensic expert to the place of occurrence so that the forensic evidence could be gathered in the interest of investigation. P.W.10 had seized the Lungi with blood-stain and sent the said material to the Regional Forensic Science Laboratory in a sealed packet. P.W.10 identified his signature on the seizure list (Ext.3) and the seized materials as M.O.1 (Lungi), M.O.2 (Dhoti), M.O.3 (the seized thread with a locket) & M.O.4 (a waist thread of the deceased). The blood samples and the nail clippings of the deceased and the appellant were sent to the J.M.F.C., Kodala by a forwarding letter (Ext.13). The chemical examination report (Ext.14) is on the blood stain which was JCRLA No. 78 of 2004 Page 17 of 22 found on Lungi (M.O.1). In the cross examination, he has further explained his mode of investigation, but without any deviation from his statement made in the examination in chief. He has admitted that he did not further examine Congress Swain, the informant. 39. P.W.11 Dr. Jyotin Kumar Dash was the Assistant Professor at the relevant point of time, at the FMT Department, M.K.C.G. Medical College and Hospital, Berhampur. On the requisition of the police, he had conducted the post-mortem examination over the dead body of the deceased (Surendra) on 03.02.2003. 40. At the time of the recording the submission of Ms. Pattnaik, learned Addl. Government Advocate, we have extracted the external injuries that he had found during the post-mortem examination. On dissection, he had found the internal injuries. He had clearly noted that a slit like puncture wound of 3.5 c.m. length was found. The underlying pericardium was found punctured and cut, making an aperture of 2cm x 0.5 cm and the pericardium cavity containing about 1 ltr of blood. A small slit like penetrating wound of 1 cm length deep into ventricular cavity was found on the anterior aspect of right ventricle of the heart. 41. P.W.11 has categorically stated that due to the haemorrahage and shock resulting from the injury which had JCRLA No. 78 of 2004 Page 18 of 22 punctured the heart, the deceased had succumbed to death. It has been also observed that the associated internal injury was fatal and sufficient enough to cause death in the ordinary course. He had projected the time of death in his report P.W.11 had also examined the weapon of offence. According to him, injuries were done by the said weapon of offence-knife. 42. In the cross examination, P.W.11 has elaborated his opinion. According to him the injury on the chest was probably the last blow on the deceased. No upper garment was there on the body of the deceased. Even after such injuries, according to P.W.11 the deceased might hold sense for half an hour to one hour. But we find it little curious as P.W.7, Congress Swain had stated that the deceased told him that Seema Palai @ Simanchal Palai had stabbed him. Saying so, the deceased fell down and lost his senses. According to P.W.11, for the period from half an hour to one hour, a person who had received the injuries like the deceased can be in full senses. However, his description is elaborate. According to him, he was examined both by the police and the Magistrate. This witness was duly cross examined by the defence. He had stated that he was in the police station when the FIR was lodged. It may be restated that he was the person who filed the FIR in writing (Ext.6). Therefore, the JCRLA No. 78 of 2004 Page 19 of 22 police officer’s statement that he did not examine P.W.7 does not hold any substance. P.W.7 has categorically stated that immediately after the receipt of his report, he was examined by the police. Whether examined or not is not very material as he had filed the first information report. Therefore, the testimony of P.W.7 cannot be brushed aside for that reason. 43. As noted by us earlier that the post-occurrence witness like Panchu Pradhan P.W.2, Dayanidhi Dalai, P.W.3 and Budhia Dalai P.W.4 have proved the occurrence and how it took place. Out of them, Dayanidhi Dalai (P.W.3) has categorically stated that when he had rushed towards the place of occurrence, he saw the appellant. He was coming from the opposite side and proceeding towards his house. Immediately thereafter, he saw Surendra (the deceased) came running with bleeding injuries on his chest and he was pressing his hand to stop the bleeding. He has categorically stated as follows: <Then Surendra fell down on the ground just in front of my house, Surendra told me that he was stabbed by his father-in-law (the appellant). Thereafter, some of my villagers had shifted Surendra to Polosara Hospital.= [Emphasis Added] He was not cross examined on that aspect. In the cross- examination he had elaborated his statement. He had clearly stated JCRLA No. 78 of 2004 Page 20 of 22 that he was alone present when the deceased had told him that he was stabbed by the appellant and the other people came thereafter. 44. P.W.5, has been discussed to have testified that her husband told her that he would be meeting her father (the appellant) to talk over the issue of payment of the promised amount, and thereafter she saw her husband with the bleeding injuries. Two dying declarations made to P.Ws.3 and 7 cannot be discarded. Those bear high evidentiary value. P.W.9 has stated that initially the deceased and his father in law were sitting in the veranda of a school and thereafter, they came on the road talking to each other and at that point of time, there broke out a quarrel. All on a sudden, the appellant had stabbed Surendra by a knife and Surendra cried out saying Maridela. The statement of P.W.9 depicts a part of the transaction which she had witnessed from a distance of 20 cubits (see the cross examination, Para-4). Therefore, this evidence also bears high evidentiary value. 45. If the evidence is read cumulatively, there cannot be any doubt that the appellant had deliberately afflicted those fatal ante mortem injuries on the deceased and injuries caused shock and haemorrhage including piercing of the heart. As a result of such assault, the deceased died. JCRLA No. 78 of 2004 Page 21 of 22 46. We have duly considered the opinion of the post-mortem expert. His opinion has strongly corroborated the ocular evidence. As such, we do not find any merit in this appeal. 47. 48.
Decision
In the result, this appeal stands dismissed. It has been stated that the appellant had jumped the conditions of bail, consequently, the bail bond was cancelled on 21.05.2022. The appellant, thereafter surrendered in the court. Presently, he is behind the bars. In view of the dismissal of the appeal, we direct the appellant to serve out the remaining period of sentence as noted above. 49. A copy of this order shall be sent to the Addl. Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Chatrapur. (S. Talapatra) Judge Miss. Savitri Ratho, J. I agree. (Savitri Ratho) Judge Orissa High Court, Cuttack Dated 08.02.2023/Puspa/Rati Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: RATI RANJAN NAYAK Reason: Authentication Location: Orissa High Court, Cuttack Date: 19-Jun-2023 13:29:24 JCRLA No. 78 of 2004 Page 22 of 22