{"id":2005,"date":"2024-06-26T15:46:54","date_gmt":"2024-06-26T10:16:54","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/?p=2005"},"modified":"2024-06-26T15:46:54","modified_gmt":"2024-06-26T10:16:54","slug":"orissa-high-court-ruled-that-the-magistrate-conducting-tip-during-trial-must-be-called-as-a-witness-by-the-prosecution","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/orissa-high-court-ruled-that-the-magistrate-conducting-tip-during-trial-must-be-called-as-a-witness-by-the-prosecution\/","title":{"rendered":"Orissa High court ruled that the magistrate conducting TIP during trial must be called as a witness by the prosecution"},"content":{"rendered":"

Baikuntha Bhoi\u00a0 \u00a0[<\/strong> Appellants]\u00a0 Vs.\u00a0 \u00a0<\/strong>State of Odisha\u00a0 [<\/strong> Respondent]<\/h1>\n

CRLA No. 21 of 2012<\/p>\n

(THE HON\u2019BLE MR. JUSTICE S.K. SAHOO<\/strong>)<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Facts:<\/u><\/strong> The appellants Baikuntha Bhoi and Prasanta Nayak in CRLA No. 21 of 2012, the appellant Bishnu Nayak in CRLA No.504 of 2012 and the appellant Raju @ Rajesh Behera in CRLA No. 719 of 2012 faced trial in the Court of learned Adhoc Addl. Sessions Judge (FTC), Bhubaneswar in Crl. Tr. Case No.47\/205\/2010 for commission of offence under section 395 of the Indian Penal Code (in short, \u2018I.P.C.\u2019) on the accusation that on 13th June, 2010 at about 10.30 p.m. at Palasuni under Mancheswar police station, Bhubaneswar, they committed dacoity in respect of cash amounting to Rs.8,000\/-, two numbers of mobiles, one suitcase, etc. of the informant, Bhabani Shankar Nayak (P.W.4).<\/p>\n

Issue:<\/u><\/strong> Whether the appellants are guilty of committing dacoity?<\/p>\n

Arguments on behalf of counsel for appellants:<\/u><\/strong><\/p>\n

Mr. Rashmi Ranjan Nayak, learned counsel for the appellants argued that since as per the F.I.R., four unknown persons committed the crime and the four persons, i.e. appellants Raju @ Rajesh Behera, Baikuntha Bhoi, Prasanta Nayak and Bishnu Nayak faced trial and there is no mention in the charge that they along with others committed the crime and from the evidence of the informant (P.W.4), it also appears that four persons participated in the crime, therefore, the framing of charge for the offence under section 395 of the Indian Penal Code so also the conviction of the appellants under the said offence is not sustainable in the eyes of law. Learned counsel further argued that the informant being examined as P.W.4 has stated in the examination-in-chief that he knew the appellant Bishnu Charan Nayak and Rajesh Behera and throughout his deposition, he has also stated what overt act has been committed by those two appellants but all the same, the names of these two appellants are not there in the F.I.R. lodged by P.W.4, which creates a doubt about any acquaintance of P.W.4 with these two appellants.<\/p>\n

Arguments on behalf of counsel for respondents:<\/u><\/strong><\/p>\n

Mr. Priyabrata Tripathy, learned counsel appearing for the State, on the other hand, while supporting the impugned judgment and the order of conviction, submitted that it appears from the case records, for the appellants Baikuntha Bhoi and Prasanta Nayak, no T.I. parade has been conducted and these two appellants were also not identified by the informant (P.W.4) during trial. However, he submitted that since the appellant Raju @ Rajesh Behera and Bishnu Nayak have not only been identified in the T.I. parade by P.W.4 but also they were identified in Court during trial and there was recovery of money purse, photograph, xerox copy of the matriculation certificate and original PAN allotment letter of the informant (P.W.4) and six nos. of hundred rupees notes at the instance of the appellant Raju @ Rajesh Behera, the learned trial Court is quite justified in holding the appellants guilty of the offence charged.<\/p>\n

Held:<\/u><\/strong> The court held that, \u201cIn view of the foregoing discussions, I am of the humble view that the impugned judgment and order of conviction is not sustainable in the eye of law. Accordingly, the same is hereby set aside. All the four appellants are acquitted of the charge under section 395 of I.P.C. In the result, all the three criminal appeals are allowed. Since all the appellants are on bail, they are discharged from the liability of their bail bonds and surety bonds stood cancelled.\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Baikuntha Bhoi\u00a0 \u00a0[ Appellants]\u00a0 Vs.\u00a0 \u00a0State of Odisha\u00a0 [ Respondent] CRLA No. 21 of 2012 (THE HON\u2019BLE MR. JUSTICE S.K. SAHOO)   Facts: The appellants Baikuntha Bhoi and Prasanta Nayak in CRLA No. 21 of 2012, the appellant Bishnu Nayak in CRLA No.504 of 2012 and the appellant Raju @ Rajesh Behera in CRLA No. […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":2007,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[12],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-2005","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-judgement"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2005","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=2005"}],"version-history":[{"count":2,"href":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2005\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":2009,"href":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2005\/revisions\/2009"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/2007"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=2005"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=2005"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=2005"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}