Dinabandhu v. State
Case brief
What is this about?
High Court of Orissa allowed criminal appeal in part, upholding conviction for voluntarily causing hurt under Section 332 IPC but modifying sentence to time already undergone, noting the offence was committed twenty years prior.
What did the court decide?
Conviction maintained; sentence modified to the period already undergone.
What the court decided
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
CRA No. 29 of 1995
(An application under Sub-Section (2) of Section 374, read with Section 382, Criminal Procedure Code, 1973)
---------------
AFR Dinabandhu Lenka & Another ...… Appellants -VersusState of Odisha ...... Respondent
Advocate(s) appeared in this case:-
For Appellants : M/S. D.P.Dhal,
A.K.Acharya, D.K.Das, B.R. Panda
Advocates.
For Respondent : Mr. R.N.MIshra-II
Additional Government Advocate
CORAM:
JUSTICE SASHIKANTA MISHRA
JUDGMENT
4 th April, 2023
SASHIKANTA MISHRA, J. The appellant questions the correctness
of the judgment of conviction and sentence passed on 07.01.1995 by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bolangir in S.T. Case No. 32/190 of 1993 whereby he was convicted
Issues for consideration
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the conviction under Section 332 IPC should be maintained despite the expiry of the informant and the outbreaking of facts.
Whether the appellant should be granted modification of sentence considering the time elapsed and period already served.
Parties & counsel
- appellant
AFR Dinabandhu Lenka & Another
- respondent
State of Odisha
Coram
SASHIKANTA MISHRA
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court