Allowed

Niranjan Sahoo v. State of Odisha

Orissa HC23 Mar 2023CRLMC/1126/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Orissa allowed the matter on the basis that the informant's record indicates the presence of his brother during the occurrence, justifying the summons of Nagen Chandra Sahoo under Section 311 Cr.P.C., though Sandeep Kumar Pradhan was not summoned.

What did the court decide?

Set aside impugned order to the extent of directing the court below to summon Dr. Nagen Chandra Sahoo as a witness.

Niranjan Sahoo Vs State of Odisha — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Orissa HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

¶2

CRLMC No. 1126 of 2023

Niranjan Sahoo

….

Petitioner

Mr. D.K. Sahoo, Adv.

-Versus -

State of Odisha

…. Opposite Party Mr. N. Pratap, ASC

¶10

CORAM: JUSTICE SASHIKANTA MISHRA

¶11

ORDER_ 23.03.2023

¶12

Order No. 01.

¶13

This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.

¶14

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Addl.

¶15

Standing Counsel.

¶16

The petitioner is aggrieved by order dated 11.10.2022 passed by learned J.M.F.C. (C.T.), Kendrapara.

¶17

The petitioner is the informant having lodged the FIR in Derabis P.S. Case No.135 of 2021 leading to institution of the aforementioned case.

¶18

In course of trial, he filed an application under Section 311 of Cr.P.C. on 15.02.2022 with prayer to summon Nagen Chandra Sahoo and Sandeep Kumar Pradhan as witnesses in the case as they were not shown as witnesses in the charge sheet. The Court below rejected the petition on the ground that the informant, while deposing before the court has stated that no outsiders were present during occurrence nor the witnesses proposed to be summoned have been cited in the spot map.

¶19

It is submitted by Mr. D.K. Sahoo, learned counsel for the petitioner that the informant has clearly mentioned in the FIR that his brother, Nagen Chandra Sahoo was present during the

¶20

Page 1 of 1

¶21

occurrence. He also stated the same fact in his statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. by the I.O.. Though he did not specifically mention the name of his brother as being an eyewitness in his examination-in-chief while being examined as P.W.-1 in trial, yet he clearly stated in cross-examination that his brother had scribed the FIR on the same day of the occurrence.

¶22

Having perused the FIR and the 161 Cr.P.C. statement of the informant as also the copy of the deposition of the informant (P.W.-1), it is evident that there is a reference to his brother, whose name is said to be Dr. Nagen Chandra Sahoo. Though he has also mentioned in the cross-examination that no outsider was present, but the same will obviously not include his family members. As already stated, the informant has stated in clear terms about the presence of his brother and his sons at the time of occurrence in the FIR as well as in the statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. Therefore, reference to outsiders cannot obviously include such close relations. However, there is no mention of the name of Sandeep Kumar Pradhan in either of the documents and deposition of the informant referred above.

¶23

In the result, the CRLMC is allowed. The impugned order is set aside only to the extent of directing the court below to summon Dr. Nagen Chandra Sahoo as witness.

¶24

( Sashikanta Mishra)

¶25

Judge

¶26

A.K. Rana

¶27

Page 2 of 2

Niranjan Sahoo v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Niranjan Sahoo v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sk.Mirzazuddin Vs Republic of India

Rama Chandra Naik Vs State

Harekrushna Naik Vs San Padma Ch.Naik

Kasti Behera Vs State

Markanda Paik Vs Secy.Govt.of Orissa

Babul @ Ashok Kumar Jena Vs State of Odisha