High CourtsDivision Bench(2007) 05 OHC CK 0015

Sri Taranisen Pradhan vs State of Orissa and Others

Orissa High Court · Decided on 16 May 2007 · Citation: (2007) 2 OLR 109 Supp

HON’BLE JUDGES
A.K. Ganguly, C.J · I. Mahanty, J
CASE NUMBER
Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 116 of 2006

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

7 paragraphs · 343 words

I. Mahanty, J.—Heard learned Counsel for the parties.

2.

This writ application has been filed by Taranisen Pradhan complaining that his daughter Dipanjali Gadatia and his grand-son Suvam Jyoti Gadatia, who were last seen with Prasanna Kumar Gadatia, opposite party No. 5 on 28.12.2003 and are untraceable till date. The marriage of the Petitioner''s daughter-Dipanjali was solemnized with Prasanna Kumar Gadatia on 26.6.2002. Thereafter, troubles started on the allegation that the daughter of the Petitioner was tortured. Ultimately, on 28.12.2003 at about 8.30 A.M. Prasanna left the house of the Petitioner along with his wife Dipanjali and his son-Suvam Jyoti to his native place. Thereafter, they are not traceable and as such, an F.I.R. was lodged. Ultimately, a criminal case was initiated against Prasanna and as an accused he faced trial under Sections 364, 365, 328, 307, I.P.C. on the allegation that he had abducted Depanjali and her minor son. During trial the Petitioner was examined as a witness and deposed against O.P.5. This has ultimately resulted in the conviction of Prasanna u/s 364 I.P.C. and he was found not guilty u/s 365, 328 and 307 I.P.C. Prasanna has been convicted to undergo R.I. for seven years and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/- in default, R.I. for another six months u/s 364 I.P.C.

3.

Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the trial was not properly conducted and there is no reason as to why O.P.5 was not convicted u/s 307 I.P.C.

4.

Learned Counsel for the State submits that in the aforesaid background of the facts, he will take instruction from the appropriate authority whether any appeal should be filled by the State or not. If such instruction is given, the State would file an appeal if necessary by filing an application for condonation of delay. In that view of the matter, no further order can be passed in the writ petition.

5.

Writ petition is, thus, disposed of.

6.

Free copy of this order be given to the learned Govt. Advocate for necessary compliance.

7.

Issue urgent certified copy.