{"id":163760,"date":"1991-07-09T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1991-07-08T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gagan-bihari-samal-and-anr-vs-state-of-orissa-on-9-july-1991"},"modified":"2017-07-03T03:24:18","modified_gmt":"2017-07-02T21:54:18","slug":"gagan-bihari-samal-and-anr-vs-state-of-orissa-on-9-july-1991","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gagan-bihari-samal-and-anr-vs-state-of-orissa-on-9-july-1991","title":{"rendered":"Gagan Bihari Samal And Anr vs State Of Orissa on 9 July, 1991"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Gagan Bihari Samal And Anr vs State Of Orissa on 9 July, 1991<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_citations\">Equivalent citations: 1991 SCR  (2) 839, \t  1991 SCC  (3) 562<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_author\">Author: B Ray<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_bench\">Bench: Ray, B.C. (J)<\/div>\n<pre>           PETITIONER:\nGAGAN BIHARI SAMAL AND ANR.\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nSTATE OF ORISSA\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT09\/07\/1991\n\nBENCH:\nRAY, B.C. (J)\nBENCH:\nRAY, B.C. (J)\nAGRAWAL, S.C. (J)\n\nCITATION:\n 1991 SCR  (2) 839\t  1991 SCC  (3) 562\n JT 1991 (3)\t63\t  1991 SCALE  (2)89\n\n\nACT:\n     Constitution   of\tIndia:\tArticle\t 136-Special   leave\npetition-Concurrent   findings\tof   facts-Re-appraisal\t  of\nevidence-Whether could be considered.\n     Indian    Penal\tCode,\t 1860:\t   S.376-Rape-Trial-\nUncontroverted\ttestimony of victim-Making out\tthe  offence\nagainst the accused persons-Conviction and sentence  awarded\nby trial court-Maintained by appellate court and High  Court\nin  revision-Validity of-Corroboration not the sine qua\t non\nfor conviction.\n     Evidence\tAct,  1872:  S.\t 114A-Evidence-Victim\tgirl\nsubjected to sexual assault forcibly-Protest and struggle by\nvictim-Absence of consent-Presumption of.\n     Criminal\tProcedure  Code,  1973:\t S.   401-Revisional\njurisdiction-High Court-Whether could reappraise evidence.\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\n     The  appellants forcibly took P.W. 2 to a lonely  place\non 19.3.1983, made her to drink liquor and committed  sexual\nassault on her.\t Thereafter they left her in a truck.  While\nthe  said truck was unloading materials near a village,\t the\nvictim stealthily left the truck and concealed herself\tnear\na  fence.  P.W. 7 rescued her and took her to the  house  of\nP.W.  8, one of her distant relative, from where her  father\nP.W.  1\t took her back and lodged the report at\t the  police\nstation.   A  case  under  ss. 363  and\t 376  read  with  s.\n341.I.P.C.  was\t registered  against  both  the\t appellants.\nAfter  completion of the investigation, a charge  sheet\t was\nsubmitted  and the appellants were tried for  the  aforesaid\noffences.\n     The  appellants denied the prosecution allegations\t and\npleaded that they were falsely implicated because of refusal\nby  one of them to marry the girl and previous\tenmity\twith\nthe  other.   The  Assistant  Sessions\tJudge  rejected\t the\ndefence pleas, and found that the appellants committed\trape\non the victim without her consent, and relying on s. 114A of\nthe   Evidence\tAct,  convicted\t the  appellants  under\t  s.\n376(2)(g),  I.P.C.  and sentenced each of them\tto  rigorous\nimprisonment for three\n\t\t\t\t\t\t       840\nyears.\tSince the victim was more than 16 years of age,\t the\nappellants were acquitted of the charge under s. 363, I.P.C.\n     On dismissal of their appeal against the conviction and\nsentence by the Addl. Session Judge, the appellants filed  a\nrevision application before the High Court.\n     The  High\tCourt  duly  considered\t and  appraised\t the\nevidence and held that the appellants committed rape on PW 2\nforcibly  without  her consent.\t Ultimately  the  appellants\ncame in appeal by special leave to this Court.\n     Dismissing the appeal, this Court,\n     HELD: 1. In cases of rape, generally it is difficult to\nfind  any corroborative witnesses except the victim  of\t the\nrape.  However, corroboration is not the sine que non for  a\nconviction  in a rape case.  In the Indian setting,  refusal\nto act on the testimony of a victim of sexual assault in the\nabsence\t of  corroboration as a rule, is  adding  insult  to\ninjury. [843D-F]\n     <a href=\"\/doc\/207774\/\">Bharwada Bhoginbhai Hirjibhai v. State of Gujarat,\t AIR<\/a>\n1983 SC 753 and <a href=\"\/doc\/1420504\/\">Rameshwar v. The State of Rajasthan,<\/a>  [1952]\nSCR 377, relied on.\n     2. In the instant case, the victim girl clearly  stated\nin her evidence that she had been taken to a solitary  house\nin the hills by appellant no. 1 where she was made to  drink\nliquor\tand  thereafter\t she  was  undressed  and   forcibly\nsubjected  to  sexual  intercourse  by\tboth  the   accused-\nappellants   one  after\t the  other.\tHer   uncontroverted\ntestimony   was\t accepted  by  all  the\t courts\t  and\tthey\nconcurrently  found  that  she had been\t raped\twithout\t her\nconsent. [844F-G]\n     3. Apart from the legal presumption that flows from the\nprovisions  of\ts. 114A of the Evidence Act, it\t is  clearly\nevident in the instant case, that the victim girl  protested\nand  struggled\twhile she was subjected\t to  sexual  assault\nforcibly  by  the accused persons and this  clearly  evinces\nabsence\t of consent on her part in such sexual\tintercourse.\n[844H; 845A]\n     4.\t The  High  Court rightly held\tthat  it  cannot  be\nexpected  to re-appraise the evidence as a court  of  appeal\nwhile exercising its revisional power under s. 401 Cr.\tP.C.\n[845E-F]\n\t\t\t\t\t\t       841\n     <a href=\"\/doc\/1726804\/\">State  of Orissa v. Nakula Sahu and Ors., AIR<\/a>  1979  SC\n663, relied on.\n     5. This Court hearing an appeal by special leave cannot\nconsider and re-appraise the evidence once again in the face\nof concurrent findings of facts arrived at by all the courts\nbelow. [845F]\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n<p>     CRIMINAL  APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal\t appeal\t No.<br \/>\n383 of 1991.\n<\/p>\n<p>     From  the\tJudgment and Order dated  17.7.1990  of\t the<br \/>\nOrissa High Court in Crl. Rev. No. 382 of 1986.\n<\/p>\n<p>     Janaranjan Das for the Appellants.\n<\/p>\n<p>     A.K. Panda for the Respondent.\n<\/p>\n<p>     The Judgment of the Court was delivered by<br \/>\n     RAY, J. Special leave granted.  Arguments heard.<br \/>\n     This  appeal by special leave is directed\tagainst\t the<br \/>\njudgment  and order dated July 17, 1990 passed by  the\tHigh<br \/>\nCourt  of  Orissa  in  Criminal Revision  No.  382  of\t1986<br \/>\ndismissing   the  revision  and\t affirming  the\t  concurrent<br \/>\nfindings  of  the  courts below.  The  prosecution  case  in<br \/>\nshort is that on 19th March, 1983 at about 7.p.m. while\t the<br \/>\nvictim\tgirl  Srimanthini Samal (P.W. 2) was  going  to\t the<br \/>\nhouse of Rama Samal, for study, the appellant Gagan informed<br \/>\nher  that the other appellant Prafulla and others  had\ttied<br \/>\nher  tutor Rabi Babu in a nearby mango grove and her  father<br \/>\nwas  present  there.   Having believed the  version  of\t the<br \/>\nappellant Gagan, her agnatic uncle, she accompanied him\t and<br \/>\nultimately  the\t appellants forcibly took her  to  a  lonely<br \/>\nhouse in hills where she was made to sit on a chair and\t the<br \/>\nappellant  Gagan  forcibly thrushed in her  mouth  a  liquor<br \/>\nbottle\tand  she was made to drink the\tliquor.\t  Thereafter<br \/>\nboth  the  appellants after having undressed  her  committed<br \/>\nsexual\tassault on her.\t Then she was brought to  expression<br \/>\nhighway from where she was bodily lifted to a truck standing<br \/>\nthere  and left her in the truck.  While the said truck\t was<br \/>\nunloading materials near village Kurujanga, the victim\tgirl<br \/>\nstealthily left the truck and concealed her presence near  a<br \/>\nfence.\tSubsequently, one Purusottam Mohanty rescued her and<br \/>\nbrought her to his house and then she was left to the  house<br \/>\nof one Niranjan Rout (P.W. 8), who was distantly related  to<br \/>\nher and took shelter till her father took her back on being<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">\t\t\t\t\t\t       842<\/span><br \/>\ninformed.  On the information lodged by her father (P.W.  1)<br \/>\nin the police station of Badachana a case under sections 363<br \/>\nand  376 read with section 34 of the I.P.C.  was  registered<br \/>\nagainst\t the accused appellants and after investigation\t the<br \/>\nI.O.  sent  the victim girl as well as\tthe  appellants\t for<br \/>\nmedical\t  examination\tand   after   completion   of\t the<br \/>\ninvestigation  a  charge  sheet was  submitted\tagainst\t the<br \/>\nappellants   to\t stand\ttheir  trial.\tThe  pleas  of\t the<br \/>\nappellants were a total denial of the prosecution case.\t The<br \/>\nappellant  Prafulla took the plea the there was\t a  marriage<br \/>\nproposal  of  the  victim  girl with him  but  when  it\t was<br \/>\ndisclosed  that she had illicit relationship with her  tutor<br \/>\nRabi,  he refused to marry her for which this false case was<br \/>\nfoisted against him.  The plea of the other appellant  Gagan<br \/>\nas suggested to the informant, was that due to his  previous<br \/>\nenmity he was falsely implicated with the alleged crime.\n<\/p>\n<p>     The appellants were committed to the Court of Sessions.<br \/>\nThe  learned Assistant Sessions Judge after considering\t the<br \/>\nevidences  on record rejected the defence pleas,  and  found<br \/>\nthat  the  accused appellants committed rape on\t the  victim<br \/>\ngirl  without  her  consent relying  on\t the  provisions  of<br \/>\nSection 114(A) of the Evidence Act, and convicted them under<br \/>\nsection\t 376(2)(g) I.P.C. and sentenced each of the  accused<br \/>\nappellants   to\t rigorous  imprisonment\t for   three   years<br \/>\nconsidering the young age of the appellants.  The  Assistant<br \/>\nSessions  Judge, however, acquitted the appellants from\t the<br \/>\ncharge under section 366 I.P.C. as the victim girl was\tmore<br \/>\nthan 16 years of age at the time of occurrence.\n<\/p>\n<p>     Against  this  judgment  and order\t of  conviction\t the<br \/>\nappellants filed an appeal being Criminal Appeal No. 153  of<br \/>\n1984  in  the  Court of\t First\tAdditional  Sessions  Judge,<br \/>\nCuttack.  The Additional Sessions Judge considered the pleas<br \/>\nof the appellants as well  as duly scrutinized and appraised<br \/>\nthe   evidences\t on  record  and  found\t that  the   accused<br \/>\nappellants  committed  rape on the victim girl\twithout\t her<br \/>\nconsent and affirmed the conviction and sentence imposed  by<br \/>\nthe Trial Court dismissing the appeal.\n<\/p>\n<p>     The  appellants thereafter filed a Revision Case  being<br \/>\nCriminal  Revision  No.\t 382 of 1986 in the  High  Court  of<br \/>\nOrissa at Cuttack against the said judgment and order passed<br \/>\nby  the First Additional Sessions Judge, Cuttack.  The\tHigh<br \/>\nCourt duly considered and appraised the evidences of all the<br \/>\n9  P.  Ws.  including  the deposition  of  the\tvictim\tgirl<br \/>\nSrimanthni Samal (P.W. 2), the evidence of her father  (P.W.\n<\/p>\n<p>1)  as well as the evidence of her mother (P.W. 3)  and\t the<br \/>\nevidences of the two Doctors (P.W. 4) and P.W. (5) and\theld<br \/>\nthat  the accused persons committed rap on P.W.\t 2  forcibly<br \/>\nwithout her con-\n<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">\t\t\t\t\t\t       843<\/span><\/p>\n<p>sent. It has been further found from the reliable  evidences<br \/>\nof P.Ws. 1 and 3 that as soon as P.W. 2 met her mother, P.W.<br \/>\n3,  P.W.  2 told her mother about both the  accused  persons<br \/>\ncommitting  rape on her in a solitary house and\t also  about<br \/>\nthe  accused  persons  taking her away to  the\thighway\t and<br \/>\nkeeping her in a truck, and corroborate the version of\tP.W.<br \/>\n2  regarding the occurrence of rape committed n her by\tboth<br \/>\nthe accused persons.  It has been further observed that even<br \/>\nthough\tthe  P.Ws. 7 and 8 became hostile still\t then  their<br \/>\nevidences  can\tbe  safely  relied  on\tas  the\t same  fully<br \/>\ncorroborates  the  version of P.W. 2 that  on  the  relevant<br \/>\nnight the she, with the help of P.W. 7 had taken shelter  in<br \/>\nthe  house of P.W. 8 P.W. 6 who the driver of the truck\t No.<br \/>\nORG-4839  also\tstated\tin his\tevidence  that\tthe  accused<br \/>\npersons and two others took the victim girl and left her  in<br \/>\nthe  truck. P.W. 6 further admitted that as he\tstopped\t the<br \/>\ntruck at village Ambura for unloading the boulders, the girl<br \/>\nhad  stealthily left his truck and inspite of his  searching<br \/>\nher,  he  could\t not trace her.\t  This\tfully  supports\t the<br \/>\nversion\t of  P.W. 2 that she left the  truck  and  concealed<br \/>\nherself\t near  a  fence in  darkness.\tThe  learned  Judge,<br \/>\ntherefore,  held  &#8220;Hence,  on  a  careful  scrutiny  of\t the<br \/>\nevidences of the hostile witnesses P.Ws. 6 and 8 it is\tseen<br \/>\nthat even they corroborate the evidence of the victim  gild,<br \/>\nP.W. 2 on material aspects of the prosecution case.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>     In cases of rape, generally it is difficult to find any<br \/>\ncorroborative  witnesses except the victim of the rape.\t  It<br \/>\nhas  been  observed  by this Court  in\t<a href=\"\/doc\/207774\/\">Bharwada  Bhoginbhai<br \/>\nHirjibhai v. State of Gujarat, AIR<\/a> 1983 SC 753 as follows:<br \/>\n\t &#8220;Corroboration\t is  not  the sine  qua\t non  for  a<br \/>\n\t conviction in a rape case.  In the Indian  setting,<br \/>\n\t refusal  to  act on the testimony of  a  victim  of<br \/>\n\t sexual assault inthe absence of corroboration as  a<br \/>\n\t rule,\tis adding insult to injury.  Why should\t the<br \/>\n\t evidence of the girl or the woman who complains  of<br \/>\n\t rape  or sexual molestation be viewed with the\t aid<br \/>\n\t of  spectacles\t fitted\t with  lenses  tinged\twith<br \/>\n\t doubt,\t disbelief  or\tsuspicion? To do  so  is  to<br \/>\n\t justify  the  charge of male chauvinism in  a\tmale<br \/>\n\t dominated society.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t  A  girl  or a woman in the  tradition\t bound\tnon-<br \/>\n\t permissive  society  of India\twould  be  extremely<br \/>\n\t reluctant even to admit that only incident which is<br \/>\n\t likely\t  to  reflect  on  her\tchastity  had\tever<br \/>\n\t occurred.  She would be conscious of the danger  of<br \/>\n\t being\tostracized  by the society or  being  looked<br \/>\n\t down  by  the society including by her\t own  family<br \/>\n\t members,<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">\t\t\t\t\t\t       844<\/span><br \/>\n\t relatives, friends, and neighbours.  She would face<br \/>\n\t the risk of losing the love and respect of her\t own<br \/>\n\t husband and near relatives, and of her\t matrimonial<br \/>\n\t home  and  happiness being shattered.\t If  she  is<br \/>\n\t unmarried,  she  would apprehend that it  would  be<br \/>\n\t difficult  to\tsecure an alliance with\t a  suitable<br \/>\n\t match\tfrom a respectable or an acceptable  family.<br \/>\n\t In  view of these and similar factors, the  victims<br \/>\n\t and  their relatives are not too keen to bring\t the<br \/>\n\t culprit  to  book.  And when in the face  of  these<br \/>\n\t factors  the crime is brought to light there  is  a<br \/>\n\t built-in  assurance  that  the\t charge\t is  genuine<br \/>\n\t rather than fabricated.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>The above observation has been made by this Court relying on<br \/>\nthe earlier observations made by this Court in <a href=\"\/doc\/1420504\/\">Rameshwar  v.<br \/>\nThe  State  of\tRajasthan,<\/a> [1982] SCR  377  with  regard  to<br \/>\ncorroboration of girl&#8217;s testimony and version.\tVivian Bose,<br \/>\nJ, who spoke for the Court observed as follows:<br \/>\n\t &#8220;The rule, which according to the case has hardened<br \/>\n\t into  one  of\tlaw, is not  that  corroboration  is<br \/>\n\t essential before there can be a conviction but that<br \/>\n\t the  necessity\t of corroboration, as  a  matter  of<br \/>\n\t prudence,  except where the circumstances  make  it<br \/>\n\t safe  to dispense with it, must be present  to\t the<br \/>\n\t mind of the judge, &#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;.The only rule<br \/>\n\t of  law  is   that this rule of  prudence  must  be<br \/>\n\t present to the mind of the judge or the jury as the<br \/>\n\t case  may be and be understood and  appreciated  by<br \/>\n\t him  or  them.\t There is no rule of  practice\tthat<br \/>\n\t there must, in very case, be corroboration before a<br \/>\n\t conviction can be allowed to stand.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>     In\t the instant appeal as had been stated\thereinbefore<br \/>\nthat  P.W.  2,\tthe victim girl has clearly  stated  in\t her<br \/>\nevidence that she had been taken to a solitary house in\t the<br \/>\nhills  by the appellant no. 1 Gagan Bihari Samal  and  there<br \/>\nshe  was  made\tto  drink  liquor  and\tthereafter  she\t was<br \/>\nundressed  and forcibly subjected to sexual  intercourse  by<br \/>\nboth  the  accused  appellants\tone  after  the\t other.\t  He<br \/>\nuncontroverted testimony has been accepted by all the courts<br \/>\nand the courts concurrently found that she was raped without<br \/>\nher consent.  It has been tried to be contended on behalf of<br \/>\nthe  appellants that the amended section 114(A) was  brought<br \/>\ninto  the Evidence Act after the commission of\tthe  offence<br \/>\nfor  which  the\t appellants  were charged  and\tas  such  no<br \/>\nassumption can be made on the basis of this provision.\tThis<br \/>\nsubmission  is\tof  no avail in as much\t as  it\t is  clearly<br \/>\nevident that the victim girl protested and<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">\t\t\t\t\t\t       845<\/span><br \/>\nstruggled while she was subjected to sexual assault forcibly<br \/>\nby  the accused persons and this clearly evinces absence  of<br \/>\nconsent\t  on  part  of\tthe  victim  girl  in  such   sexual<br \/>\nintercourse  apart from the legal presumption  that  follows<br \/>\nfrom  the provisions of Section 114(A) of the Evidence\tAct.<br \/>\nThe  learned  counsel on behalf of  the\t appellants  further<br \/>\ntried  to argue on the basis of some minor discrepancies  in<br \/>\nthe  evidences\tof P.W. 2 that the prosecution\tcase  was  a<br \/>\nfalse  one and it has been foisted on the appellants due  to<br \/>\nenmity\tand  also  due\tto  accused  Prafulla,\tone  of\t the<br \/>\nappellants, having disagreed to marry the victim girl.\t The<br \/>\ncourts\tbelow have clearly found that the defence  case\t was<br \/>\nnot  at all sub-stantiated by any cogent evidence.  So\tthis<br \/>\ncontention is not at all tenable.\n<\/p>\n<p>     It\t is apropos to mention here the observation made  by<br \/>\nthis Court in the case of <a href=\"\/doc\/1726804\/\">State of Orissa v. Nakula Sahu and<br \/>\nOrs., AIR<\/a> 1979 SC 663 which are set-out herein:<br \/>\n\t &#8220;Although  the revisional power of the\t High  Court<br \/>\n\t under Section 439 read with section 435 is as\twide<br \/>\n\t as  the power of Court of appeal under Sec. 423  of<br \/>\n\t the Code, it is now well settled that normally\t the<br \/>\n\t jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 439 is<br \/>\n\t to  be\t exercised only in  exceptional\t cases\twhen<br \/>\n\t there is a glaring defect in the procedure or there<br \/>\n\t is  a\tmanifest error on a point of law  which\t has<br \/>\n\t consequently  resulted in flagrant  miscarriage  of<br \/>\n\t justice.   Inspite of the wide language of  Section<br \/>\n\t 435,  the High Court is not excepted to  act  under<br \/>\n\t Section  435 or Section 439 as if it is hearing  an<br \/>\n\t appeal.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>The  High Court of Orissa referred to the  said\t observation<br \/>\nand  rightly held that the High Court cannot be expected  to<br \/>\nre-appraise  the evidence as a court of appeal.\t This  Court<br \/>\nhearing\t an appeal by special leave cannot consider and\t re-<br \/>\nappraise the evidences once again in the face of  concurrent<br \/>\nfindings of facts arrived at by all the courts below.\n<\/p>\n<p>     For  the  reasons aforesaid we dismiss the\t appeal\t and<br \/>\nuphold\tthe  conviction and sentence as found  by  the\tHigh<br \/>\nCourt.\n<\/p>\n<pre>R.P.\t\t\t\t\t   Appeal dismissed.\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">\t\t\t\t\t\t       846<\/span>\n\n\n\n<\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Supreme Court of India Gagan Bihari Samal And Anr vs State Of Orissa on 9 July, 1991 Equivalent citations: 1991 SCR (2) 839, 1991 SCC (3) 562 Author: B Ray Bench: Ray, B.C. (J) PETITIONER: GAGAN BIHARI SAMAL AND ANR. Vs. RESPONDENT: STATE OF ORISSA DATE OF JUDGMENT09\/07\/1991 BENCH: RAY, B.C. (J) BENCH: RAY, B.C. [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-163760","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.3 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Gagan Bihari Samal And Anr vs State Of Orissa on 9 July, 1991 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gagan-bihari-samal-and-anr-vs-state-of-orissa-on-9-july-1991\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Gagan Bihari Samal And Anr vs State Of Orissa on 9 July, 1991 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gagan-bihari-samal-and-anr-vs-state-of-orissa-on-9-july-1991\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"1991-07-08T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-07-02T21:54:18+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"14 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/gagan-bihari-samal-and-anr-vs-state-of-orissa-on-9-july-1991#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/gagan-bihari-samal-and-anr-vs-state-of-orissa-on-9-july-1991\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Gagan Bihari Samal And Anr vs State Of Orissa on 9 July, 1991\",\"datePublished\":\"1991-07-08T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-07-02T21:54:18+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/gagan-bihari-samal-and-anr-vs-state-of-orissa-on-9-july-1991\"},\"wordCount\":2028,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/gagan-bihari-samal-and-anr-vs-state-of-orissa-on-9-july-1991#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/gagan-bihari-samal-and-anr-vs-state-of-orissa-on-9-july-1991\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/gagan-bihari-samal-and-anr-vs-state-of-orissa-on-9-july-1991\",\"name\":\"Gagan Bihari Samal And Anr vs State Of Orissa on 9 July, 1991 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1991-07-08T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-07-02T21:54:18+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/gagan-bihari-samal-and-anr-vs-state-of-orissa-on-9-july-1991#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/gagan-bihari-samal-and-anr-vs-state-of-orissa-on-9-july-1991\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/gagan-bihari-samal-and-anr-vs-state-of-orissa-on-9-july-1991#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Gagan Bihari Samal And Anr vs State Of Orissa on 9 July, 1991\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Gagan Bihari Samal And Anr vs State Of Orissa on 9 July, 1991 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gagan-bihari-samal-and-anr-vs-state-of-orissa-on-9-july-1991","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Gagan Bihari Samal And Anr vs State Of Orissa on 9 July, 1991 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gagan-bihari-samal-and-anr-vs-state-of-orissa-on-9-july-1991","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1991-07-08T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-07-02T21:54:18+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"14 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gagan-bihari-samal-and-anr-vs-state-of-orissa-on-9-july-1991#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gagan-bihari-samal-and-anr-vs-state-of-orissa-on-9-july-1991"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Gagan Bihari Samal And Anr vs State Of Orissa on 9 July, 1991","datePublished":"1991-07-08T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-07-02T21:54:18+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gagan-bihari-samal-and-anr-vs-state-of-orissa-on-9-july-1991"},"wordCount":2028,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gagan-bihari-samal-and-anr-vs-state-of-orissa-on-9-july-1991#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gagan-bihari-samal-and-anr-vs-state-of-orissa-on-9-july-1991","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gagan-bihari-samal-and-anr-vs-state-of-orissa-on-9-july-1991","name":"Gagan Bihari Samal And Anr vs State Of Orissa on 9 July, 1991 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1991-07-08T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-07-02T21:54:18+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gagan-bihari-samal-and-anr-vs-state-of-orissa-on-9-july-1991#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gagan-bihari-samal-and-anr-vs-state-of-orissa-on-9-july-1991"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gagan-bihari-samal-and-anr-vs-state-of-orissa-on-9-july-1991#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Gagan Bihari Samal And Anr vs State Of Orissa on 9 July, 1991"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/163760","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=163760"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/163760\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=163760"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=163760"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=163760"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}