{"id":189829,"date":"2010-05-05T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-05-04T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-orissa-vs-unknown-on-5-may-2010"},"modified":"2015-07-15T13:46:20","modified_gmt":"2015-07-15T08:16:20","slug":"state-of-orissa-vs-unknown-on-5-may-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-orissa-vs-unknown-on-5-may-2010","title":{"rendered":"State Of Orissa vs Unknown on 5 May, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Orissa High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">State Of Orissa vs Unknown on 5 May, 2010<\/div>\n<pre>                             PRADIP MOHANTY, J &amp; B. K. NAYAK, J.\n<\/pre>\n<p>      CRIMINAL REFERENCE NO.1 OF 2002 (Decided on 05.05.2010)<\/p>\n<p>STATE OF ORISSA                                 &#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;.          Petitioner.\n<\/p>\n<p>                                     .Vrs.\n<\/p>\n<pre>KUNDA @ BHATUA LAKRA                              ..............       Opp.Party.\n\n\nCRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE, 1973 (ACT NO.2 OF 1974) - SEC.318.\n\n\n\n\n     For Petitioner - Mr. J.P.Pattnaik,\n                      Addl.Government Advocate.\n     For Opp.Party - Mr. D.P.Dhal &amp; S.K.Sahoo.\n\n\nPRADIP MOHANTY, J.           The learned Sessions Judge, Sundargarh having convicted the accused-\n<\/pre>\n<p>opposite party under Section 302, IPC by judgment dated 12.11.2002 in Sessions Trial No. 201 of<br \/>\n1998 has made this reference under Section 318 Cr.P.C. for passing of necessary orders regarding<br \/>\nimposition of sentence by this Court being of the view that the accused is unable to understand the<br \/>\nproceedings.\n<\/p>\n<p>2.      The case of the prosecution as unfolded during trial is that the accused-opposite party, a deaf<br \/>\nand dumb, was residing with his father, mother, brother and sister-in-law at village Chandiposh. He<br \/>\nused to loiter in the village and was avoiding any work for which his father was often becoming<br \/>\ndispleased with him. On the date of occurrence, i.e., 19.03.1998, a quarrel ensued between the<br \/>\naccused and his deceased father on a flimsy ground. Consequently, the accused picked up a<br \/>\nwooden plank (a piece of fire-wood) and mercilessly assaulted on the head, back, arms and body of<br \/>\nhis father causing severe bleeding injuries, which resulted in his death. The further case of the<br \/>\nprosecution is that the accused was digging a grave near their house to bury his deceased father.<br \/>\nWhile doing so, the villagers arrived. Seeing them, the accused tried to escape but he was caught<br \/>\nhold of and tied. Then the villagers took him to the Rajgangpur Police Station along with the weapon of<br \/>\noffence. The informant orally reported the matter before the I.I.C. of the said Police Station, who<br \/>\nreduced his oral report to writing, registered the case and took up investigation. Upon completion of<br \/>\ninvestigation, the I.O. submitted charge-sheet against the accused-opposite party under Section 302,<br \/>\nIPC.\n<\/p>\n<p>3.     In course of trial, to bring home the charge, prosecution examined as many as eleven<br \/>\nwitnesses including the doctor and exhibited 14 documents. Defence examined none. Being a deaf<br \/>\nand dumb, the accused-opposite party did not take any plea in course of his examination under<br \/>\n Section 313 Cr.P.C. and his examination could not be carried out by the court in spite of taking<br \/>\nassistance of an interpreter summoned from the School of Deaf and Dumb.\n<\/p>\n<p>4.       It is well settled that before making a reference under Section 318, Cr.P.C. it is obligatory on<br \/>\nthe trial court to make necessary enquiries and endeavour to find out if the accused can be made to<br \/>\nunderstand the proceedings and come to a definite conclusion. The law is also well settled that in<br \/>\ncase of accused, who is deaf and dumb and against whom a finding of conviction is returned by the<br \/>\ntrial court, the High Court has to satisfy itself whether a fair trial was conducted against him. This<br \/>\nCourt examined the records thoroughly. In the instant case, the accused-opposite party was properly<br \/>\ndefended before the trial court by a State Defence Counsel. Proper cross-examination of the<br \/>\nwitnesses was also carried out on behalf of the learned defence counsel. While recording the<br \/>\nstatement of the accused under Section 313, Cr.P.C., a specialist teacher from the School for Deaf<br \/>\nand Dumb, Sundargarh was engaged by the trial court as an interpreter. Although he made sincere<br \/>\nattempts to translate the questions put by the court to the accused, the accused could not be made to<br \/>\nunderstand the questions put to him and his responses were not intelligible to the court or to the<br \/>\ninterpreter. Therefore, this Court comes to a conclusion that the trial was conducted fairly by following<br \/>\nthe due procedure and sufficient opportunity was also afforded to the accused to defend his case.\n<\/p>\n<p>5.     There is no quarrel that the High Court while examining the materials on record in a reference<br \/>\n made under Section 318, Cr.P.C. may pass such orders as it thinks fit. In such view of the matter,<br \/>\n this Court proceeded to examine the evidence against the accused-opposite party.\n<\/p>\n<p>6.       P.W.6 is the informant and a co-villager of both the deceased and the accused-opposite party.<br \/>\nHe deposed that while he was ploughing his land, one Ram Bahadur intimated him about the<br \/>\noccurrence. He came to the house of the accused and saw the deceased lying inside the house near<br \/>\nthe entrance. There were injuries on his head, backside and legs. His left hand was fractured. One<br \/>\nbroken fire-wood stained with blood was found to have been kept by the side of the door frame. The<br \/>\naccused was digging a grave to bury the deceased. When he along with other villagers arrived there,<br \/>\nthe accused tried to run away and was caught hold of by them. He along with the mother and younger<br \/>\nbrother of the accused went to the police station. He orally reported about the occurrence before the<br \/>\nO.I.C., who reduced it to writing, read over and explained the same to him and finding the same to be<br \/>\ncorrect he put his signature. He corroborated the F.I.R. story. Nothing has been elicited in cross-<br \/>\nexamination to discredit his evidence. He admitted that the accused is a deaf and dumb and the<br \/>\nvillagers tease him saying mad. P.W.8, who is a neighbour of both the deceased and accused, is the<br \/>\nonly witness to the occurrence. She at the time of occurrence was the Panchayat Samiti Member. She<br \/>\nstated that her house is situated near the house of the deceased and the accused. She saw the<br \/>\naccused climbing on a Kendu tree and his father asking him that he should tie the bullocks and only<br \/>\nthen he would be given food. But, the accused indicated by gesture that he wanted food immediately.<br \/>\nAt that time, he had already climbed down from the kendu tree. Then altercation arose between them.<br \/>\nThe accused lost his temper, ran to the house, picked up a piece of fire wood and assaulted on both<br \/>\nthe hands and face of the deceased, as a result of which the deceased fell down. He gave few more<br \/>\nblows on his back, backside of the neck and other places for which his father died. Immediately<br \/>\nthereafter the accused picked up a spade and started digging a hole on the ground. At that time P.W.7<br \/>\nand other villagers arrived there. Seeing them he tried to run away from the spot but was chased and<br \/>\ncaught hold of by them. She stated that the accused was able to work and used to understand<br \/>\ngestures and communicate by gesturing. In cross-examination, she admitted that she had narrated the<br \/>\nincident to P.Ws.6 and 7. Medical evidence of P.W.11 also supports the version of P.W.8. P.W.11, who<br \/>\nconducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased, stated that all the injuries were ante mortem<br \/>\nin nature. The cause of death was due to injuries to vital organs, haemorrhage and shock. The death<br \/>\nof the deceased was homicidal in nature. He proved the post-mortem examination report marked<br \/>\nExt.14. P.W.11 answered to the query made by the I.O. that the injuries found on the body of the<br \/>\ndeceased could be caused by M.O.I, the wooden plank, and were sufficient to cause the death.<br \/>\n Nothing has been elicited from him in cross-examination. P.W.4, who is the wife of the deceased and<br \/>\nmother of the accused, deposed that at the time of occurrence she had been to the jungle for<br \/>\ncollecting green leaf. On return, she found her husband lying dead. She denied to have any<br \/>\nknowledge how her husband died. P.W.7 is a post-occurrence witness who supported the evidence of<br \/>\nP.W.8. Nothing has been elicited in cross-examination to disbelieve him as a reliable witness. P.W.1 is<br \/>\na witness to the inquest and seizure of the weapon of offence (wooden plank). He proved the inquest<br \/>\nreport (Ext.1), the seizure list (Ext.2) and his signature thereon. P.W.2 is a witness to the seizure of the<br \/>\nweapon of offence vide Ext.2 as well as the wearing apparels of the accused vide Ext.3. He proved<br \/>\nExts.2 and 3 and his signature thereon. P.W.3 is also a witness to the seizure of the weapon of offence<br \/>\nvide Ext.2 and the sample earth, blood stained earth vide Ext.4. P.W.10 is the I.O, who investigated<br \/>\ninto the case and ultimately filed the charge-sheet.\n<\/p>\n<p>7.       P.W.8 is the only witness to the assault on the deceased by the accused. Her house is situated<br \/>\nnear the house of the accused and the deceased. On her way back home from forest after picking up<br \/>\nsome wood, she had the occasion to witness the occurrence. She has given vivid description of the<br \/>\noccurrence in her evidence and the reason for the assault. Nothing has been elicited from cross-<br \/>\nexamination to discredit her testimony. She has further stated that after assaulting the deceased, the<br \/>\naccused started to dig a hole to bury him. At this juncture P.Ws.4, 6 and 7 arrived at the spot and<br \/>\nseeing them the accused started to run and was apprehended by the aforesaid three witnesses along<br \/>\nwith others. This part of the evidence of P.W.8 is corroborated by P.Ws.4, 6 and 7. P.W.8 being a<br \/>\nPanchayat Samiti Member commands respect in the area. It is not the case of the defence that she is<br \/>\ninimical to the accused. In our opinion, therefore, the evidence of P.W.8 inspires confidence. No doubt<br \/>\ndefence has pointed out certain contradictions in her evidence. Contradictions are bound to occur<br \/>\neven in case of a truthful witness but if the same are not material contradictions and do not go into the<br \/>\nroot of the prosecution case, the same are of no consequence and the defence cannot take aid of the<br \/>\nsame. All these witnesses are independent witnesses and they have no axe to grind against the<br \/>\naccused. Evidence of P.W.8 receives corroboration from the evidence of P.W.9, who stated that<br \/>\nhearing cries of P.W.8 she immediately came out of the kitchen room and saw her father-in-law lying<br \/>\ndead inside the room with bleeding injuries all over his body. The I.O. also proved Ext.13, the report<br \/>\nof the Chemical Examiner which shows that the blood stained earth seized from the spot were stained<br \/>\nwith human blood. Thus, from the materials available on record, it is evident that the accused-<br \/>\nopposite party is the assailant.\n<\/p>\n<p>8.      Now, the question is whether the act committed by the accused-opposite party comes within<br \/>\nthe purview of Section 302, IPC or Section 304 Part-I, IPC. On scanning the evidence of P.W.8, it is<br \/>\nfound that due to sudden altercation the accused-opposite party got provoked, lost control over him<br \/>\nand assaulted the deceased by means of a wooden plank, as a result of which the deceased died.<br \/>\nFurthermore, the accused-opposite party is a deaf and dumb. Therefore, this Court is of the opinion<br \/>\nthat the accused-opposite party is liable to be convicted under Section 304 Part-I, I.P.C.\n<\/p>\n<p>9. In the result, conviction of the accused-opposite party under Section 302, IPC, as made by the<br \/>\nlearned Sessions Judge, Sundargarh, is converted to one under Section 304 Part-I, IPC and the<br \/>\naccused-opposite party is sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years.\n<\/p>\n<p>      It is stated at the Bar that the accused-opposite party has remained in custody from the date of<br \/>\nhis remand and by now has completed more than ten years. If that be so, he accused opposite party<br \/>\nbe set at liberty forthwith, unless his detention is required otherwise.\n<\/p>\n<p>                                              Crimanal Reference answered.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Orissa High Court State Of Orissa vs Unknown on 5 May, 2010 PRADIP MOHANTY, J &amp; B. K. NAYAK, J. CRIMINAL REFERENCE NO.1 OF 2002 (Decided on 05.05.2010) STATE OF ORISSA &#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;. Petitioner. .Vrs. KUNDA @ BHATUA LAKRA &#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;.. Opp.Party. CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE, 1973 (ACT NO.2 OF 1974) &#8211; SEC.318. For Petitioner &#8211; Mr. J.P.Pattnaik, [&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":[8,25],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-189829","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-orissa-high-court"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.6 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>State Of Orissa vs Unknown on 5 May, 2010 - 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\/state-of-orissa-vs-unknown-on-5-may-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"State Of Orissa vs Unknown on 5 May, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-orissa-vs-unknown-on-5-may-2010\" \/>\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=\"2010-05-04T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-07-15T08:16:20+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=\"10 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-orissa-vs-unknown-on-5-may-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-orissa-vs-unknown-on-5-may-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"State Of Orissa vs Unknown on 5 May, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-05-04T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-07-15T08:16:20+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-orissa-vs-unknown-on-5-may-2010\"},\"wordCount\":1901,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Orissa High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-orissa-vs-unknown-on-5-may-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-orissa-vs-unknown-on-5-may-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-orissa-vs-unknown-on-5-may-2010\",\"name\":\"State Of Orissa vs Unknown on 5 May, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-05-04T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-07-15T08:16:20+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-orissa-vs-unknown-on-5-may-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-orissa-vs-unknown-on-5-may-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-orissa-vs-unknown-on-5-may-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"State Of Orissa vs Unknown on 5 May, 2010\"}]},{\"@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":"State Of Orissa vs Unknown on 5 May, 2010 - 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\/state-of-orissa-vs-unknown-on-5-may-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"State Of Orissa vs Unknown on 5 May, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-orissa-vs-unknown-on-5-may-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-05-04T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-07-15T08:16:20+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":"10 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-orissa-vs-unknown-on-5-may-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-orissa-vs-unknown-on-5-may-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"State Of Orissa vs Unknown on 5 May, 2010","datePublished":"2010-05-04T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-07-15T08:16:20+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-orissa-vs-unknown-on-5-may-2010"},"wordCount":1901,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Orissa High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-orissa-vs-unknown-on-5-may-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-orissa-vs-unknown-on-5-may-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-orissa-vs-unknown-on-5-may-2010","name":"State Of Orissa vs Unknown on 5 May, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-05-04T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-07-15T08:16:20+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-orissa-vs-unknown-on-5-may-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-orissa-vs-unknown-on-5-may-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-orissa-vs-unknown-on-5-may-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"State Of Orissa vs Unknown on 5 May, 2010"}]},{"@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\/189829","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=189829"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/189829\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=189829"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=189829"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=189829"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}