{"id":41152,"date":"2010-04-08T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-04-07T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sukura-hantal-vs-state-of-orissa-on-8-april-2010"},"modified":"2017-10-21T00:13:12","modified_gmt":"2017-10-20T18:43:12","slug":"sukura-hantal-vs-state-of-orissa-on-8-april-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sukura-hantal-vs-state-of-orissa-on-8-april-2010","title":{"rendered":"Sukura Hantal vs State Of Orissa on 8 April, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"
Orissa High Court<\/div>\n
Sukura Hantal vs State Of Orissa on 8 April, 2010<\/div>\n
                                                    ORISSA HIGH COURT,\n                                                         CUTTACK\n\n                                           JAIL CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 7 OF 2001\n\n     From the judgment dated 21.10.2000 passed by Sri A.C. Pattanaik, Additional Sessions\n     Judge, Malkangiri in S.C.No.89 of 1999 (S.C. No.254 of 1998 of Sessions Judge,\n     Koraput, Jeypore).\n\n\n     Sukura Hantal                                         .........                                                Appellant\n\n                                                           Versus\n\n     State of Orissa                                       .........                                            Respondent\n\n\n                                For appellant       :      Ms. Sephali Das\n\n                                For respondent :           Mr. J.P. Pattnaik,\n                                                           Addl. Government Advocate\n\n\n     PRESENT :\n\n                         THE HONOURABLE SHRI JUSTICE PRADIP MOHANTY\n                                           AND\n                           THE HONOURABLE KUMARI JUSTICE S.PANDA\n\n     ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------\n<\/pre>\n
                       Date of hearing & judgment : 08.04.2010\n<\/p>\n
     ———————————————————————————————————————-\n<\/p>\n
PRADIP MOHANTY, J.              This jail criminal appeal is directed against the judgment of
\n     conviction and order of sentence dated 21.10.2000 passed by the learned Additional
\n     Sessions Judge, Malkangiri in S.C. No.89 of 1999 (S.C. No. 254 of 1998 of Sessions
\n     Judge, Koraput, Jeypore)                convicting the appellant under Section 302, IPC and
\n     sentencing him to undergo imprisonment for life.\n<\/p>\n
     2.                         The case of the prosecution is that on 29.06.1998 at about 10.00 AM
\n     Balaram Behera (P.W.1) lodged a written report in Kalimela Police Station scribed by
\n     Narasingha Pattnaik (P.W.5) alleging therein that on 28.06.1998 at about noon time the
\n                                            2<\/span><\/p>\n
accused and his wife quarrelled with each other on the village road. On account of such
\nquarrel, the accused committed murder of his wife and threw her dead body in the canal.
\nOne female of Ramagudi village informed about the occurrence. Thereafter, Sarat
\nBehera (P.W.2) and one Pratima Behra came to their village and said about the
\noccurrence. Coming to know about the occurrence, the informant (P.W.1) and other
\nvillagers went to the spot and found the dead body of the deceased dipped inside the
\ncanal water. The accused was also present there. The accused disclosed before the
\nvillagers to have thrown the dead body of the deceased in the canal after committing her
\nmurder. On receipt of the information, the police registered the case and took up the
\ninvestigation during the course of which the I.O. arrested the accused and sent the dead
\nbody for post mortem examination. He also examined the eye witnesses and after
\ncompletion of investigation submitted charge sheet against the accused for commission
\nof offence under section 302, IPC.\n<\/p>\n
3.                  The defence plea is one of complete denial of the occurrence.\n<\/p>\n
4.                  In order to prove its case, prosecution has examined as many as
\neight witnesses including the I.O. and the doctor and exhibited fifteen documents. The
\ndefence has examined none.\n<\/p>\n
5.                  The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Malkangiri after conclusion
\nof the trial found the appellant guilty under section 302, IPC, convicted him thereunder
\nand sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life basing upon the evidence of P.Ws.2
\nand 3, the eye witnesses.\n<\/p>\n
6.                  Ms. Das, learned counsel appearing for the appellant assails the
\njudgment on the following grounds:\n<\/p>\n
      (i)    P.Ws.2 and 3 are interested witnesses and they have
\n             developed the story from stage to stage.\n<\/p>\n
      (ii)   P.W.1, the informant, is a post occurrence witness. His
\n             evidence does not get corroboration from the FIR (Ext.1).\n<\/p>\n
                                                  3<\/span><\/p>\n
      (iii)   No motive has been proved by the prosecution.<\/p>\n
\n\n\n      (iv)    Non-examination of Pratima Behera, who is said to have\n              witnessed      the   occurrence,       is   fatal   to   the   prosecution.\n<\/pre>\n
              Prosecution is duty bound to examine all the eye witnesses, but
\n              not according to its choice.\n<\/p>\n
      (v)     Even if the prosecution case is believed in its entirety, the fact
\n              remains that there was a sudden quarrel between the appellant
\n              and the deceased, for which the appellant got provoked and
\n              gave fist blows to the deceased which resulted in her death. In
\n              fact the appellant had no intention to kill the deceased.\n<\/p>\n
              Therefore, his conviction under section 302, IPC is not
\n              sustainable.\n<\/p>\n
7.                   Mr. Pattnaik, learned Additional Government Advocate vehemently
\ncontends that P.Ws.2 and 3 are the eye witnesses and there is no material to disbelieve
\ntheir evidence. Basing upon the information given by P.Ws.2 and 3, the F.I.R. was
\nlodged by P.W.1 which corroborates the prosecution case. He further submits that there
\nis nothing on record to show that the occurrence took place due to sudden quarrel or
\nprovocation. The evidence of P.W.2 is very clear and cogent to that effect. P.W.3 also
\nstated that the appellant assaulted the deceased and threw her dead body into the
\ncanal. Moreover, the medical evidence also corroborates the ocular evidence.\n<\/p>\n
8.                   Perused the LCR. P.W.1 is the informant. He stated in his evidence
\nthat Sarat Behera (P.W.2) told him that accused killed his wife putting her inside the
\nwater of a canal and also assaulting by stone. So, he reported the matter in writing at
\nKalimela Police    Station being scribed by Narasingha Patnaik.                He proved the FIR
\n(Ext.1) and his signature thereon marked Ext.1\/1. The police conducted inquest over the
\ndead body of the deceased in his presence. He proved the inquest report (Ext.2) and his
\nsignature thereon marked Ext.2\/1. The police seized one lungi stained with blood from
\nthe possession of the accused-appellant vide Ext.3, one broken glass from the spot vide
\n                                             4<\/span><\/p>\n
Ext.4 and one broken radio vide Ext.5. In cross-examination he admitted that he had not
\nseen the occurrence and that at the time of occurrence he was in his house. The glass
\npieces were lying on the open place and people were passing in that way. He also
\nstated that he was pulling on well with the accused. Nothing has been elicited in cross-
\nexamination to discard his evidence.     P.W.2 is a co-villager and a witness to the
\noccurrence.    He deposed that when he himself, Balaram and others were going to the
\nhouse of Deba they saw on the canal road the accused assaulting the deceased holding
\nher hair and by giving fist and kick blows, as a result of which the deceased fell in the
\ncanal and died. There was injury on the person of the deceased. In cross-examination,
\nhe admitted that he saw the occurrence from a close distance and there was no tussle.
\nHe also admitted that Balaram, son of the deceased, was also with him at the time of
\noccurrence.    Nothing has been elicited in cross-examination to belie his testimony.
\nP.W.3 is also a witness to the occurrence. He specifically stated that the accused after
\nassaulting the deceased threw the dead body in the canal. There was bleeding from
\ndifferent parts of the body of the deceased. Nothing has been elicited by way of cross-
\nexamination to demolish his evidence. P.W.4 is a post-occurrence witness. He deposed
\nin his evidence that Sarat (P.W.2) came and told him that the accused murdered his wife
\nand threw her dead body in the canal. P.W.5 is a co-villager who stated to have scribed
\nthe FIR as per the instruction of the informant and read over and explained the contents
\nthereof to him and put his signature marked Ext.1\/2. P.W.6 is a police constable who
\ncarried the dead body of the deceased to the hospital.        He proved the command
\ncertificate (Ext.6) and dead body challan (Ext.7). He is also a witness to the seizure of
\nwearing apparels of the deceased vide Ext.8. P.W.7 is the I.O. who specifically deposed
\nto have received the written report (Ext.1), registered the case and took up the
\ninvestigation. He also sent the dead body for postmortem examination, arrested the
\naccused, seized the wearing apparels of the accused as well as the deceased. After
\ncompletion of the investigation, he submitted charge sheet against the accused. Nothing
\nhas been brought on record by the defence to dislodge the prosecution case . P.W.8 is
\nthe doctor who conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased and found the
\nfollowing injuries:\n<\/p>\n
                                              5<\/span><\/p>\n
                                  External injury
\n          The body was decomposed and swollen. Maggots all over the
\n          body. Post-mortem lividity all over the body. Mustres all over the
\n          body with retraction of skin. Rigor mortis absent.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                                  Internal injury\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
          (i) Fracture of left parietal bone 8 cm over the left ear and was
\n              ante mortem in nature. The facture was depressed in
\n              nature.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
            (ii) Sub-dural haemorrhage with blood clots of size 3 x 4 cm
\n                and was ante-mortem in nature.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
He opined that the injuries were sufficient to cause death. The cause of death was due
\nto shock as a result of sub-dural haemorrhage. To the query made by the I.O., he stated
\nto have opined that the injuries can be caused by heavy fist blows and kicks of a strong
\nman. He also admitted that the accused is a strong man. Nothing has been elicited in the
\ncross-examination.\n<\/p>\n
9.                   In view of the analysis of evidence made above, this Court finds that
\nP.Ws.2 and 3 are witnesses to the occurrence.          Both of them have categorically
\ndeposed that the appellant assaulted the deceased by fist blows and kicks holding her
\nhair and threw her in the canal as a result of which she died. There is nothing on the
\nrecord to disbelieve their evidence. P.W.8, the doctor, who conducted autopsy over the
\ndead body of the deceased opined that the injuries inflicted on the deceased can be
\ncaused by heavy fist blows and kicks of a strong man. Taking into consideration the
\nocular evidence of P.Ws.2 and 3 coupled with the evidence of the doctor (P.W.8), this
\nCourt arrives at the conclusion that it is the appellant who committed murder of the
\ndeceased.\n<\/p>\n
10.                  Now, it is to be seen whether the act committed by the appellant will
\ncome within the ambit of section 302, IPC or section 304 Part-II, IPC. In the FIR itself it
\nhas been mentioned that just before the occurrence, there was a quarrel between the
\naccused and the deceased. Therefore, it can be well inferred that the accused got
\nenraged due to sudden provocation and assaulted the deceased, that too by fists and
\nkicks. On thorough scrutiny of the evidence available on record, this Court does not find
\n                                                       6<\/span><\/p>\n
        anything to indicate that the appellant had any intention to kill the deceased. This apart,
\n        no motive has also been ascribed by the prosecution behind the commission of the
\n        murder. Taking an over all view of the matter, this Court is of the opinion that the act
\n        committed by the appellant will fall within the ambit of section 304 Part-II, IPC.\n<\/p>\n
        11.                  In the result therefore, the Jail Criminal Appeal is allowed in part.
\n        The conviction of the appellant under Section 302, IPC is converted to Section 304 Part-
\n        II, IPC and he is sentenced to the period of imprisonment already undergone.\n<\/p>\n
                                                                 ………………………………\n<\/p>\n
                                                                  PRADIP MOHANTY, J.\n<\/p>\n
S.PANDA, J                  I agree.\n\n\n                                                                ....................................\n                                                                   S.PANDA, J\n\n        Orissa High Court, Cuttack\n        April 08, 2010\/Routray\n <\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Orissa High Court Sukura Hantal vs State Of Orissa on 8 April, 2010 ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK JAIL CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 7 OF 2001 From the judgment dated 21.10.2000 passed by Sri A.C. Pattanaik, Additional Sessions Judge, Malkangiri in S.C.No.89 of 1999 (S.C. No.254 of 1998 of Sessions Judge, Koraput, Jeypore). Sukura Hantal ……… Appellant […]<\/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-41152","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-orissa-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nSukura Hantal vs State Of Orissa on 8 April, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & 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\/sukura-hantal-vs-state-of-orissa-on-8-april-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Sukura Hantal vs State Of Orissa on 8 April, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sukura-hantal-vs-state-of-orissa-on-8-april-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2010-04-07T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-10-20T18:43:12+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=\"9 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sukura-hantal-vs-state-of-orissa-on-8-april-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sukura-hantal-vs-state-of-orissa-on-8-april-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Sukura Hantal vs State Of Orissa on 8 April, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-04-07T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-10-20T18:43:12+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sukura-hantal-vs-state-of-orissa-on-8-april-2010\"},\"wordCount\":1646,\"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\\\/sukura-hantal-vs-state-of-orissa-on-8-april-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sukura-hantal-vs-state-of-orissa-on-8-april-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sukura-hantal-vs-state-of-orissa-on-8-april-2010\",\"name\":\"Sukura Hantal vs State Of Orissa on 8 April, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-04-07T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-10-20T18:43:12+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sukura-hantal-vs-state-of-orissa-on-8-april-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sukura-hantal-vs-state-of-orissa-on-8-april-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sukura-hantal-vs-state-of-orissa-on-8-april-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Sukura Hantal vs State Of Orissa on 8 April, 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":"Sukura Hantal vs State Of Orissa on 8 April, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & 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\/sukura-hantal-vs-state-of-orissa-on-8-april-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Sukura Hantal vs State Of Orissa on 8 April, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sukura-hantal-vs-state-of-orissa-on-8-april-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-04-07T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-10-20T18:43:12+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":"9 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sukura-hantal-vs-state-of-orissa-on-8-april-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sukura-hantal-vs-state-of-orissa-on-8-april-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Sukura Hantal vs State Of Orissa on 8 April, 2010","datePublished":"2010-04-07T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-10-20T18:43:12+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sukura-hantal-vs-state-of-orissa-on-8-april-2010"},"wordCount":1646,"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\/sukura-hantal-vs-state-of-orissa-on-8-april-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sukura-hantal-vs-state-of-orissa-on-8-april-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sukura-hantal-vs-state-of-orissa-on-8-april-2010","name":"Sukura Hantal vs State Of Orissa on 8 April, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-04-07T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-10-20T18:43:12+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sukura-hantal-vs-state-of-orissa-on-8-april-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sukura-hantal-vs-state-of-orissa-on-8-april-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sukura-hantal-vs-state-of-orissa-on-8-april-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Sukura Hantal vs State Of Orissa on 8 April, 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\/41152","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=41152"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/41152\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=41152"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=41152"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=41152"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}