ACKNOWLEDGMENT

First of all, I would like to express my sincere thanks to Mr.

Anuragh Mahapatra, Advocate, Odisha High Court. He helped me to go
into the subject matter within a limited time without whose help it
would not have been a successful one.

To acknowledge the teacher, associates and colleagues under whose aid

and advice has worked as consistent source of inspiration to complete
this project.

RAHUL RITIK
5 year Int. B.A.LL.B. (Hons.)

Madhusudan Law College,

CUTTACK.

1|Page
DECLARATION
I, Master RAHUL RITIK do hereby declare that this report
submitted by me to the Madusudan Law College,Cuttack is out of
my hardwork and it has not been copied or submitted any where
before.The contents of this project booklet is purely for academic
purposes.

RAHUL RITIK

5 Year Int. B.A.LLB(Hons)

Madhusudan Law College,

Cuttack

2|Page
SEQUENCE OF PAGES:-
1- MOOT COURT
(a) CRIMINAL
(b) CIVIL
2-TRIAL COURT ATTENDANCE
(a) CRIMINAL
(b) CIVIL

3-INTERVIEW TECHNIQUE

3|Page
 CRIMINAL CASE

4|Page
 BEFORE THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA

IN THE MATTER OF:

RAVINDRA ............. APPELLANT

V.

STATE OF ORISSA ............. RESPONDENT

ON SUBMISSION TO THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA

UNDER ARTICLE 374(2) OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT

COUNSEL APPEARING ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT

5|Page
TABLE OF CONTENTS

DESCRIPTION

1. LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

2. INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

3. STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

4. STATEMENT OF FACTS

5. ISSUES INVOLVED

6. SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

7. ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

8. PRAYER

6|Page
 LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

AIR All India Reporter

SCC Supreme Court Cases
SC Supreme Court
Cr.P.C Code of Criminal Procedure
IPC Indian Penal Code
Sec. Section
U/S Under Section
Ed. Edition
V. Versus
Vol. Volume
& And
Anr. Another
HC High Court
Suppl Supplement
Ors. Others
Cr.L.J Criminal Law Journal
FIR First Information Report

7|Page
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES
STATUTES REFERRED

1. The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Act No. 2 of 1974]

2. The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Act No. XLV of 1860]

3. The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 [Act No. 1 of 1872]

BOOKS AND ARTICLES

 Indian Penal Code, 1860 by S. N. Mishra

 Indian Penal Code, 1860 by K. D. Gaur
 Indian Penal Code, 1860 by Ratanlal&Dhirajlal
 Indian Penal Code, Pillai
 The Indian Evidence Act, Batuklal
 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 by Dr. N. V. Paranjape
 Criminal Procedure, (5th Ed. 2011) by R.V. Kelkar

INTERNET SOURCES

1. www.manupatra.com

2. www.scc.com

3. www.indiankanoon.com

CASES REFERRED

Deva v/s State of Rajasthan

SharadBirdichandSharda v. State of Maharashtra

State of U.P. v. Ashok Kumar Srivastava

RajnikantakeshBhandari v. State AIR 1967 Goa 21 56

8|Page
 STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

The instant appeal lies to the Hon’ble High Court of Orissa against the conviction in a trial held
by The Learned Sessions Judge in accordance with Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973.

Section 374 of The Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973

374. Appeals from convictions.

(1) Any person convicted on a trial held by a High Court in its extraordinary original criminal
jurisdiction may appeal to the Supreme Court.

(2) Any person convicted on a trial held by a Sessions Judge or an Additional Sessions Judge; or
on a trial held by any other Court in which a sentence of imprisonment for more than seven
years has been passed; [against him or against any other person convicted at the same trial],
may appeal to the High Court.

(3) Save as otherwise provided in sub- section (2), any person,-

(a) convicted on a trial held by a Metropolitan Magistrate or Assistant Sessions Judge or

Magistrate of the first class, or of the second class, or

(b) sentenced under section 325, or

(c) in respect of whom an order has been made or a sentence has been passed under section 360
by any Magistrate, may appeal to the Court of Session.

9|Page
___________________________________________________________________________

SYNOPSIS OF FACTS

_______________________________________________________________________

The deceased Mr.Ramaswami and the accused Mr Rabindra had a long standing property dispute
since about 12 years.

23.12.2017: The body of the deceasedMr.Ramaswami was recovered from near a pond situated 2
k.m. away from the place of occurrence.

The incriminating weapon, a ‘bhujali’, was recovered basing on the statement of the accused
while in police custody from inside the said pond.

24.12.2017 :The accused Rabindra was arrested by the IIC, Rajendra Nagar Police Station.

26.________: Charge Sheet was submitted.

Autopsy report revealed that the death might have been caused due to run over by a vehicle and
there was a mark of violence on the body of the deceased.

Witnesses PW1 and PW2 stated that the accused was not present in the town on the date of
occurrence.

Order of the Learned Sessions Judge was that the accused Mr.Rabindra was found guilty under
Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and therefore sentenced him to undergo
imprisonment for 10 years along with a fine of Rs 20,000.

10 | P a g e
__________________________________________________________________________
ISSUES INVOLVED
___________________________________________________________________________
ISSUE 1-
WHETHER THE CONVICTION ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED SESSIONS JUDGE
IS TENABLE IN THE EYES OF LAW?

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT

___________________________________________________________________________

ISSUE 1-
WHETHER THE CONVICTION ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED SESSIONS JUDGE
IS TENABLE IN THE EYES OF LAW?
The conviction order passed by the Learned Sessions Judge is not tenable in the eyes of law.
The appeal is preferred before this Hon’ble High Court of Orissa.
It is most humbly submitted that in the present case, the conviction order passed by the Learned
Trial Court is not tenable in the eyes of law because of the following contentions:

1. The burden of proving the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubts completely
depends upon the prosecution and the prosecution has failed to do so. There are enough
cogent and clear doubts that arise from the case of the prosecution and prove that the
accused has not committed the crime.

2. The prosecution has put forward no eye-witness to the incident and the case, being purely
based on circumstantial evidence, the prosecution has failed to establish a clear and
cogent chain of circumstances linking the accused with the crime.

11 | P a g e
___________________________________________________________________________
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED
___________________________________________________________________________

WHETHER THE CONVICTION ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED SESSIONS

JUDGE IS TENABLE IN THE EYES OF LAW?

It is most respectfully submitted that the accused Mr.Rabindra has wrongly been
convicted under Sections 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 to undergo imprisonment for 10
years along with a fine of Rs. 20,000 for the death of Mr.Ramaswami.

The basic rule of a criminal trial states that the court shall scan the evidence carefully and
minutely in order to find out whether there is a legal evidence to connect the accused with the
commission of the crime. All the circumstances must conclusively establish the only hypothesis
that the accused alone committed the crime beyond all reasonable doubt.
According to Section 300 of IPC laid down certain ingredients which are essential for its
application. It states that Culpable homicide leads to murder when:
I. the act by which the death is caused is done with the intention of causing death, or
II. it is done with the intention of causing such bodily injury as the offender knows to be
likely to cause the death of the person to whom the harm is caused.
III. it is done with the intention of causing bodily injury to any person and the bodily injury
intended to be inflicted is sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death.
IV. the person committing the act knows that it is so imminently dangerous that it must, in all
probability, cause death or such bodily injury as is likely to cause death, and commits such act
without any excuse for incurring the risk of causing death or such injury as aforesaid.
It is most respectfully submitted that in the present case, the Learned Trial Court has
erred in convicting the accused person without carefully looking into the evidences put forward
by the prosecution.

12 | P a g e
Proof of guilt of accused beyond reasonable doubt
It is most humble submitted before the court that in all cases of homicide, the prosecution is
required to give satisfactory proof of the corpus delicit, it must prove that the deceased was
murdered. The prosecution has then to prove that the accused is the person who murdered the
deceased and no one else1.
In the present case the death body of the victim was recovered near a pond situated 2 km away
from the place of murder and the murder weapon was found near the pond. There is no link
between the place of occurrence and the place where incriminating material was recovered.
Law is well settled that where a case rests squarely on circumstantial evidence, the
inference of guilt can be justified only when all the incriminating facts and circumstances are
found to be incompatible with the innocence of the accused or the guilt of any other persons. The
five golden principles which constitute the PANCHSHEEL of the proof of a case based on
circumstantial evidence are laid down in the case of
SharadBirdichandSharda v. State of Maharashtra2which reads as follows:
The following conditions must be fulfilled before a case against an accused can be said to
be fully established:

1) The circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully
established.
2) The facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the
accused, that is to say, they should not be explainable on any other hypothesis except that the
accused is guilty.
3) The circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency.
4) They should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved, and
5) There must be a chain of circumstances, so complete, as not to leave any reasonable ground
for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and must show that in all human
probability the act must have been done by the accused.

1
RajnikantakeshBhandari v. State AIR 1967 Goa 21 56

2
AIR 1984 SC 1622

13 | P a g e
 Where the case depends upon the conclusion drawn from circumstances, the cumulative
effect of the circumstances must be such as to negative the innocence of the accused and bring
the offences home beyond any reasonable doubt.

Sec. 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 reads:

How much of information received from accused may be proved.—Provided that,
when any fact is deposed to as discovered in consequence of information received from a
person accused of any offence, in the custody of a police officer, so much of such
information, whether it amounts to a confession or not, as relates distinctly to the fact
thereby discovered, may be proved.

The incriminating weapon found as per the statement of the accused while in custody was
the only point on which the entire case has been based. The fact that the weapon was discovered
in the said way is not enough proof to show that the accused was guilty of the crime. These
statements of the witnesses are ambiguous and unclear and do not form a chain of circumstances
pointing clearly to the guilt of the accused.
In the case of Deva v/s State of Rajasthan3, it was held that-“Merely because the
recovery of the knife was at the instance of the accused, it cannot be said that the accused was
the perpetrator of the crime.”

In State of U.P. v. Ashok Kumar Srivastava4, it was pointed out that great care must be
taken in evaluating circumstantial evidence and if the evidence relied on is reasonably capable of
two inferences, the one in favour of the accused must be accepted

In the present case, the evidence relied upon are the recovery of the weapon and the long
standing dispute between the accused and the deceased. Thus, the evidence which stands for the
accused should be accepted.

3
Deva v/s State of Rajasthan nov 17th 1998

4
(1992) Crl.L.J. 104

14 | P a g e
 It is most humbly submitted that in the present case, there is no chain of circumstances
established at all that could connect the accused to the crime. In a case basing on circumstantial
evidence where the chain of circumstances is not established clearly, the accused is entitled to go
scot-free.

But considering the present case, it is not so. The circumstances here are neither
consistent with the guilt of the accused and nor are they inconsistent with his innocence and thus,
the accused is entitled to the benefit of doubt.

Absence of eye witness

With reference to fact in record it is humbly submitted before this Hon’ble Court that
there is no witness that could provide substantial evidence for the commission of the acts by the
accused. The circumstantial evidence produced by the prosecution is not enough in the eye of
law for proper conviction.

In the present case in hand, the prosecution has completely failed in its attempt to charge
the accused of the aforementioned offences. The entire case is made up on baseless and frivolous
allegations.

The main points raised by the prosecution are-

1. The simple fact that the accused and the deceased had a long standing land dispute.
2. The incriminating weapon was discovered from inside the pond basing on the statement of the
accused while in custody.
As required by Criminal Jurisprudence, the facts and evidences in a case should be in
clear and unambiguous terms. In the present case, the facts and evidences are not satisfactory.
The prosecution has failed in its duty to prove the accused guilty.
There is no point put forward by the prosecution that could firmly establish the fact that
the accused was connected to the crime. The case of the prosecution is based on false and
concocted stories as there was no eyewitness and the alleged accused person was not present at
the place of murder.
It is thus, most humbly submitted that the Learned Sessions Judge, has erred in
convicting the accused under Sections 302 of The Indian Penal Code, 1860.

15 | P a g e
 ___________________________________________________________________________

Prayer

___________________________________________________________________________

It is therefore prayed that this Hon’ble High Court of Orissa may graciously be pleased to
allow this appeal after hearing both the sides and may set aside the impugned conviction order
passed by the Learned Sessions Court and set the appellant free of the charges framed;

And/or
Again further be pleased to pass any order/orders, direction/directions as it may
deem fit and proper in the interest of justice, equity and good conscience;
And for this act of kindness, the appellant as in duty bound shall ever pray.

Respectfully submitted on behalf of the appellant

Counsel for the appellant

16 | P a g e
 CIVIL CASE

17 | P a g e
___________________________________________________________________________

IN THE (MOOT) FAMILYCOURT OF CUTTACK

MATA NO.- ___________/2015

___________________________________________________________________________

IN THE MATTER OF:

KUMAR SINGH…………………………………………………………….PETITIONER

VERSUS

REKHA SINGH………………………………………………………RESPONDENT

___________________________________________________________________________

SUBMISSION TO THE HON’BLE FAMILY COURT OF CUTTACK

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT

__________________________________________________________________________

18 | P a g e
TABLE OF CONTENTS
DESCRIBTION .

1. LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

2. INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

3. STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

4. STATEMENT OF FACTS

5. ISSUES INVOLVED

6. SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

7. ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

8. PRAYER

19 | P a g e
___________________________________________________________________________

LIST OF ABREVIATIONS
___________________________________________________________________________

AIR All India Reporter

SC Supreme Court
Sec Section
V Versus

___________________________________________________________________________

INDEX OF AUTHORTIES

___________________________________________________________________________

CASES REFERRED:

1. Shobha Rani vsMadhukar Reddy

2. Maya Devi V Jagdish Prasad

BOOKS:

1. Hindu Law by Mulla (Fifteenth Edition)

2. Modern Hindu Law by ParasDiwan (Twenty second Edition)

3. Hindu Law by R.K. Agarwal (Twenty fourth Edition)

STATUTES:

1. Hindu Marriage Act,1955

WEBSITES:

1. www.manupatra.com

2. www.indiankanoon.com

3. www.wikipedia.com

20 | P a g e
___________________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION
___________________________________________________________________________

The Hon’ble Court has jurisdiction to try the instant matter under Section 19 of Hindu Marriage
Act, 1955.

Sec 19. Court to which petition shall be presented. —Every petition under this Act shall be
presented to the district court within the local limits of whose ordinary original civil
jurisdiction—
(i) the marriage was solemnised, or
(ii) the respondent, at the time of the presentation of the petition, resides, or
(iii) the parties to the marriage last resided together, or
[(iiia) in case the wife is the petitioner, where she is residing on the date of presentation of the
petition, or]
(iv) the petitioner is residing at the time of the presentation of the petition, in a case where the
respondent is, at that time, residing outside the territories to which this Act extends, or has not
been heard of as being alive for a period of seven years or more by those persons who would
naturally have heard of him if he were alive.

21 | P a g e
___________________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS

___________________________________________________________________________

On 02.06.2013 Kumar Singh got married to Rekha as per Hindu Rites and customs

After 1 year of their marriage the behavior of Rekha changed towards her husband and his
family. She insisted on living separately with her husband to which he never agreed.

On 02.06.2015 she left her matrimonial home with all her belongings and ornaments and Kumar
Singh, failing in all his attempts to bring back Rekha lodged an F.I.R on 12.06.2015 before the
concerned P.S. where the police advised him to take shelter before a competent court

On 16.06.2015, Kumar Singh filed a divorce petition on the grounds of Desertion and Cruelty.
Rekha refuted the allegations and contended that Kumar Singh disliked her due to her color.

ISSUES INVOLVED

__________________________________________________________________________

WHETHER KUMAR SINGH IS ENTITLED TO DIVORCE ON THE GROUNDS OF

DESERTION AND CRUELTY?

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

___________________________________________________________________________

WHETHER KUMAR SINGH IS ENTITLED TO DIVORCE ON THE GROUNDS OF

DESERTION AND CRUELTY?

It is humbly submitted before this Hon’ble Court that the appellant is neither subjected to
desertion nor cruelty

22 | P a g e
___________________________________________________________________________

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

___________________________________________________________________________

WHETHER KUMAR SINGH IS ENTITLED TO DIVORCE ON THE GROUNDS OF

DESERTION AND CRUELTY?

It is humbly submitted before this Hon’ble Court that the actions of the Opp. Party do not fall
under the essential elements envisaged under the Sec. 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955
dealing with divorce as claimed by the appellant Mr. Kumar Singh.

Section 13- Divorce. —

(1) Any marriage solemnised, whether before or after the commencement of this Act, may, on a
petition presented by either the husband or the wife, be dissolved by a decree of divorce on the
ground that the other party—

(i) has, after the solemnisation of the marriage, had voluntary sexual intercourse with any person
other than his or her spouse; or

(ia) has, after the solemnisation of the marriage, treated the petitioner with cruelty; or

(ib) has deserted the petitioner for a continuous period of not less than two years immediately
preceding the presentation of the petition; or

(ii) has ceased to be a Hindu by conversion to another religion; or

(iii) has been incurably of unsound mind, or has been suffering continuously or intermittently
from mental disorder of such a kind and to such an extent that the petitioner cannot reasonably
be expected to live with the respondent.

(iv) has been suffering from a virulent and incurable form of leprosy; or

(v) has been suffering from venereal disease in a communicable form; or

23 | P a g e
(vi) has renounced the world by entering any religious order; or

(vi) has not been heard of as being alive for a period of seven years or more by those persons
who would naturally have heard of it, had that party been alive;

WHETHER KUMAR SINGH WAS SUBJECTED TO CRUELTY.

For granting a divorce on the grounds of cruelty, the ingredients of the sub-section need
to be satisfied.Under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 cruelty was not a ground for divorce but only
for judicial separation.Kumar Singh alleged that the behaviour of Rekha was changed towards
her husband and the family members of her husband. He also alleged the she used to insist him
to live separately to which her husband did not agree which also amounts further cruelty towards
her husband.

In the instant case Kumar Singh alleged that the behaviour of Rekha was changed
towards her husband and the family members of her husband. He also alleged the she used to
insist him to live separately to which her husband did not agree which also amounts further
cruelty towards her husband.

The word cruelty has not been defined in Hindu Marriage Act ,the word used as such in sec
13(1)(i-a) of the act is with reference to human conduct or behaviour in relation to or in respect
of matrimonial duties and obligations. the SC said that the word cruelty has not been defined in
Hindu Marriage Act ,the word used as such in sec 13(1)(i-a) of the act is with reference to
human conduct or behaviour in relation to or in respect of matrimonial duties and obligations5.

Even mental cruelty was accounted for as “cruelty”. The section now in the Hindu
Marriage Act imposes no restrictions. This is in order to enable the courts to interpret it in a
wider sense. The basic requirement now is that there must be harsh or painful conduct of certain
amount and for a relatively prolonged duration. In all cases of alleged cruelty that come before
the courts, a common practise adopted by them is to adjudicate the matter based on all relevant
circumstances, not just as a solitary incident.

5
Shobha Rani vsMadhukarReddy,AIR 1988 1 SCC 105 108

24 | P a g e
 Cruelty which is a ground for dissolution of marriage may be defined as wilful and
unjustifiable conduct of such character as to cause danger to life, limb or health, bodily or
mental, or as to give rise to a reasonable apprehension of such a danger. The question of mental
cruelty has to be considered in the light of the norms of marital ties of the particular society to
which the parties belong, their social values, status, environment in which they live6. Cruelty, as
noted above, includes mental cruelty, which falls within the purview of a matrimonial wrong.

In the case in hand, Mr. Kumar Singh claimed for divorce on the ground of cruelty, but
nowhere considering the facts of the case can it be inferred that the Opp. Party, Mrs. Rekha
Singh, was in any manner cruel to her husband. The mere fact that the behavior of the wife had
changed towards her family and that she was insistent upon living separately with her husband
does in no way depict that she was inflicting any sort of cruelty on the mind or body of the
husband.

WHETHER MR. KUMAR SINGH WAS SUBJECTED TO DESERTION.

To grant a divorce on the grounds of desertion, the ingredients of the subsection need to be
fulfilled.

Section 13(1) (ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 deals with desertion as a ground for divorce
and the explanation of the same reads: “The expression “desertion” means the desertion of the
petitioner by the other party to the marriage without reasonable cause and without the consent
of or against the wish of such party, and includes the wilful neglect of the petitioner by the other
party to the marriage. There are mainly five basic elements which are primarily to be satisfied to
constitute desertion.

Elements of Desertion

1. The fact of separation (factum deserdendi)

2. The intention to desert ( animus deserdendi)

6
Maya Devi V Jagdish Prasad AIR 2007 SC 1426

25 | P a g e
 3. Desertion without any reasonable cause
4. Desertion without the consent of the applicant
5. Desertion continues for two years.

It is additionally important to note that for a matrimonial relief on the ground of

desertion, it is necessary to show the passage of the statutory period of two years and the same
must be continuous. Therefore, it can be illustrated that a deserting spouse has an opportunity to
take advantage of the law right from the fulfillment of basic elements of desertion.

In the case in hand, as the statement of facts does not show any act of the Opp. Party that
amounts to desertion, the ground does not stand and the petition for divorce remains standing on
baseless allegations.

26 | P a g e
__________________________________________________________________________

PRAYER

__________________________________________________________________________

In the light of the issues raised, arguments advanced and authorities cited, may this Hon’ble
Court be graciously pleased to dismiss the petition presented by the petitioner;

And/ or

Again further be pleased to pass any order/orders, direction/directions as it may deem fit and
proper in the interest of justice, equity and good conscience;

And for this act of kindness, the respondent as in duty bound shall ever pray.

Respectfully submitted on behalf of the Respondent

Counsel for the Respondent

27 | P a g e
COURT ATTENDANCE

I have attended various courts in Cuttack jurisdiction for near about 6 weeks as prescribed by our
syllabus. Different cases, both civil and criminal were observed by me in the court of different
judges. It was a nice experience providing great knowledge about the practical proceedings of
the court.In the subsequent pages I have mentioned the cases which I have personally observed
during my court attendance in the month of February 2019

28 | P a g e
 CRIMINAL CASES

29 | P a g e
CRIMINAL CASE NO -01

Date/Time of Court Visit : 08.02.2019 & 2:00 P.M. to 4:00 P.M.

Name of the Court : Judicial Magistrate First Class,

Cuttack

Name of the Parties : State of Orissa

Vs.

Sudarshan Panda & others

Name of the Hon’ble Judge : Ms. Barsha Das

Case No/Year : TR 13/10 arising out of GR Case No-62/16

Area : Criminal

Laws/statutes Involved : U/S 341/323/506/34 IPC

Brief Proceedings of the Court:
In this case one defense witness Amiya Nayak
presented before Hon’ble Court and took oath and
gave evidence, which was recorded by the Hon’ble
Court. The prosecution did not cross-examine due
to paucity of time.

Signature of the student

30 | P a g e
CRIMINAL CASE NO -02

Date/Time of Court Visit : 11.02.2019 & 2:00 P.M. to 4:00 P.M.

Name of the Court : Judicial Magistrate First Class,

Cuttack

Name of the Parties : Urmila Srichandan & others

Vs.

State

Name of the Hon’ble Judge : Sri Manoj kumar Mohanty

Case No/Year : 1301/2017

Area : Criminal

Laws/statutes Involved : U/S 341/323/506/34 IPC

Brief Proceedings of the Court: Accused is allowed to be represented under section

317 Cr.P.C. for today only PW is present. Summon
has been issued to witness to be present on
06.03.2019

Signature of the student

31 | P a g e
CRIMINAL CASE NO -03

Date/Time of Court Visit : 14.02.2019 & 10.30 A.M. to 1:00 P.M

Name of the Court : Judicial Magistrate First Class

Cuttack

Name of the Parties : State

Vs

Balbanta Prusty

Name of the Hon’ble Judge : Smt Pratyusha Kiran

Case No/Year : 946/2015

Area : Criminal

Laws/statutes Involved : U/S 47(2) Bihar & Orissa Excise Act

Brief Proceedings of the Court:
Record is put up today being advanced. Accused
Bulu @ Balbanta Prusty is present and files hazira.
Defence counsel files a petition praying to release
the accused on continuing previous bail. The
previous bailor Nirakar Karmani is present in the
court. He files memo to continue his surety ship till
the disposal of the case perused the record. The
accused is allowed bail. According the petition is
allowed. Police paper is ready.

Signature of the student

32 | P a g e
CRIMINAL CASE NO -04

Date/Time of Court Visit : 18.02.2019 & 2:00 P.M. to 4:00 P.M.

Name of the Court : Judicial Magistrate First Class

Cuttack

Name of the Parties : State

Vs.

Manas Das & others

Name of the Hon’ble Judge : Shri Manoj Kumar Mohanty

Case No/Year : G.R. Case No.1143/2014

Area : Criminal

Laws/statutes Involved : U/S 448/323/294/354/506/427/34 IPC

Brief Proceedings of the Court: Accused persosn are absent but they are represented
their counsel under section 317 Cr.P.C. APP files
hazira for three witnesses namely Ratikanta Bariok,
Baburam Das & Muna Maharana.

They are examined in chief, cross examined

by the defence and discharged as PWs 1 to 3
respectively. Ext. 1 & 1/1 are marked for the
prosecution. Summons is issued to rest charge sheet
witness fixing 25.02.2019 for trial.

Signature of the student

33 | P a g e
CRIMINAL CASE NO -05

Date/Time of Court Visit : 20.02.2019 & 2:00 P.M.

Name of the Court : Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate

Cuttack

Name of the Parties : State

Vs.

Sk. Safique Ali………Accused

Name of the Hon’ble Judge : Shri Hara Prasad Pattnaik

Case No/Year : ST Case No.281 of 2016

Area : Criminal

Laws/statutes Involved : U/S 436 IPC

Brief Proceedings of the Court: Advocates for both the parties were present in the
mentioned date. Charge framed under section 436
IPC against the accused person who id facing trial
before this Honorable Court.

Signature of the student

34 | P a g e
CRIMINAL CASE NO -06

Date/Time of Court Visit : 22.02.2019 & 2:00 P.M. to 4:00 P.M.

Name of the Court : 3rd Addl. Session Judge,

Cuttack

Name of the Parties : State

Vs.

Akshya Das and 3 others …….Accused

Name of the Hon’ble Judge : Ms Bandana Kar

Case No/Year : ST Case No. 305 of 2016

Area : Criminal

Laws/statutes Involved : U/S 302/307/34 or IPC r/W 25/27 Arms Act and r/w

Section 9(B) of the Indian explosive Act

Brief Proceedings of the Court:
Advocates for both the parties were present on the
mentioned date 21.02.2019: Charge framed u/s
302/307/34 IPC r/w 25 Arms Act and r/w Section
9(B) Indian Explosive Act against all the accused
persons who are facing trial before the 1st Addl.
Session Judge, Cuttack.

Signature of the student

35 | P a g e
 CIVIL CASES

36 | P a g e
CIVIL CASE NO -01

Date/Time of Court Visit : 04.02.2019 & 1:00 P.M. to 4.30 P.M.

Name the Court of : Civil Judge Junior Division,

Cuttack.
Name of the Parties : Biswajeet Mishra

Vs.

Dakhina Kali Mandir Parichalana Samiti

Name of the Hon’ble Judge : Shri Rabinarayan Behera.

Case No/Year : 377/2017

Area : Civil

Laws/statutes Involved : U/O 39, Rule 1 & 2 R/W Section 151 CPC

Brief Proceedings of the Court: Advocate for the parties are present put up on 24-
01-19 for hearing of the suit.

Signature of the student

37 | P a g e
CIVIL CASE NO -02

Date/Time of Court Visit : 06.02.2019 & 2.30 P.M. to 4.30 P.M.

Name the Court of : Civil Judge Junior Division,

Cuttack.

Name of the Parties : Bhabani Shanker

Vs.

Ashok Kumar Roy

Name of the Hon’ble Judge : Shri Rabinarayan Behera

Case No/Year : 116/2018

Area : Civil

Laws/statutes Involved : U/O 39, Rule 1 & 2 R/W Section 151 CPC

Brief Proceedings of the Court:
Advocate for the parties are present. Copy of the
memo is served on the defendant. The defendant
was agreed with the amicable settlement before Lok
Adalat. Hence put up on 27-2-2019 before Lok
Adalat for the above purpose. Parties are directed to
come ready.

Signature of the student

38 | P a g e
CIVIL CASE NO -03

Date/Time of Court Visit : 07.02.2019 & 2:00 P.M. to 4:30 P.M.

Name the Court of : Civil Judge Senior Division,

Cuttack.

Name of the Parties : Chanchala Behera

Vs.

Daitari Sahoo

Name of the Hon’ble Judge : Ms. Reeja Ray

Case No/Year : 1626/2017

Area : Civil

Laws/statutes Involved : U/O 23 Rule 1 of C.P.C.

Brief Proceedings of the Court: The record is put up today. Advocate for the
petitioner files an affidavit along with postal receipt
after completing process under Order 39 Rule 3 of
C.P.C. Hence the notice against opposite party.
Date fixed for service return and postal
acknowledgment.

Signature of the student

39 | P a g e
CIVIL CASE NO -04

Date/Time of Court Visit : 12.02.2019 & 2.30 P.M. to 4.30 P.M.

Name the Court of : Civil Judge Senior Division,

Cuttack

Name of the Parties : Allahabad Bank

Vs.

Mr. Bidura Pattanayak

Name of the Hon’ble Judge : Ms Reeja Ray

Case No/Year : MS 596/2018

Area : Civil

Laws/statutes Involved : U/O 7 Rule 1 CPC

Brief Proceedings of the Court:
The record is placed before the Lok Adalat. Plaintiff
Bank and defendant Loanee are present in the court.
A compromise petition is filed by the parties
showing the terms of compromise. The compromise
petition is read over and explained to the parties,
which they admit to be correct. The compromise
appears to be lawful. Hence it is ordered.

Signature of the student

40 | P a g e
CIVIL CASE NO -05

Date/Time of Court Visit : 13.02.2019 & 2.30 P.M. to 4.30 P.M.

Name the Court of : Civil Judge Senior Division,

Cuttack.

Name of the Parties : Santanu Kumar Mulia and others

Vs.

Pratima Jena and others

Name of the Hon’ble Judge : Ms. Reeja Ray

Case No/Year : 804/2011

Area : Civil

Laws/statutes Involved : U/O 39 Rule 3 CPC

Brief Proceedings of the Court:
Both the parties are present. The compromise
petition is put up. Heard. During course of hearing
some defects are noticed in the said plaint
pertaining to plot numbers in the schedule property.
Hence put up on 27-02-19 for removal of defects.

Signature of the student

41 | P a g e
CIVIL CASE NO - 6

Date/Time of Court Visit : 15.02.2019 , 2.30P.M. to 4.30P.M.

Name the Court of : Family Court , Cuttack

Name of the Parties : Bibhisan Nayak

Vs

Seema Rani Nayak

Name of the Hon’ble Judge : Janab Mohammad Ajmal

Case No/Year : C.S. 406/2018

Area : Civil

Laws/statutes Involved : Section 12 of Hindu Marriage Act,1955

Brief Proceedings of the Court: On date 15.02.2019 evidence on behalf of

petitioner and the case was posted to

26.02.2019 for order.

Signature of the student

42 | P a g e
 INTERVIEW TECHNIQUE

43 | P a g e
INTERVIEW TECHNIQUE

I was attached to the chamber of Mr. Bijayananda Dash, Advocate, Odisha High Court, Cuttack.
His chamber is situated at Lalbagh Police Station, Chandinichowk, Cuttack. The chamber of the
concerned advocate is a well-established chamber with the well-maintained library containing
various law journals and books: Besides these journals and books, the chamber also has two
computers for the junior associates and one for the Advocate himself. I joined the chamber of
Mr. B.N. Dash, Advocate on 15‘January 2019. He has two associates along with Advocate
Clerks, Typists and Stenographers respectively. The associates and all the others are very regular
and punctual in attending the chamber. They all are very particular in their work. The associates
are very sincere in attending the chamber and cases as per assignment by the Advocate. I
attended his Chamber from 1st January 2019 and still continuing in his chamber till date. During
my chamber visit, I came to learn the interview technique between the advocate and the client.
Mr. Dash deals with all types of cases viz civil, criminal, service, matrimonial case matters.

A DISCUSSION ON A CIVIL CASE:

On the 9th March 2019, Mr. Baisakh Gupt, aged about 50 years, came to the Chamber of Shri
P.K. Mohanty at 9pm.

Client: Namaste Sir, May I come in?

Advocate: Namaste, yes please come in.

Client: Good Morning Sir.

Advocate: Good morning. Please take your seat.

Client: Thank You Sir.

Advocate: What is your name? How may I help you?

Client: I am Baisakh Gupta, S/o Late Rajnikant Gupta.

Advocate: What are the problems?

44 | P a g e
Client: My father died 10 years ago. My mother was predeceased my father. My father had
about 20 acres of land. We are two sons and two daughters of our late father. Both of my sisters
are married. In fact, there was no partition between us. We were living in a joint family property
when our father was alive. But after his death, we have separated our household. We are living in
a separate mess and possession of both land and house. Presently, my younger brother is asking
for partition of land into equal shares. So, I am willing to file a suit for partition before the court.

Advocate: Do you have any documents regarding sale deed, legal heir certificates with you?

Client: Yes.

Advocate: After listening everything from you, I advise you to file a suit for partition against
your brother.

A DISCUSSION ON A CRIMINAL CASE:

On 11th March 2019, at about 7pm, one Ranjita Mohapatra aged 38 years, Daughter of Bula
Mohapatra, Jharpada, P.S.-Laxmisagar,Bhubaneshwar, District-Khurda arrived at the chamber of
Mr.B.N. Dash in order to consult regarding the Domestic Violence Act.

Client: May I come in Sir?

Advocate: Yes, Madam. Please come in.

Client: Good morning sir.

Advocate: Good morning Madam. Please have a seat.

Client: Thankyou Sir.

Advocate: What is your name? How may I help you?

Client: My name is Ranjita Mohapatra. I wanted to share with you the grievance in my marital
life.

Advocate: What is the matter?

45 | P a g e
Client: I married one Sanjiv Kumar Rana, Son of Rabi Narayan Rana, resident of Sec-9, Markat
Nagar, CDA, Cuttack and my marriage was solemnized on dated 2-5-2015 in presence of both
the families and witnesses. At the time of marriage, the father of my husband demanded dowry
of rupees 1 lakh and other gold ornaments and other home articles. I resided in the house of my
in-Iaws since 7 months. After that my husband, sister-in=law, father-in-law, mother-in-law and
brother-in-Iaw tortured me physically and mentally. They scolded me in abusive languages and
demanded further dowry of rupees 2 lakhs for which I came to my father's house and started
residing in my father’s house. Therefore, I want to file a case against them.

Advocate: I will advise you to file a domestic violence case before the protection officer,
Cuttack against all the in-laws.

Client: Okay Sir. What should I do for this?

Advocate: You may lodge a report to the Protection Officer, Cuttack as soon as possible. Then
we shall proceed with the further formalities of the case.

Client: I will do the same by tomorrow and let you know over telephone. Thank you.

46 | P a g e
 PREPARATION OF COURT PAPERS

47 | P a g e
CIVIL CASE

Name of the Court Civil Judge (senior division), Cuttack

Name of the Honorable Ms Reeja Ray

Judge

Name of the parties PLAINTIFF:-Smt. Gouri Swain, aged about 65 years W/o.late
Bina Swain, House hold duties by profession, resident of
Village/P.O.-Buxi Bazar, P.S.Cantonment, Dist. Cuttack

Versus

DEFENDANT:-Sanjaya Kumar Lenka, aged about 21 Years,

Son of Upendra Lenka,Cultivator by profession, resident of
Vi11./P.O. Manglabag, P.S.Manglabag, Dist. Cuttack

Case No. & Year C.S. 265/2009

Laws and-statutes involved Indian Evidence Act.1872,

Civil Procedure Code, 1908 &

Hindu Adoption & Maintenance Act, 1956.

48 | P a g e
Brief facts of the case

The plaintiff is the legally married wife of late Bina Swain who died in the month of July
2001 while getting treatment at S.C.B. Medical College & Hospital, Cuttack as an in-door
patient. The plaintiff and her late husband were blessed with two daughters namely, Usha and
Nisa. The defendant is the eldest son of said Usha. The father and mother of the defendant since
their marriage were residing in a house in the same area which was purchased by the husband of
the plaintiff. The father of the defendant was casually helping to the plaintiff and her husband
and looking after their property. So the plaintiff and her husband had reposed confidence on the
father of the defendant. The plaintiff and her husband have not adopted anybody as their son.
The further case of the plaintiff is that her husband was seriously ill for about one year prior to
his death and he had lost the balance of his mind. Taking the advantage of old age and mental
imbalance of the husband of the plaintiff, the father of the defendant took him to Sub Registrar
Office, Cuttack and in the guise of executing one Willnama in favour of the plaintiff in respect of
the landed property got one document registered in the style of acknowledgement of adOption in
favour of defendant by playing fraud and undue influence on her husband. In fact, the husband of
the plaintiff was not in a 'position to know what was happening around him and his signature and
LT] were obtained on the document on misrepresentation of facts. The contents of the document
was not read over and explained to the executants and the husband of the plaintiff had not
instructed to scribe such a document and it was not his mental act. The plaintiff further pleaded
that neither she nor her deceased husband have adopted the defendant. And the defendant was
never resided in her house. The defendant was/is always residing with his father and mother and
in all educational records as well as official records, the defendant has been recorded and
recognized as the son of his natural father. The plaintiff further contended that during her illness
in the month of October, 200], the defendant came to her house and threatened to execute
documents in his favour in respect to the landed property and on intervention of the village
Kasinathpur, the defendant disclosed that Bina Swain, the late husband of the plaintiff had
executed one deed of acknowledgement of adoption in his favour and he claimed his status of
adopted son and thereby created the disturbance in the house of the plaintiff. Thereafter, the
plaintiff enquired into the matter and came to know about the alleged deed of acknowledgement

49 | P a g e
of adoption. So the plaintiff constrained to file the suit for declaration that the defendant is not
her adopted son and to declare the registered deed of acknowledgement of adoption purported to
have been executed by Bina Swain in favour of the defendant to be illegal, null and void and not
binding on her plaintiff.

PRAYERS:

The plaintiff has prayed for a declaration that the defendant is not the adopted son of the
plaintiff and to declare the registered deed of acknowledgement of adoption bearing No.11
dt.25.4.2001 purported to have been executed by her deceased husband Bina Swain in favour of
the defendant to be illegal, null and void and not binding on the plaintiff whereas the defendant
has prayed to dismiss the suit as there is no cause of action for the plaintiff to bring the suit.

THE DOCUMENTS ATTACHED:

Plaint, Written Statement, Application for setting aside ex-parte order and objection.

DECISION:

After taking into accounts all the pleadings stated in the plaint and in the written
statement by the respective parties and the evidence adduced by the witnesses of both the sides
and relying on the decisions of the Hon’ble High Courts and Hon‘ble Supreme Court, the
Hon’ble Court has decreed the suit on contest against the defendant without cost.

50 | P a g e
CRIMINAL CASE
Date and time of court visit : 15-03-2019, 11.00 AM

Place : Cuttack

Name of the court : Sessions Judge Cuttack

Name of the Hon’ble Judge : Balakrishna Mohapatra

Case No. : ST 312/2016

Name of the parties : State

Versus

Kartik Bajpayee, aged about 40 Yrs,S/o Nimai Babun

At Rambag, P.S.Jajpur Town, Dist. Jajpur. At Present
Khatbin Sahi, C/o- Giridhari Seal, PS Lalbag,Cuttack.

Law & Statutes Involved : u/s 302 of IPC, 1860

BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE-

On 10-03-2016, one Nanda Bikram of Ganga Mandir presently residing at Khatbin Sahi reported
at Lalbag P.S. that he along with one step father Kartik Bajpayee and his mother Karuna Bikram
were staying in rented house at Khatbin Sahi. He went to Samaj Office Buxibazar Cuttack for
duty on yesterday night that is on 9-03-2016 at 9PM and his mother and Kartik Bajpayee were
living in the house on 10-3-2016 at 6 am. When he returned from his job, he found that his
mother Karuna Bikram is lying dead in the rented house. He suspects that Kartika Bajpayee who
had kept relation with his mother since last 10 years had murdered his mother. After receiving of
the FIR by the Informant at P.S. as it reveals a cock case under section 302, IPC registered P.S.
case no. 38/2016,And directed SJ. L.D. Mallick to take up investigation. During investigation the
investigating officer, examined the informant along with other witnesses and visited the spot.

51 | P a g e
The spot was visited by District Forensic Science Laboratory, Cuttack and prepared an inquest
report of the deceased and ceased some articles from the support and prepare a seizure list in
these regards. He examined the MO. to declare dead the deceased, Karuna Bikram. A blood-
stained suicide note was found in between the two pillows which was photographed. The
accused was injured and consumed poison and shifted to hospital before the arrival of the
scientific team. Spot map was prepared by the investigating officer. After 28 days the accused
who was in the SCB Medical College and was treated as a patient. The investigating officer
arrested the accused.All the seized articles materials have been sent to the director S.F.S.L,
Rasulgarh for examination of materials which were collected from the spot and submitted report.
Received the PM. Reports, from MD. F.M.T. Department of SCB medical college and hospital
Cuttack in favour of prosecution.

THE DOCUMENTS ATTACHED

1.F.I.R. Copy

2.Charge Sheet

3. List of seizures during investigation

4.Scientific report

5.Report of Investigating Officer

6.Post Mortem Report

LINE OF ARGUMENT-

In that case, the trial was commenced by the learned Session Judge, Cuttack. The accused was
present at the time of trial before the court on the date fixed. Two to three witnesses were
examined on dated 21-03-2018 and cross examined by the learned counsel for defence. The
Hon’ble Court has fixed a date, i.e., 19-6-2018 for examination of other witnesses of the
aforesaid case.

52 | P a g e