COURSE: BBA.

LLB(A)

SUBMITTED BY: Deepsikha Choudhury

ROLL.NO:1982041
 CIVIL CASE

II. Name of the Court and its location.

Motor Accidents Claim Tribunal (M.A.C.T), court complex, Bhubaneswar

III. Day and Date of the Court Visit. and duration of your stay.

Date: march, 30 2024

Duration of Stay: two hours

IV. Court Number and Name of the Judge(s) hearing the matter.

Judge: Smt. Sasmita Parhi, B.Sc. LL.M., Additional District Judge-cum-9th

M.A.C.T.,Bhubaneswar
V. Name of Parties to the case.

Petitioners:

Kabitanjali Ghadai (Widow of Late Ashok Ghadai)

Abhishek Ghadai (Son of Late Ashok Ghadai)

Aditya Ghadai (Son of Late Ashok Ghadai)

Respondent:

Director General of Police, Odisha, Bhubaneswar

VI. Title of the case

M.A.C. No.178 of 2018 - Kabitanjali Ghadai and Others vs. Director General of Police,
Odisha

VII. Brief facts of the case:

The case revolves around a tragic motor accident that occurred on August 13, 2018, at around
9:00 P.M. Mr. Ashok Ghadai, while riding his motorcycle cautiously along the extreme left
side of the road, was involved in a collision with a speeding police van bearing Registration
No. OR-05-U-2052. The collision, which took place on a wide and well-pitched section of
National Highway 5, resulted from the police van's reckless overtaking maneuver. Despite
Mr. Ghadai's efforts to avoid the collision, he sustained fatal injuries, leading to his untimely
demise at the accident site. His livelihood depended on a fish business, and his sudden loss
has profoundly impacted his family's financial stability and emotional well-being.

The petitioners, comprising Mr. Ghadai's wife and sons, filed a compensation claim of Rs.
17,00,000 under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, seeking redress from the
Director General of Police, the owner of the offending vehicle.

In response, the Opp. Party, representing the Director General of Police, refuted the
occurrence of the accident as described by the petitioners. They argued that the police van
was driven at a low speed by an experienced driver and contended that Mr. Ghadai's
negligent and rash driving, compounded by adverse weather conditions, was the primary
cause of the accident. Additionally, the Opp. Party raised objections regarding the
maintainability and limitation of the claim petition, labeling the compensation sought by the
petitioners as arbitrary, imaginary, and excessively high.

VIII. The submissions/pleadings you observed during your visit to the court:

The petitioners claimed that the accident was caused by the negligent driving of the police
van driver, resulting in loss of income, emotional suffering, and loss of consortium. The Opp.
Party contested the claim, arguing that the accident was due to the deceased's negligence and
that the claim petition was arbitrary and excessive.

Important findings by the court:

 The court determined that the accident resulted from the negligent driving of the
police van driver, supported by consistent testimonies and corroborating documentary
evidence.
 Recognizing the deceased's role as the family's primary earner and the dependence of
the petitioners on his income, the court ruled in favour of compensating the petitioners
for the accidental death.
 After assessing various factors, including the deceased's income, age, and future
prospects, the court determined the compensation amount to be Rs. 15,82,872, with an
additional 6% interest per annum from the date of application.
 Holding the O.P., the owner of the offending police van, responsible for reimbursing
the compensation amount, the court cited evidence such as the driver's license to
support its decision.
  Upon review, the court found the claim petition to be filed within the stipulated time
and deemed it maintainable.

IX. Was there a resolution of the question before the court while you were

present? If so. What, was it?

The court found in favour of the petitioners, holding the Director General of Police liable to
pay compensation of Rs. 15,82,872/- to the petitioners. The court directed the Opp. Party to
reimburse the compensation amount along with interest at 6% per annum from the date of
application. Additionally, the court ordered the apportionment of the compensation among
the petitioners, with provisions for fixed deposits for the minor children until they reach
majority.

CRIMINAL CASE
II Name of the Court and its location.

Fast Track Special Court (POCSO), court complex, Bhubaneswar

III. Day and Date of the Court Visit. and duration of your stay.

Day and Date of the Court Visit: Thursday, 30th March 2024

Duration of Stay: 1hour

IV. Court Number and Name of the Judge(s) hearing the matter.

Court Number: Not specified

Judge(s) Hearing the Matter: Shri S.K. Sahoo, M.A., LL.M.

V. Name of Parties to the case.

State – Prosecution

Represented by:

Shri R. Sasmal, Special P.P.

Shri B. Deo, Additional P.P.

Versus:

Suraj @ Saroj Biswal

Bishnu Charan Behera

(Accused Persons)

Represented by:

Shri Sanjib Kumar Baral & Associates (for accused No.1)

Shri Nilamani Praharaj & Associates (for accused No.2)

VI. Title of the case

T.R. Case No.84 of 2022: State vs Suraj @ Saroj Biswal & Bishnu Charan Behera

VII. Brief facts of the case

The prosecution alleges that the victim, a resident of Banpur, Khurda district, was deceived
by accused Bishnu Charan Behera, who persuaded her to travel to Bhubaneswar for a
supposed album photoshoot on March 3, 2022. Accused Saroj Biswal, posing as a co-actor,
furthered this deception via WhatsApp. Upon arrival, Suraj escorted her to Bishnu's residence,
where they staged a simulated marriage scene at a temple. Subsequently, Suraj assaulted and
sexually abused the victim multiple times, threatening her with dire consequences, and took
obscene photographs. The victim filed an FIR on March 4, 2022, leading to legal proceedings
against the accused for sexual offenses.

Throughout the prosecution's case, it's asserted that the victim, coerced under false pretenses
by Bishnu Charan Behera, was subjected to egregious abuse orchestrated by Saroj Biswal.
Their manipulation culminated in a series of harrowing events on March 3, 2022, as Suraj
exploited the victim's vulnerability, committing multiple acts of sexual assault and
intimidation. The victim's bravery in filing an FIR on March 4, 2022, initiated legal action
against the accused, exposing the gravity of the offenses committed against her.

VIII. The submissions/pleadings you observed during your visit to the court

All the submissions, pleadings, arguments were all completed in the las hearing which was on
28th march 2024 and the judgment was reserved. So on the day of court visit both the parties
was present and the judge pronounced the judgement.

IX. Was there a resolution of the question before the court while you were

present? If so. What, was it?

During the court proceedings, the prosecution presented eight witnesses and various exhibits
to substantiate the case. However, the examination of some witnesses was waived as they
didn't support the prosecution's case. The court stressed the importance of determining the
victim's age under the POCSO Act, but despite efforts, the evidence remained inconclusive.

Further, the court deliberated on the presumption of innocence and the prosecution's burden
to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Due to inconsistencies and lack of corroboration in
the evidence, the court concluded that the prosecution failed to establish the charges beyond
reasonable doubt. Consequently, both accused individuals, Suraj @ Saroj Biswal and Bishnu
Charan Behera, were acquitted of all charges, leading to the cancellation of their bail bonds
and discharge of sureties. Additionally, the court addressed the disposal of seized items and
the
matter of compensation under the Victim Compensation Scheme. Thus, the court's judgment
resolved the questions raised during the proceedings.