The High Court
Case Details
THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK CRA No. 5 of 1994 (In the matter of an application under Section 374 of Criminal Procedure Code) Sasanka Praharaj ……. -Versus- Appellant State ……. Respondent
Legal Reasoning
For the Appellant : Mr. Adyasidhi Mishra, Advocate For the Respondent : Mr. S.J. Mohanty, ASC CORAM: THE HONOURABLE SHRI JUSTICE SIBO SANKAR MISHRA Date of Hearing and Date of Judgment: 20.11.2025 S.S. Mishra, J. The present Criminal Appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 19.11.1993 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Cuttack in Sessions Trial No. 395 of 1992, whereby the appellant has been convicted under Section 324 IPC and the learned trial court taking into consideration Section 6 of the Probation of Offenders Act and Section 360 of the Cr.P.C. arrived at the conclusion that the appellant is entitled to treatment under Section 6 of the P.O. Act, and accordingly directed the appellant to execute bond of Rs.10,000/- to keep peace and amity for a period of one year and receive the sentence when called upon during the aforementioned period. 2. Heard Mr. Adyasidhi Mishra, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. S.J. Mohanty, learned Addl. Standing Counsel for the State. 3. The prosecution report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. in the present case narrates that on 14.06.1991 the day of ‘Pahili Raja’ of the year 1991, the incident had taken place inside the newly constructed house of deceased Abhimanyu Praharaj. It is alleged that about noon time, when the deceased was taking a nap, accused Ashok Praharaj and Sasanka Praharaj, abused his younger brother in intemperate language when he was about to go to Niali. Such quarrel disturbed the siesta of the informant, who came towards the scene of occurrence to know about its reason. By hearing such brawl, Abhimanyu went to separate his younger brother from the accused and the other witnesses. But after a short interval, the accused persons being armed with iron rod and crowbar, suddenly emerged and attacked Abhimanyu. Accused Ashok and Sasank were armed with iron rods, whereas accused Page 2 of 7 Bansidhar with a crowbar. Accused Bansidhar assaulted Abhimanyu with a crowbar, as a result of which, he fell down on the ground immediately following which he picked up an empty earthen pot and threw it at Abhimanyu. The other two co-accused, namely, Ashok and Sasanka, equally attacked Abhimanyu, as a result of which he suffered from severe bleeding injury. All the three accused after assaulting Abhimanyu, took to their heels. The injured was taken to Adaspur Hospital. After stitching, he was brought back to the residence. From the date of incident till 17.06.1991, the injured Abhimanyu was regularly attending the Adaspur Primary Health Centre. But on 17.06.1991, there was blood vomiting and he was taken to SCB Medical College and Hospital, Cuttack and in spite of better treatment to the injured, he could not survive and succumbed to those injuries. 4. On the basis of the aforementioned allegations, FIR was registered and investigation was conducted. Charge sheet was filed against the appellant and on his stance of complete denial and claim for trial, he was put to trial after the charges were framed. 5. To establish the charges, the prosecution examined six witnesses and exhibited as many as six documents. P.Ws.1, 2 and 3 Page 3 of 7 are none other than the mother, widow and brother of the deceased; P.W.4 was the ASI of Police of Mangalabag P.S., who registered the UD Case No.321 of 1991 and held inquest over the dead body;P.W.5 was the Medical Officer, who conducted the autopsy on the dead body of Abhimanyu and P.W.6 was the Investigating Officer of the present case. 6. The learned trial court has carefully dealt with all the prosecution witnesses, analysed the evidence and culled out the following findings:- “12. P.Ws 2 and 3 also corroborate the statement of P.W.1. It has been brought out by the defence that P.W.2 did not claim to have stated in course of investigation that accused Bansidhar and Ashok were armed with any weapon and they assaulted with crowbar and iron rod. She stated at the stage of investigation that accused Tuna only assaulted her husband on the face whereafter he was severely injured and fell down. From the cross-examination of P.W.3 it seems that although all the three accused were armed with crowbar and iron rod but they did not attack him by those weapons. It is highly unlikely that accused would not attack him when there was a quarrel between them when they were armed with weapons and only attacked the deceased. His statement further disclosed that all the three accused threw earthen pot at Abhimanyu which is quite contradictory to the evidence of P.W.1 who claimed that Bansidhar alone threw the earthen pot. If the ocular evidence of these three eye- witnesses is to be believed, the deceased would have multiple injuries on his body. But from the P M. report as well as injury report of Adaspur. P.H.C it is Page 4 of 7 indicated that he had only 3 superficial injuries on both the lips and the right side ere-brow. Therefore; the version of these 3 witnesses that all the 3 accused assaulted the deceased Abhimanyu with crowbar, iron rod and earthen pot seems to be incredible. Even attack by crowbar and iron rod on the deceased would have caused severe injuries on him and would not only leave simply superficial injury. 13. P.W.4 is the A.S.I. of Mangalabag P.S. who conducted inquest on the deceased Abhimanyu and took steps for P.M. examination. His evidence is not of much help to the prosecution. The evidence of P.W.5 has been already discussed above which suggested that the death of Abhimanyu was due to liver cirrhosis and portal hypertension which resulted in haemorrhage in his stomach. 14. P.W.6 who is the I.O. in this case deposed that P.W.1 did not state before him that accused Bansidhar assaulted her son with a crowbar and threw earthen pot. Similarly, P.W.2, Nirmala Praharaj, the widow of the deceased had not stated before him that accused Ashok and Bansidhar being armed with any weapon assaulted her husband by crowbar and iron rod. She only claimed that accused Tuna assaulted her husband on his face. Similarly, P.W.3 Pabitra has stated that accused Tuna alias Sasank abused him and the other 2 accused reached after the arrival of his brother. So, on a combined reading of the evidence of P.Ws 1 to 3 and P.W.6 it seems that P.Ws 1 to 3 who are the close relation of the deceased added the names of accused Bansidhar and Ashok during the course of trial. While comparing the ocular testimony with injury report there are full of embellishment and exaggeration made by the witnesses. Therefore, in such situation the ocular testimony of witnesses appears to be very much doubtful. All the same the deceased has claimed that accused Sasank struck him with a knife which resulted in injury on both the lips and right eye brow. This statement also received corroboration with the evidence of P.W.2. Therefore, the prosecution has made out a case against accused Sasanka that he assaulted Page 5 of 7 Abhimanyu causing injury on both the lips and right eye brow.” 7. The appellant has been convicted for offence under Section 324 IPC. While dealing with the case of the appellant on the question of sentence, the learned trial court taking into consideration Section 6 of the Probation of Offenders Act and Section 360 of the Cr.P.C. arrived at the conclusion that the appellant is entitled to treatment under Section 6 of the P.O. Act, and accordingly directed the appellant to execute a bond of Rs.10,000/- to keep peace and amity for a period of one year and receive the sentence when called upon during the aforementioned period. 8. The appellant has challenged the aforementioned judgment of conviction and order of sentence in the present appeal. 9. The trial court judgment under challenge is supported with strong reasoning and culmination of true appreciation of evidence; hence I am not inclined to interfere with the same. 10. When this appeal was heard, this Court, vide order dated 13.01.1994, passed the following orders:- “Admit. Heard. Prayer for stay is rejected. Page 6 of 7 The Misc. Case is dismissed.” 11. From the aforementioned order of this Court, it is apparent that the appellant has already furnished the required bond, as directed by the learned trial court and the period of probation has already been lapsed. 12. In the above view of the matter, Mr. Mishra, learned counsel for the appellant submits that nothing survives in the present appeal.
Decision
Therefore, the appeal may be disposed of. 13. In view of the submission made by the learned counsel for the appellant, the Criminal Appeal is disposed of accordingly. (S.S. Mishra) Judge The High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Dated the 20th of November, 2025/Ashok Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: ASHOK KUMAR JAGADEB MOHAPATRA Designation: Secretary Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa Date: 02-Dec-2025 14:02:13 Page 7 of 7