The High Court
Case Details
THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK CRLA No.116 of 2007 (In the matter of an application under Section 374 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973) Bipin Bihari Padhy and others ……. Appellants -Versus- State of Orissa ……. Respondent For the Appellants : Mr. Birendra Kumar Nayak, Advocate For the Respondent : Mr. Sarathi Jyoti Mohanty, ASC CORAM: THE HONOURABLE SHRI JUSTICE SIBO SANKAR MISHRA Date of Hearing: 28.10.2025 :: Date of Judgment: 28.10.2025 S.S. Mishra, J. The six appellants conjointly filed the present criminal appeal assailing the judgment and order dated 22.02.2007 passed by the learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge, Berhampur in Sessions Case No.26/2003 (S.C. No.390/02 GDC),
Legal Reasoning
whereby the learned trial Court while acquitting all the appellants of the charges under Sections 147/148/294/149/324 of I.P.C. read with Section 3(1)(x) of SC & ST (PoA) Act except appellant No.3. All the appellants were found guilty of the offence under Section 323 of the I.P.C. and were convicted thereunder. In addition, appellant No.3, Khirasindhu Pradhan, was further convicted under Section 324 of the I.P.C. Accordingly, all the accused persons were sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.300/-, in default, to undergo R.I. for seven days for offence U/s.323 of I.P.C. and additionally, appellant No.3, Khirasindhu Pradhan was further sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.500/-, in default, to undergo R.I. for ten days for offence U/s 324 of I.P.C. 2.
Legal Reasoning
Heard Mr. Birendra Kumar Nayak, learned counsel for the appellants and Mr. Sarathi Jyoti Mohanty, learned Additional Standing Counsel for the State. 3. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 13.01.2002 at about 9:00 P.M., a political meeting was being held at village Kharapanka, organized by Nilanchal Pradhan (P.W.5). At that time, Narsinga Sethi (P.W.2), while riding on a motorcycle driven by his co-villager Jagabandhu Sahu (P.W.4), happened to pass near the said meeting. It is alleged that the appellant No.3-Khirasindhu Pradhan abused them in Page 2 of 9 filthy language, uttering the words “Magia Ochhua Jati Dhoba Sole,” and questioned how they dared to pass by the meeting on a motorcycle making such noise. Thereafter, accused Khirasindhu Pradhan allegedly came down from the meeting pendal, slapped P.W.2, and threatened to kill him. Out of fear, P.W.2 ran away from the spot. It is further alleged that at that time, one Prafulla Barik, having spat on Magata Barik, assaulted him with fists and blows. When Bijay Patro (P.W.3) intervened, he too was assaulted and thrown to the ground. Subsequently, when the accused persons rushed towards P.W.2, armed with khanda-kati, P.W.2 raised his hand in defence, whereupon the weapon struck his hand, causing injury. Thereafter, the accused persons, namely, Juria Pradhan (appellant No.4), Bigni Misra (appellant No.2), Bikas Mandal (appellant No.6), Bipin Padhy (appellant No.1), and Biswanath Pradhan (appellant No.5) jointly assaulted P.W.2. Hearing the commotion, the mother of P.W.2, arrived at the spot crying for help. It is alleged that accused Khirasindhu Pradhan and Biswanath Pradhan, in furtherance of their common intention, outraged her modesty by forcibly disrobing her in public on the village danda. Thereafter, Jagabandhu Page 3 of 9 Sahu (P.W.4) and Bijay Patro (P.W.3), with the assistance of P.W.2, got a written report scribed and submitted the same before the Officer-in- Charge, Nuagam Police Station, at the Nuapada Outpost. Upon perusal, the report disclosed commission of cognizable offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149, 294, 323, 324, 354, and 506 of I.P.C. and Section 3 of the SC & ST (PoA) Act. Accordingly, the Officer-in-Charge took up preliminary investigation and forwarded the report to Nuagam Police Station, whereupon P.S. Case No. 7 of 2002 was registered under the aforesaid sections. During investigation, the statements of the complainant and other witnesses were recorded; the spot was visited, and a spot map (Ext. 6/1) was prepared. The injured witnesses namely Narsinga Sethi (P.W.2), Bijay Patro (P.W.3), Jagabandhu Sahu (P.W.4), and Nilanchal Pradhan (P.W.5) were sent to Nuapada P.H.C. under police requisition for medical examination. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet was submitted against the accused persons for the offence under Sections 147, 148, 294, 323, 506 and 149 of I.P.C. read with Section 3(1)(x) of Page 4 of 9 the SC & ST (PoA) Act. On their stance of denial and claim of trial, they were put to trial. 4. The prosecution in order to bring home charges examined eight witnesses. Out of whom, P.Ws.3 and 4 were the complainants. P.Ws. 2, 5 and 6 were the villagers, out of whom P.W.2 and P.W.5 were the victims of assault. P.W.1 was the doctor, who examined the injured persons. P.W.7 was the I.O. of the case and P.W.8 was the another I.O., who submitted the charge-sheet. 5. Although initially the appellants were charged under Section 147/148/324/323/294/149 of I.P.C. read with Section 3(1)(x) of the SC & ST (PoA) Act, however, the learned trial Court after analyzing the evidence of the P.Ws.2, 3, 4 and 5 have arrived at a conclusion that the accused persons are not guilty of the offences under Sections 147/148/294/149 of I.P.C. read with Section 3(1)(x) of the SC & ST (PoA) Act rather they have been held guilty of the offences under Sections 323 of I.P.C. and on that count, sentence has been awarded, apart from it appellant No.3 Khirasindhu has also been convicted under Page 5 of 9 Section 324 of I.P.C. Relevant part of the impugned judgment is reproduced hereunder:- “13. On careful and close consideration of the evidence of pws. 2, 3, 4 and 5 it is seen from the same that accused Khirasindhu assaulted Narasinga Sethi,pw.2 by a katua- badi which is an iron pipe fitted with triangle shape iron in one end on his right elbow and Bijay Patro pw. 3 by a khanda-kati on his belly which struck on both his fore- arms as he warded of the blow by the same. Accused persons Juria Pradhan, Bigneswar Misra, Biswanath Pradhan, Bipin Padhy and Bikas Mandal assaulted Narasinga pw. 2 and Nilanchal Pradhan pw. 5 by katua- badi. As accused Khirasindhu stated to have assaulted Narasinga Sethi pw. 2 by a katua badi, which is an iron pipe fitted with triangle shape iron in one end it suggests that the same is a sharp pointed instrument. But as the medical examination report of Narasinga Sethi marked ext: 4' does not show that he sustained any sharp cutting or punctured injury on his person, assault to him by the weapon as has been stated cannot be accepted, but as Khirasindhu attempted to dealt a khanda kati blow on the belly of Bijay Patro-pw. 3 to which as he warded of his hands, the same struck on both of his fore-arms causing injury and the medical examination report of said Bijay Patro marked ext. 2 shows that he sustained lenier incised wounds on both of his fore arms which were caused by sharp cutting weapon, the prosecution allegation and evidence that accused Khirasindhu assaulted Bijay Patro pw.3 by a sharp cutting weapon is believed and accepted. The injury reports of Narsinga Sethi pw. 2, Jagabandhu Sahu pw. 4, Nilanchal Pradhan pw. 5, marked ext. 4, ext. 1 and ext. 3 respectively shows that they sustained abrasion and bruise on their person by blunt object and the doctor pw.1 testifies the same, it is concluded on the basis of the available materials that simple hurt was caused to the said injured by the accused persons. 14. The above being the totality of the prosecution evidence on record on the analysis/discussion made Page 6 of 9 the prosecution has been able
Decision
thereof it is seen the prosecution has not been able to prove/establish the charges/offences u/s. 147, 148, 294 and Sec. 3(1)(x) S. C. and S. T. (PA) Act all read-with Sec. 149 I.P.C. But to prove/establish the charge/offence u/s.323 1.P.С. against all the accused persons and the charge/offence u/s.324 1.2. C. against accused Khirasindhu Pradhan, but failed to prove the said charge/offence against the other accused persons. 15. In the result, therefore, the accused persons are found not guilty of the charges/offences u/s. 147, 148, 294 and sec. 3(1)(x) S.C. and S. T. (PA) Act all read with Sec. 149 I.P.C. and acquitted of the said charges/offences u/s.235(1) Cr.P.C. Further the accused persons except Khirasindhu Pradhan are the charge/offence u/s. 324 I.P.C. and acquitted of the said charge/offence u/s.235(1) Cr.P.C. But all the accused persons are found guilty of the charge/offence u/s.323 I.P.C. and convicted thereunder and further accused Khirasindhu Pradhan is found guilty of the charge/offence u/s. 324 I.P.C. and convicted thereunder. Hence, the accused persons are called upon for hearing on the question of sentence.” found not guilty of 6. Being aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge-cum- Special Judge, Berhampur, the present appeal has been preferred by the appellants. 7. At the outset, learned counsel for the appellants submitted that in so far as the conviction recorded against the appellants is concerned, he would not press the appeal and would confine his arguments only to the Page 7 of 9 quantum of sentence imposed. It is submitted that the incident relates back to the year 2002, and at that time, the appellant No.1 was fifty years of age, appellant No.2 was 45 years of age, appellant No.3 was 52 years of age, appellant No.4 was 49 years of age, appellant no.5 was 55 years of age and the appellant No.6 was 35 years of age. At present, they are in their late seventies and have been leading a respectable and dignified life along with their family. The appellants have no criminal antecedents, and no other case of a similar or any other nature is pending against him. Over the years, they have remained well integrated into society and have maintained a settled family life. It is urged that sending them back to custody after such a long passage of time would serve no useful penological purpose and would instead be counter-productive, casting an unnecessary stigma not only upon them but also upon their family members, particularly when there is no allegation of any repeat offence or non-compliance with law thereafter. 8. Learned counsel for the appellants further submits that all the appellants were arrested on 19.01.2002 and they were released on bail on 23.01.2002. Therefore, the appellants have already undergone about five Page 8 of 9 days custody. The learned trial Court has not sentenced the appellants to undergo custody rather imposed fine. 9. Considering the fact that the incident occurred almost two decades ago, and the appellants are now in their late seventies, have no other criminal involvement, and have lived a reformed and socially respectable life since then, I am inclined to take a lenient view. Accordingly, while affirming the conviction, the substantive sentences imposed by the learned trial Court are reduced to the period the appellants already undergone. Additionally, the fines as imposed by the learned court below stands waived. 10. Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal is partly allowed. The High Court of Orissa, Cuttack. Dated the 28th October, 2025/ Swarna (S.S. Mishra) Judge Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SWARNAPRAVA DASH Designation: Senior Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa Date: 31-Oct-2025 10:41:26 Page 9 of 9