The High Court
Case Details
THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK CRA No.146 of 1997 (In the matter of an application under Section 374(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973) Mohan Bag @ Tulu Bag ……. Appellant -Versus- State of Orissa ……. Respondent For the Appellant : Mr. Debi Prasad Dhal, Senior Advocate along with Mr. Anshuman Roy, Advocate
Legal Reasoning
For the Respondent : Mr. Raj Bhusan Dash, ASC CORAM: THE HONOURABLE SHRI JUSTICE SIBO SANKAR MISHRA Date of Hearing: 19.08.2025 :: Date of Judgment: 09.09.2025 S.S. Mishra, J. The present Criminal Appeal, filed by the appellant- Mohan Bag @ Tulu Bag under Sections 374(2) of the Cr.P.C., is directed against the judgment and order dated 21.06.1997 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Titilagarh in Sessions Case No.106/29 of 1996, whereby the present appellant has been convicted for the offence under Section 324 of the I.P.C. and on that count, he was sentenced to undergo R.I. for two years. 2. Heard Mr. Debi Prasad Dhal, learned Senior Advocate along with Mr. Anshuman Roy, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Raj Bhusan Dash, learned Additional Standing Counsel for the State. 3. The prosecution case in terse and brief is that on 24.06.1996, at about 8.25 A.M., while the informant-Hrudanand Bag (P.W.1) was going towards Basti, the accused on the way met him and asked about his destination, to which, he replied that he was going to report against him to the police as he did not listen to the Bhadraloks in the meeting held on the previous day. So, saying this, while the informant was in the Basti to collect document of the Panchayat, his mother informed him that the accused-appellant stabbed his wife with knife at five to six places with an intention to kill her. After reaching the spot, he found that there were multiple injuries sustained by his wife, the injured (P.W.3) over different parts of her body and she was lying senseless in a pool of blood near the house of one Ratan Bag. Thereafter, he along with his brother (P.W.4) caught hold the accused by chasing him. Page 2 of 6 4. The matter was reported at the police station and on the basis of the aforesaid allegations; the police investigated the case and filed the charge-sheet for the offence punishable under Section 307 of I.P.C. on 05.08.1996. On the stance of appellant’s denial of involvement in the crime, he was put to trial after the charges were framed. 5. The prosecution in order to prove its case examined as many as seven witnesses. Out of whom, P.W.1 was the informant and the husband of the injured/victim. P.W.2 is the mother-in-law of the injured and an eye witness to the occurrence. P.W.3 is the injured/victim. P.W.4 was a post-occurrence witness and was the brother of the informant. P.W.5 was the doctor, who examined the injured. P.Ws.6 and 7 were the two Investigating Officer of this case. 6. The learned trial Court by taking into consideration the entire evidence brought on record arrived at the following conclusion:- “In the premises it is deduced that the prosecution has succeeded well in establishing its case against the accused beyond all reasonable doubts to the extent indicate above. Accordingly, the accused is Page 3 of 6 found guilty U/S/ 324 of the I.P.C. and convicted thereunder.” 7. Being aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Titilagarh, the present appeal has been preferred by the appellant. 8. Mr. Roy, learned counsel for the appellant, at the outset, submitted that he would confine his argument limited to the question of sentence instead of challenging the conviction recorded against the appellant. Therefore, I need not venture into the merits of the case by re-appreciating the entire evidence. Suffice it to say that initially the appellant was charged under Section 307 of I.P.C., however, the learned trial Court found the appellant not guilty of the said charges, to which the State has not questioned. The appellant has assailed the conviction recorded against him of the offence under Section 324 of I.P.C. and on that count, the sentence has been awarded. Since the appellant has chosen not to question the conviction and rather confined his case to the quantum of sentence, I prefer to consider all the attending circumstances to modify the sentence. Page 4 of 6 9. Mr. Roy, learned counsel for the appellant brought to the notice of this Court that during trial, the appellant was arrested on 24.06.1996 and was enlarged on bail on 11.09.1996. The impugned judgment was passed on 21.06.1997 and the appellant was taken into custody. Thereafter, the appellant has been released on bail by this Court vide order dated 16.07.1997. Therefore, Mr. Roy submitted that the appellant has already undergone custody for about three months from the total awarded sentence. Mr. Roy, also submitted that the appellant was 22 years of age at the time of incident i.e. in the year 1996. At present, he is about 51 years of age. Therefore, he prays that the appellant may be treated under the Probation of Offenders’ Act. 10. Taking into consideration the submission made by the learned Counsel at bar, although as mentioned in the above paragraphs, I hold the accused guilty of offence under Section 324 of I.P.C., but deem it appropriate to modify the sentence. Considering the entire features of the case, I could have dealt with the appellant under Section 4 of the Probation of the Offenders’ Act. However, when the appellant has Page 5 of 6 already suffered imprisonment for three months, injustice would be compounded if I now grant him the treatment under the Probation of Offender’s Act. I would, therefore, while affirming the conviction, reduce the sentence to the period the appellant has already undergone. However, in the fitness of the circumstances and to meet ends of justice, I feel it appropriate, to impose a fine of Rs.10,000/- (rupees ten thousand), in default of which the appellant shall undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for one month. The fine amount shall be realized to the victim (if alive) or to his husband as per the procedure established under Section 357 Cr.P.C. 11. Accordingly, the CRA is partly allowed. (S.S. Mishra) Judge The High Court of Orissa, Cuttack. Dated the 9th September, 2025/ Swarna Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SWARNAPRAVA DASH Designation: Senior Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa Date: 10-Sep-2025 18:51:46 Page 6 of 6