The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK CRA No.60 of 1997 (In the matter of an application under Section 374 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973) Pravat Kumar Pradhan @ Baliarsingh ……. Appellant -Versus- State of Orissa ……. Respondent For the Appellant : Mrs. Bhaktisudha Sahoo, Amicus Curiae For the Respondent : Mr. Sarathi Jyoti Mohanty, ASC CORAM: THE HONOURABLE SHRI JUSTICE SIBO SANKAR MISHRA Date of Hearing: 30.10.2025 : Date of Judgment: 11.11.2025 S.S. Mishra, J. The present Criminal Appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 05.02.1997 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge under the S.C. & S.T. (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Khurda, in T.R.
Legal Reasoning
Case No. 30/11 of 1996/95 (arising out of Fategarh P.S. Case No. 29 of 1994), whereby the appellant was convicted under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code. However, considering the young age of the accused-appellant and the fact that it was his first offence, the learned Trial Court extended the benefit of the provision of Section 3 Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, and released him accordingly. 2. This appeal is pending since 1997. When the matter was taken up for hearing, consistently in many dates of hearing, nobody appeared for the appellant. Therefore, on the request of the Court,
Legal Reasoning
Mrs. Bhaktisudha Sahoo, learned counsel has agreed to appear for the appellant to assist the Court. 3. Heard Mrs. Bhaktisudha Sahoo, learned Amicus Curiae appearing on behalf of the appellant and Mr. Sarathi Jyoti Mohanty, learned Additional Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent-State. 4. The prosecution case, in brief, is that one Trilochan Pradhan of village Luniouta had a Gohira tree standing on his land situated in the aforesaid mouza. The accused persons, namely Pravat Pradhan and his father Sweta Pradhan, allegedly cut and removed the said Gohira tree from his land prior to 23.03.1994. On 23.03.1994 at about 8:00 A.M., Ananda Naik, father of the informant, questioned the accused persons regarding removal of the said tree. This led to an altercation between them. Subsequently, on Page 2 of 8 the same day at about 3:00 P.M., near the temple of the local deity, the accused Pravat Pradhan is stated to have assaulted Rabi Naik, the brother of the informant, by means of a lathi in the presence of Gokuli Naik and Surendra Naik. As a result of the said assault, Rabi Naik sustained serious injuries and was admitted to the Government Dispensary at Khandapara for treatment. Trilochan Naik, the informant, lodged a written report of the incident before the A.S.I. of Jagannath Prasad Outpost on 30.03.1994, who took up the investigation pending registration of a regular police station case. Subsequently, PS Case No. 29/1994 was registered under Sections 341, 323, and 325 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. After the framing of charges and on the stance of denial, the accused-appellant was put to trial. 5. In the course of trial, the prosecution examined ten witnesses in total, including three Investigating Officers (P.Ws. 5, 6, and 10) and one Medical Officer (P.W.7). The remaining witnesses, except P.Ws. 1 and 3, were examined as witnesses to the occurrence. Page 3 of 8 Among the non-official and independent witnesses, P.W.1, P.W.3, and P.W.9 admittedly had not witnessed the occurrence. P.W.1 is the father of the injured, whereas P.W.3 and P.W.9 are his brothers. P.W.2 and P.W.8 were the eye-witness to the occurrences. 6. The learned Trial Court, upon a careful appreciation of the evidence on record and primarily relying on the testimonies of P.W.4 (the injured) and P.Ws.2 and 8, found their statements to be mutually corroborative and consistent. Accordingly, the learned trial Court held as under: “ 7.1. Therefore, besides the injured (P.W.4) himself, P.W.2 (Surendra Naik) and P.W.8 (Gokula Naik) are witnesses to the occurrence. These two witnesses have fully corroborated the as injured's version having been assaulted by the accused by means of ‘UKHUNI BADI’ causing bleeding injury over the pariétal area of the left side. The evidence of P.Ws. 2, 4 and 8 is substantially corroborated by the medico legal evidence of P.W.7. In the injury report (Ext.2), the Medical Officer (P.W.7) has categorically stated that the injured Rabi Naik had one lacerated injury of 4" x & bone deep over parietal area of left side and a conjunctival ecchymosis of right eye and a bruise 2" x 1" over the right maxillary area near right eye lower lid. Further, according to his opinion these injuries were probably caused by means of hard and blunt weapon. 8. Apart from the evidence as indicated above, P. W.4 has deposed to have been abused in filthy language by accused calling bad names "HAIRE MADURCHOD MAGIHA". Although P.W.2 has supported the version of P.W.4 on the point of assault, yet, he has not uttered a single syllable if the accused abused the injured calling bad names as has been sought to be proved by Page 4 of 8 P.W.4. Like I said before, P.W.8 has also not corroborated the version of P.W.4 on the context of his allegations that he was abused in filthy language humiliating him and his caste people.” Relying on the above findings, the learned Court below came to the conclusion that the prosecution had successfully established the charge under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code against the accused, but failed to prove the charges under Section 379 IPC and Section 3(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. The Trial Court, therefore, held as thus: “10. Thus, in the above premises, of the evidence, I am of the opinion that while the accused is found guilty of the offence under Section 323 I.P.C. He is found not guilty of the offences under Sections 379 and 3(v) of the Act, 1989. Eventually, the accused is convicted under Section 323 I.P.C., while he is acquitted of the offences U/s. 379 I.P.C. and Sec. 3(v) of the Act, 1989.” 7. The learned Amicus Curiae submitted that on the scanning of the material available on record, the only inference that could be possible is that the appellant is not guilty of the alleged offence and he has been falsely entangled in a concocted case. She further contended that the conviction recorded by the learned Trial Court was unsustainable in law and facts, and therefore, the appeal deserves to be allowed by setting aside the impugned judgment and order of Page 5 of 8 conviction. It was urged that the matter be decided on merits in favour of the appellant. 8. Per contra, the learned Additional Standing Counsel for the State submitted that there exists strong and consistent corroboration between the evidence of P.W.4, the injured, and P.Ws.2 and 8, the eyewitnesses to the occurrence. He contended that the learned Trial Court had properly appreciated the evidence on record and arrived at a well-reasoned finding, which cannot be brushed aside merely on technical grounds. Hence, it was submitted that the appeal lacks merit and deserves to be dismissed. 9. Upon a careful consideration of the rival submissions and a thorough perusal of the evidence on record, this Court finds that the learned Trial Court has duly analysed the testimonies of the injured witness (P.W.4) and the corroborative evidence of P.Ws.2 and 8, which are further supported by the medical evidence of P.W.7. P.W.4 (injured) in his evidence has stated that the accused gave 4 to 5 blows by means of a “Ukhuni Badi” and he sustained injuries on his back head, eyebrow (right). On receiving the injuries he fell down on the ground and lost senses only to regain in the hospital. This evidence Page 6 of 8 has been sufficiently stood corroborated with the testimony of P.Ws.2 and 8. The Doctor (P.W.7) found three injuries on P.W.4. He deposed that on examination of P.W.4, he found the following injuries: “i) Lacerated injury 4" x bone depth over parietal area of left side. It might have been caused by a hard and blunt weapon. It was simple in nature. ii) Conjuctival echhymosis of right eye. It might have been caused by hard and blunt weapon. It was simple in nature. iii) Bruise 2" x 1" over right maxxillary area near right eye lower lid. It might have been caused by hard and blunt weapon. It was simple in nature.” All the three witnesses sustained extensive cross-examination by the defence but they solidly stick to their version. On the face of such evidence on record the Trial Court’s reasoning appears well- founded, and no perversity or illegality is noticed in the appreciation of evidence or the findings recorded. 10. Accordingly, this Court finds no reason to interfere with the judgment of conviction and the order of sentence passed by the learned Trial Court. The Criminal Appeal is therefore dismissed, affirming the conviction of the appellant under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code. The order granting the benefit of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 to the appellant shall remain unaltered. Page 7 of 8 11. Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal is dismissed. 12. This Court records appreciation of the meaningful and effective assistance rendered by Mrs. Bhaktisudha Sahoo, learned Amicus Curiae. She is entitled to the honourarium of Rs.7,500/- (Rupees seven thousand five hundred) as a token of appreciation. (S.S. Mishra) Judge The High Court of Orissa, Cuttack. Dated the 11th of November, 2025/ Subhasis Mohanty Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SUBHASIS MOHANTY Designation: Personal Assistant Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack. Date: 12-Nov-2025 11:11:20 Page 8 of 8