The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK CRA NO.8 of 1996 (In the matter of application under Section 374(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973.). Chiranjibi Meher and Others …. Appellants -versus- State of Orissa …. Respondent For Appellants : Mr. G. Mishra, Sr. Advocate For Respondent : Mr. P.C. Das, ASC CORAM: JUSTICE G. SATAPATHY DATE OF JUDGMENT:27.03.2023 G. Satapathy, J. 1. The Appellants herein assail their conviction for offence U/S.506 Part-I of the IPC and sentence to pay fine of Rs.500/- (Rupees Five Hundred) each, in default whereof, to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for two months as recorded on 18.12.1995 by learned Sessions CRA No.8 of 1996 Page 1 of 12 Judge-Cum-Special Judge, Balangir-Sonepur, Bolangir in G.R. Case No.373 of 1994 (T.R. No.04 of 1995). 2. Shorn of unnecessary details, the prosecution case is that owing to some dissension between asabarna and sabarna people in village Khairtikra, the informant- P.W.1 and his caste people had come to the police station on 28.09.1994 on being asked by the IIC, but as the sabarna people did not turn up, they were asked to go back, and while they were going back, on the road, in front of Civil Court Building, Sonepur, all of the sudden, the Appellants not belonging to scheduled caste, rushed towards P.W.1 and his villagers and abused them in filthy language, but the nearby shopkeepers intervened in the matter, and thereafter, P.W.1 and his friends while proceeding to their village after this incident, the Appellants encircled/gheraoed them near Adarsha School of Sonepur and Appellant-Babulal caught hold of the collar of the shirt of P.W.1 and gave four fist blows on his CRA No.8 of 1996 Page 2 of 12 left cheek, whereas accused Chiranjibi brought out a knife and threatened to assault him. Being afraid of the situation, all of them ran to the police station, where
Legal Reasoning
P.W.1 lodged the FIR against the Appellants under Ext.1 paving the way for investigation the case, which resulted in submission of charge-sheet against the Appellants for offence U/S.3(1)(x) of SC & ST (POA) Act, 1989 under which cognizance was taken and the accused persons faced the trial being charged for such offence. 3. In the course of trial, the plea of the accused persons(Appellants) was denial simplicitor and false implication. In support of its case, the prosecution examined all together six witnesses and relied upon the documents 1 to 3 as against no evidence whatsoever by the defence. After appreciating the evidence on record upon hearing of the parties, the learned trial Court by the impugned judgment convicted the accused persons- appellants for offence U/S.506 Part-I of the IPC by finding CRA No.8 of 1996 Page 3 of 12 them not guilty to the charge U/S.3(1)(x) of SC & ST (POA) Act. 4.
Legal Reasoning
Mr. G. Mishra, learned Sr. Counsel after entering appearance by filing appearance memo for the appellants, submits that the learned trial Court has not appreciated the evidence in proper prospective and, thereby, the learned trial Court by the impugned judgment has erroneously convicted the Appellants and the appeal having kept pending before this Court for last 29 years, the Appellants had already suffered more than enough and, thereby, the appeal may kindly be allowed and the conviction and sentenced as recorded against the appellants may kindly be set aside. 5. On the other hand Mr. P.C. Das, learned ASC, however strongly opposes such prayer of the Appellants and he interalia submits that the judgment of conviction having recorded after due appreciation of evidence need CRA No.8 of 1996 Page 4 of 12 not to be interfered with. Learned ASC accordingly, prays to dismiss the appeal. 6. After hearing the rival submissions upon perusal of record, it appears to the Court that the learned trial Court has convicted the Appellants by mainly relying upon the oral evidence of P.W.1 to 3. Admittedly the Appellants were charged only for offence U/S.3(1)(x) of SC & ST (POA) Act, but not separately for any offence including offence U/S.506 of IPC. On re-appreciation of evidence in the background of analysis of evidence by the learned trial Court contrasting with the rival submissions, this Court does not find any error apparent with the impugned judgment inasmuch as P.W.1, who is the victim in this case, had reiterated the allegation made by him in his FIR. Similarly the evidence of P.Ws.2 and 3 remains firmed with regard to the criminal intimidation of the Appellants and their evidence appears to be supported by each other and the learned trial Court had found the CRA No.8 of 1996 Page 5 of 12 Appellants guilty of offence U/S.506 Part-I of IPC, which calls for no interference in this appeal. Be it noted, in a criminal case, appropriate punishment to the guilty is one of the objective of adversarial system, since imposing graver/higher punishment not commensurate to the criminal liability would be counterproductive. It is, of course, seen in this case that the convicts have been sentenced to pay fine, but learned trial Court while sentencing the convicts has declined to extend the benefit of P.O. Act to them without assigning any reason. Hence, it would be imperative for the Court to examine as to whether the Appellants are entitled to the benefit of P.O. Act, which is in the circumstance may not be considered as sentence. 7. In the above context, it would be wise to refer to some authorities before taking any decision on sentence of the appellants. On coming back to the authorities, in Lakhvir Singh Vrs. State of Punjab; (2021) 2 SCC CRA No.8 of 1996 Page 6 of 12 763, the Apex Court, while extending the benefit of Sec. 4 of P.O. Act to the convict, has held thus:- 6.“We may notice that the Statement of Objects and Reasons of the said Act explains the rationale for the enactment and its amendments: to give the benefit of release of offenders on probation of good conduct instead of sentencing them to imprisonment. Thus, the reformation and rehabilitation of offenders as useful and self-reliant members of society without subjecting them to the deleterious effects of jail life is what is sought to be subserved.” increasing emphasis on 7.1. In Som Dutt and others Vrs. State of Himachal Pradesh; (2022) 6 SCC 722, the Apex Court in Paragraph-6 has held as under:- “Sections 3 & 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act empower the Courts to release the offenders on probation of good conduct in the cases and circumstance mentioned therein. Similarly, Section 360 and 361 of Cr.P.C. also empower the Courts to release the offenders on probation of good conduct in the cases and circumstance mentioned therein. Hence, having regard to sentence imposed by the Courts below on the appellants for the offence U/S.379 r/w Section-34 of IPC, and having regard to the fact that there are no criminal antecedents against the appellants, the Court is inclined to give them the benefit of releasing them on probation of good conduct.” CRA No.8 of 1996 Page 7 of 12 7.2. In Vipul Vrs. State of Uttar Pradesh; (2022) SCC Online SC 1686, the Apex Court at Paragraph-30 has held as under:- “Section 360 pertains to an order after conviction, to be passed by the Court after admonition, facilitating a release and also probation of good conduct. It is to be exercised on two categories of persons. The first category consists of persons attaining 21 years and above with the proposed punishment for a term of 7 years or less. While the other for a larger term except punishable with death or imprisonment for life. This is made applicable to a convict aged under 21 years or any woman. The Court has to weigh the age, character and the antecedent of circumstances the offence committed. If satisfied, it can release the convict entering into a bond while a direction to keep the peace and maintain good behavior can be ordered during the said period. As discussed, this provision can be pressed into service while dealing with chapter-XXIA other than convicting a person after trial. Like the other two provisions involving plea bargaining and compounding, Sec. 360 of the Code is also a forgotten one.” the leading convict with to CRA No.8 of 1996 Page 8 of 12 7.3. In Pathani Parida and Anr. Vrs. Abhaya Kumar Jagadev Mohapatra; (2011) 49 OCR 955, this Court at Paragraph-6 has held as under:- “It is incumbent upon the Courts to give benefit of probation when the offenders are entitled to under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act unless the Court finds that the convicts are incorrigible and cannot be reformed. The object of punishment is not only to be retributive but also to be reformative.” 7.4. Similarly, in Jagat Pal Singh and others Vrs. State of Haryana; (1999) SCC (Cri) 1313, the Apex Court at Paragraph-6 has held as under:- imprisonment, “We direct that instead of sentencing them to the accused persons should be required to execute a bond before the Magistrate for keeping good behaviour and peace for a period of six months.” 8. In scrutinizing the facts of the case in the backgrounds of the scope and object of P.O. Act and authoritative pronouncements made in the cases referred to above, it appears that the learned trial Court had not delved the fact and situation in the case for not extending CRA No.8 of 1996 Page 9 of 12 the beneficial provision of P.O. Act to the appellants in the impugned judgment, nor the learned trial Court had assigned any reason for withholding the benefit of P.O. Act to the appellants, but the fact remains that the appellants were convicted in this case for commission of offence U/S.506 Part-1 of IPC. However, taking into consideration the guilt of the convicts for offence U/S.506 Part-I of IPC, which prescribes punishment for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine or with both, the benefit of Sec.3 of P.O. Act can be extended to the convicts-Appellants. However, the convicts are first time offenders and no previous conviction of the appellants have been proved against them and approximately 29 years have elapsed in the meantime after conviction of the Appellants and the convicts were aged about 30, 21 and 22 years as on the date of their conviction and now they would be 59, 50 and 51 years. This Court, therefore, considers it unnecessary to sentence the convicts- CRA No.8 of 1996 Page 10 of 12 Appellants at once to any punishment at this point of time, when they had already found to have suffered the rigmarole of the trial and appeal for near about 29 years, which was like the sword of Damocles dangling over their heads all through these years. Besides, the State, however, has not come up with any convincing materials to show that the convicts are incorrigible and cannot be reformed and the object of punishment is also reformative. 9. In the above circumstances, this Court considers it proper to give the benefit of Sec.3 of P.O. Act to the convicts-Appellants inasmuch as the offence (Section 506-I) with which the Appellants are convicted does not prescribes punishment beyond two years, and having regard to the circumstances of the cases including the nature of offence and the character of the Appellants, it is considered expedient to release the Appellants on probation of good conduct. CRA No.8 of 1996 Page 11 of 12 10. In the result, the appeal is dismissed on contest, but in the circumstance, there is no order as to costs. As a logical sequitur, the conviction of the Appellants is maintained, but instead of sentencing them to suffer any punishment, it is directed that the Appellants be released U/S.3 of the P.O. Act after due admonition. The sentence is, accordingly, modified. (G. Satapathy) Judge Orissa High Court, Cuttack, Dated the 27th day of February, 2023/Subhasmita CRA No.8 of 1996 Page 12 of 12