The High Court
Case Details
THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK CRLA No.110 of 2007 (In the matter of an application under Section 374 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973) Bipin Chandra Pradhan and others ……. Appellants -Versus- State of Odisha ……. Respondent For the Appellants : Ms. Diptirekha Nanda, Advocate For the Respondent : Smt. Siva Mohanty, ASC CORAM: THE HONOURABLE SHRI JUSTICE SIBO SANKAR MISHRA Date of Hearing: 22.07.2025 :: Date of Judgment: 31.07.2025 S.S. Mishra, J. The present criminal appeal, filed by the appellants under Sections 374 of the Cr.P.C., is directed against the judgment and order dated 22.02.2007 passed by the learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge, Berhampur, Ganjam in Sessions Case No.13 of 2004 (S.C. No. 8/04 GDC), whereby the present appellants, namely Bipin Chandra Pradhan, Nilanchala Pradhan, and Jagili Jagabandhu Sahu were convicted for the offence under Section 323 of I.P.C. and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 300/- each, in default to undergo R.I. for a period of seven days. 2.
Legal Reasoning
Heard Ms. Diptirekha Nanda, learned counsel for the appellants and Smt. Siva Mohanty, learned Additional Standing Counsel for the State. 3. The prosecution case, briefly stated, is that on 18.01.2002 at about 9 P.M., when a Surakhya Parishad meeting was going on at the village mandap of Khairapanka Gram Panchayat, the accused persons arrived at the venue on motorcycles creating noise and disturbance. When the villagers present at the meeting questioned their behavior, the accused allegedly abused them in filthy language and assaulted certain members of the gathering, including the complainant, Prakash Patro (P.W.5). Based on the said allegations, a First Information Report (F.I.R.) was lodged and after completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed against ten accused persons under Sections 147/148/294/323/506/149 of Page 2 of 10 I.P.C. and Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. 4. The prosecution further alleges that when P.W.5 objected to the noise and rash driving of the accused persons during the meeting, a heated verbal exchange ensued. It is stated that appellant No.1 Bipin Chandra Pradhan caught hold of P.W.5’s collar and slapped him, while the other two appellants, Nilanchala Pradhan and Jagili Jagabandhu Sahu, allegedly joined by assaulting P.Ws. 2 and 4. The incident led to a commotion, following which the accused persons allegedly fled away from the scene on their motorbikes. The injured persons were taken to the nearby medical centre, and a complaint was subsequently lodged with the police. The Investigating Officer visited the spot, examined witnesses, and recorded statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C. Based on the materials collected, charge-sheet was filed implicating the appellants and others. On the stance of denial and claim of trial, the accused persons were put to trial. 5. The prosecution in order to bring home charges examined as many as eight witnesses. Out of them, P.W.5 was the complainant, P.Ws.2, 3, Page 3 of 10 and 4 were the villagers of Bomkei, out of whom; P.Ws.2 and 4 were the victim of assault. P.W.1 is an outside villager whereas P.W.6 was the doctor, who examined the injured and P.Ws.7 and 8 were the I.Os. of the case. 6. The learned trial Court, after examining eight prosecution witnesses and one defence witness, came to the conclusion that the evidence on record could not establish the offences under Sections 147/148/294/506 of I.P.C. or under Section 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST (PoA) Act, either independently or with the aid of Section 149 of I.P.C. The learned trial Court held that the assembly was not unlawful in nature and that the altercation and injuries appeared to have resulted from a sudden quarrel. The learned trial Court, however, convicted the present appellants under Section 323 of I.P.C. for voluntarily causing simple hurt to P.Ws. 2, 4 and 5, and sentenced them accordingly. 7. The learned trial Court, after credible analysis, has arrived at the following findings:- “13. The above being the totality of the prosecution evidence on record on the analysis/discussion made thereof, it is seen the prosecution has not been able to Page 4 of 10 prove/establish the charges/offences u/s.147, 148, 294, 506 I.P.C. and Sec. 3(1)(x) S.C. and S.T(PA) Act all readwith sec. 149 I.P.C. But the prosecution has been able to prove/established the charge/offence u/s.323 I. P. C. against the accused persons Nilanchal Pradhan, Jagili Sahu and Bipin Pradhan, but failed to prove the said charge/offence against the other accused persons. 14. In the result, therefore, the accused persons are not found guilty of the charges/offences u/s. 147, 143 and 294, 506 I.P.C. and Sec. 3(1)(x) of S.C. and S.T (PA) Act, all readwith section 149 I.P.C. and acquitted from the said charges/offences u/s. 235(1) Cr.P.C. Further the accused persons Subas Pradhan, B. Raju, Kailas Pradhan, Narsinga Sethi, Balakrishna Nayak and Bhaskar Pradhan are found not guilty of the charge/offence u/s.323/149 I.P. C. and acquitted of the said charge/offence u/s. 235(1) Cr.P.C. But the accused persons Nilanchal Pradhan, Jagili Sahu and Bipin Pradhan are the charge/offence u/s.323 І.Р.С. and convicted thereunder. The accused persons found not guilty be set at liberty and their bail-bonds stand cancelled. The accused persons convicted be called upon for hearing on the question of sentence. found guilty of Heard the accused/convicts Nilanchal Pradhan, Jagili Jagabandhu Sahu and Bipin Pradhan and their counsel on the question of sentence. They submitted to release them under the provisions of P.O. Act. incident the background Considering happened, the I am not accused/convicts under the provisions of P.O. Act. Hence, each of the accused/convict is sentenced each u/s.323 I.P.C. to pay a fine of Rs. 300/- in default/to undergo R.I. for 7 days.” in which to the release inclined Page 5 of 10 8. Assailing the impugned judgment, Ms. Nanda, learned counsel for the appellant, after arguing the matter on merits and law, chose to confine his submission to the quantum of sentence. 9. I have considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the lower court records carefully. 10. On a meticulous reading of the judgment of the learned trial Court, it appears that the learned trial Court has rightly discarded the prosecution case in relation to the SC & ST (PoA) Act charges, noting inter alia that the investigation was conducted by an officer below the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police and that no caste certificate was produced to prove that the complainant belonged to a Scheduled Caste. Further, the learned trial Court has also found that the circumstances of the case did not establish the existence of an unlawful assembly with a common object, and rightly acquitted the other accused persons of the charges under Sections 147/148/294/506 of I.P.C. and Section 3(1)(x) of the SC & ST (PoA) Act. Page 6 of 10 11. As far as the conviction under Section 323 of I.P.C. is concerned, it is based primarily on the evidence of the complainant and two other injured witnesses. The medical evidence (P.W.6) corroborates the fact of simple injuries being sustained by the complainant and the said witnesses. However, the injuries are not grievous, and there is nothing on record to show that the assault was either brutal or carried out with deadly weapons. The background of the incident, as accepted by the trial Court, suggests that it was a spontaneous quarrel arising out of a disturbance during a village meeting and not a pre-planned assault. 12. The offence under Section 323 IPC is punishable with imprisonment up to one year or fine or both. The appellants were not sentenced to imprisonment but only directed to pay a fine of Rs. 300/- each. However, considering the age of the appellants particularly that the first appellant, Bipin Chandra Pradhan, was 49 years old at the time of conviction and is now in his late 60s, and that there is no evidence of any previous conviction against them it would be appropriate and in the interest of justice to extend the benefit of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958. Considering that the occurrence happened more than two decades Page 7 of 10 ago, that the appellants have already suffered the trauma of protracted trial and appellate proceedings, and that they have not been involved in any criminal activity since, I am of the opinion that this is a fit case where the benefit of probation should be extended. 13. In a similar judgment, the Allahabad High Court in the case of Ram Naresh and Ors. vs State of U.P. reported in CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1211 of 2008 granted relief under the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 to the appellants despite upholding their conviction. For convenience of ready reference, relevant part of the said judgment reads as under:- “22. Further the Hon'ble Apex Court in State of Maharashtra vs Jagmohan Singh Kuldip Singh Anand; (2004) 7 SCC 659 has extended the benefit of Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 the appellants, and observed as under: to for learned counsel appearing the "The accused submitted that the accident is of the year 1990. The parties are educated and neighbors. The learned counsel, therefore, prayed the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 may be granted to the accused. The prayer made on behalf of the accused seems to be reasonable. The accident is more than ten years old. The dispute was between the neighbors over a trivial issue of that benefit of Page 8 of 10 claiming of drainage. The accident took place in a fit of anger. All the parties educated and also distantly related. The accident is not such as to direct the accused to undergo sentence of imprisonment. In our opinion, it is a fit case in which the accused should be released on probation by directing them to execute a bond of one year for good behaviour." 25. That Section 4 of the Act of 1958 is applicable where a person is found guilty of committing an offence where punishment is neither life sentence nor death. The Court may release such an accused on probation of good conduct on his furnishing a bond as mentioned in the Section. The Court in applying the provisions of this Section is also required to consider the circumstances of the case, character of the offender and nature of the offence before exercising its discretion. 29. That it is noteworthy that the incident took place way back in the year 2004. The accused-appellants have suffered in matter for past 20 years and there is no any criminal antecedent between the parties during these years. 30. Considering the fact and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that the benefit of provision of the Act of 1958 should be provided to the accused / appellants.” 14. In such view of the matter, the present Criminal Appeal in so far as the conviction is concerned, is turned down. But instead of sentencing the appellant to suffer imprisonment, this Court directs the appellants to Page 9 of 10 be released under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act for a period of three months on their executing bond of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand) within fifteen days each with one surety each for the like amount to appear and receive the sentence when called upon during such period and in the meantime, the appellants shall keep peace and good behaviour and they shall remain under the supervision of the concerned Probation Officer during the aforementioned period of three months.
Decision
15. With the above observation, the CRLA is accordingly disposed of. (S.S. Mishra) Judge The High Court of Orissa, Cuttack. Dated the of 31st July 2025/ Swarna Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SWARNAPRAVA DASH Designation: Senior Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa Date: 01-Aug-2025 20:23:51 Page 10 of 10