The High Court
Case Details
THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK CRA No. 20 of 1999 (In the matter of an application under Section 374 of Criminal Procedure Code) Mrutunjaya Panda @ Babu ……. Appellant -Versus- State of Orissa ……. Respondent For the Appellant : Mr. G.N. Mohapatra, Advocate
Legal Reasoning
For the Respondent : Mr. A.K. Apat, AGA CORAM: THE HONOURABLE SHRI JUSTICE SIBO SANKAR MISHRA Date of Hearing and Date of Judgment: 20.11.2025 S.S. Mishra, J. The present Criminal Appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 15.01.1999 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Balasore in Sessions Trial Case No. 22/59 of 1997 (arising out of G.R. Case No. 759 of 1996), whereby on being convicted for offence under Section 323 of IPC, the appellant has been sentenced to undergo R.I. for six months. 2. The prosecution report in the present case narrates that on a day before 24.06.1996, the younger son of Pitambar Pradhan (P.W.6) and his nephew (P.W.4) while returning from Remuna, accused Mrutunjaya spit towards them and they had altercation with Mrutunjaya Panda for the same. This was brought to the notice of Pitambar Pradhan, so Pitambar enquired from Mrutunjaya as to the cause of spitting while Mrutunjaya was passing on the road near the house of Pitambar. On 24.06.1996 morning, Mrutunjaya threatened Pitambar and abused him in obscene words. On the same day at about 4.30 P.M. all the accused persons came shouting armed with lathi entered inside the premises of Pitambar Pradhan and assaulted Pitambar Pradhan, for which he sustained injury on his head. 3. On the basis of the aforementioned allegations, FIR was registered and investigation was conducted. Charge sheet was filed against the appellant and on his stance of complete denial and claim for trial, he was put to trial after the charges were framed. 4. Heard Mr. G.N. Mohapatra, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. A.K. Apat, learned Addl. Government Advocate for the State. Page 2 of 7 5. To establish the charges, the prosecution examined eight witnesses and exhibited as many as six documents. P.W.1 is the elder son of the injured (P.W.6); P.Ws.2 and 3 were the witnesses to the incident; P.W.4 is the nephew of P.W.6; P.W.5 was a post occurrence witness; P.W.6 was the injured; P.W.7 was the doctor, who examined the injured on police requisition and P.W.8 was the Investigating Officer of the present case. 6. Three accused persons including the present appellant stood charged for offence under Section 307 IPC. In the present appeal, P.W.6 was the injured, who has deposed that “on 24.06.1996 at about 4.30 to 5.00 P.M., accused persons came. Mrutunjay Panda came shouting PITAMBER PRADHAN BAHARILA. He came down from the verandah. All the accused persons entered into my premises. Mrutunjay Panda dealt a blow by Badi on his head and he sat down. Two to three more blows were given on his back. He cannot say who dealt those blows. His son, wife and persons working in his premises came running to him and wrapped a Dhoti around his head. He was shifted to Remuna Hospital for medical treatment. He was treated on that date at Ramuna Hospital. On the next day He was removed to Balasore Hospital. He was in-patient till 29.06.1996. He has filed the discharge certificate issued by Balasore Hospital. Ext.4 (with objection) is discharge certificate.” Page 3 of 7 7. The above part of the statement of the victim stood corroborated with the testimony of P.W.7, the doctor, who found the following injuries:- “A lacerated wound bleeding profusely 2” x 1/2” x 1/1” on the right occipital bone the injury was placed transversely nature of injury was simple. It might have been caused by hard and blunt weapon. The age of injury was within 2 hours from the time of my examination.” 8. The learned trial court relied upon the testimony of P.W.7 and finding the injury simple in nature and there is no intention on the part of the appellant to kill the victim, arrived at the following findings:- “12. As held in the foregoing paragraphs, that the prosecution established assault by Mrutunjaya Panda on P.W.6 on his head now it is to be considered actual what offence was made out whether section 307 IPC or any other offence. The offence under section 307 IPC is attempt to commit murder. This attempt on the life of Pitambar Pradhan is to be ascertained from the acts, conduct, nature of weapon used and nature of injury left. The prosecution evidence does not reveal that Mrutunjaya Panda dealt more than one blow or anybody intervened physically or orally to rescue the injured from further assault by Mrutunjaya Panda so as to prevent him from executing his intention to commit murder in attempt of which he dealt a blow on his head. Notwithstanding Mrutunjaya Panda left the place with one blow on the head of Pitambar Pradhan. Had he actually intended to do away with the life of Pitambar Pradhan (p.w.6) he could have successively inflicted injury even after he fell down with injury on his head. He did not do so. Without any physical intervention or obstruction, he left the place that very action of Mrutunjaya Panda entirely eliminated the accusation of attempt of murder against him. Thus it is held charge u/s 307 IPC is not brought home to the Page 4 of 7 accused Mrutunjaya Panda. Mrutunjaya Panda is held have voluntarily assaulted and caused lacerated injury on the head of Pitambar Pradhan for which his actions squarely comes within the ambit of offence under Section 323 IPC. I therefore, hold him guilty for commission of offence u/s 323 IPC and hold him not guilty for the charge u/s 307 IPC.” 9. On the basis of the aforementioned finding, the learned trial court has acquitted the co-accused Sarat Panda and Dhananjaya Panda. However, the learned trial court found the appellant guilty for offence under Section 323 IPC and accordingly on that count, sentenced the appellant to undergo R.I. for six months. 10. The appellant being aggrieved by the said judgment of conviction and order of sentence has filed the present appeal. 11. While analyzing the evidence on record, I find no reason to disagree with the findings recorded by the learned trial court. Hence, I affirm the conviction recorded against the appellant of the charge for the offence under Section 323 of IPC. 12. Mr. G.N. Mohapatra, learned counsel for the appellant, at the outset, submitted that at the time of incident in the year 1996, the appellant was 45 years of age and his date of birth was 1956, as borne on record. Hence, at present the appellant is about 74 years of age. During Page 5 of 7 the trial, the appellant was arrested on 26.06.1996 and was admitted to bail on 08.07.1996. Therefore, the appellant has incarcerated for a period of 15 days as a UTP. The impugned order was passed on 15.01.1999 and the appellant was extended the benefit of the provision under Section 389 Cr.P.C. Learned counsel for the appellant further submitted that in view of the aforementioned, he does not want to press this appeal in so far as the conviction is concerned; however, he confined his argument to the quantum of sentence only. 13. At this stage, Mr. Mohapatra, submitted that keeping in view the procrastinated judicial process undergone by the appellant in this case and the ordeal of trial faced by the appellant, this Court may dispose of the appeal by giving consideration to the sentence. He submitted that the incident pertains to the year 1996. The appellant has undergone the rigors of trial for about one year. Thereafter, the appeal was preferred in the year 1999. The appeal has been prolonging to be heard for about 26 years. The appellant is now in the late evening of his life. The learned Counsel further submitted that the appellant has no criminal antecedents and no other case of a similar nature or otherwise is stated to be pending against him. Over the years, he has led a dignified life, integrated well into society, and is presently leading a settled family life. Page 6 of 7 14. Regard being had to the societal position of the appellant, his clean antecedents, and the fact that the incident had taken place in the year 1996, I am of the considered view that the appellant is not required to undergo any further imprisonment at this stage of his life. Considering that he has already suffered the ordeal of trial and appeal for more than two decades and has undergone custody for fifteen days during the trial period, the sentence imposed by the learned trial court is reduced to the period already undergone. However, in order to meet the ends of justice, the appellant is directed to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand) within a period of two months, and in default of payment of such fine, he shall undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of ten days. The amount to be deposited shall be disbursed to the victims/L.Rs, as per the provisions of Section 357 Cr.P.C. 15. Accordingly the Criminal Appeal is partly allowed and disposed of. (S.S. Mishra) Judge The High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Dated the 20th of November, 2025/Ashok Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: ASHOK KUMAR JAGADEB MOHAPATRA Designation: Secretary Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa Date: 02-Dec-2025 14:02:14 Page 7 of 7