The High Court · 2002
Case Details
THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK CRA No. 100 of 2002 (In the matter of an application under Section 374(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973) Surath Panigrahi and another ……. Appellants -Versus- State of Orissa ……. Respondent For the Appellants : Mr. Debasis Sarangi, Advocate For the Respondent : Ms. Suvalaxmi Devi, Additional Standing Counsel CORAM: THE HONOURABLE SHRI JUSTICE SIBO SANKAR MISHRA Date of Hearing: 13.11.2025 :: Date of Judgment: 27.11.2025 S.S. Mishra, J. The present Criminal Appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 14th May 2002, passed by the learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Berhampur, in Sessions Case No.13 of 2001 arising out of G.R. Case No. 46/99, convicting the appellants under Sections 148, 436/149, and 506/149 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and sentencing them to rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year each under Section 148 and Section 506/149 IPC, and two years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs.5,000/- each under Section 436/149 IPC.
Legal Reasoning
The learned trial Court, however, acquitted the appellants of the offences under Section 3(1)(iv) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. 2.
Legal Reasoning
Heard Mr. Debashis Sarangi, learned counsel for the appellants and Ms. Suvalaxmi Devi, learned Additional Standing Counsel for the State. 3. The prosecution case, in brief is that, on 16th November 1999, Suratha Panigrahi and his son Mitu Panigrahi, along with an armed mob, entered Kumbha Jhari village with the intention to dispossess the village people, who were primarily members of the Kandha tribe, from land that Suratha had purchased. Despite the villagers’ opposition, the accused Page 2 of 11 persons, with their armed accomplices, threatened the villagers and set fire to the houses of Tula Mallik and Rama Mallik. The damage caused by the fire was substantial, as both houses were completely destroyed. The villagers, witnessing the attack, managed to summon others to the spot, but by the time help arrived, the damage had already been done. Investigation ensued, charge-sheet filed by the police. On the stance of the accused persons on complete denial and claim of trial, the accused persons were put to trial on framing of the charges under Sections 148, 436/149, 506/149 of I.P.C. and Section 3(1)(iv) of the SC & ST (PoA) Act. 4. The prosecution relied on the testimony of six witnesses, including five residents of Kumbha Jhari (PWs.1 to 5) and the Investigating Officer (P.W.6). The witnesses testified that the accused persons, along with others, came to the village on the day of the occurrence and intimidated the villagers by showing weapons and setting fire to the houses of Tula Mallik and Rama Mallik. The defense presented evidence of the land transactions (sale deed, rent receipts, etc.) to establish that the Page 3 of 11 appellants had legal possession of the land, but the villagers opposed their right to the land. 5. While the evidence of the prosecution witnesses established that the accused were present at the scene with a group of armed individuals, the direct involvement of the appellants in setting the fires was not clearly established. However, the Court concluded that even if the appellants did not personally set the fire, they were responsible for the actions of the unlawful assembly under the aid of Section 149 IPC, they are convicted. 6. The learned trial Court also observed that the destruction of the houses by fire was part of the criminal intimidation intended to force the villagers into submission. The fact that the accused were members of an unlawful assembly, with the common object of taking possession of the land by force, was established beyond reasonable doubt. The relevant portion of the aforesaid judgment is extracted herein below for convenience of ready reference:- “13. In view of the evidence of P.WS.1 to 5 it would be clearly established that the accused persons were Page 4 of 11 members of an unlawful assembly armed with deadly weapons and that in prosecution of the common object they criminally intimidated the villagers of KumbhaJhar including P.Ws.1 to 5 and set fire to the dwelling houses of Tula Mallik and Rama Mallik of the same village and consequently the charges U/S. 148/436/149 and 506/149 are established against them. 14. In the result, the accused persons are held guilty Under secs. 148, 436/149 and 506/149 of the Indian Penal Code and are convicted thereunder. They are, however held not guilty under See.3(1)(iv) of S.C.&S.T. (PA)Act and are acquitted thereof.” 7. I have carefully considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the appellants as well as the learned counsel for the State, and perused the entire lower court records, including the depositions of the prosecution witnesses, and the reasoning assigned by the learned trial Court. 8. Upon reassessing the entire record, this Court finds it necessary to examine closely the evidence adduced by the prosecution and the defence. The prosecution has examined six witnesses, of whom P.Ws. 1 to 5 are villagers belonging to the Kandha (ST) community and claim to be eyewitnesses. P.W.6 is the Investigating Officer. The defence, on the Page 5 of 11 other hand, has examined accused Suratha Panigrahi as D.W.1 and produced several documents including the registered sale deed (Ext.A), the Record-of-Rights (Ext.B), rent receipts (Ext. C series), and repeated reports made to the police (Ext.D series). 9. The evidence of PWs 1 to 5 is broadly consistent in asserting that on the date of occurrence at about 3:00 p.m., both the accused persons, accompanied by 30 to 40 others armed with swords, katis and other deadly weapons, came towards the disputed land, shouted abuses, brandished their weapons, exploded crude bombs, and threatened the villagers with dire consequences. These witnesses also stated that two dwelling houses belonging to Tula Mallik and Rama Mallik were set ablaze during the incident and were completely destroyed. Their version on these core aspects remained unshaken during cross-examination. 10. The defence has produced the registered sale deed (Ext. A), the ROR (Ext.B), and rent receipts (Ext.C series), all of which demonstrate that the accused had indeed purchased land near Kumbha Jhari village. The police complaints (Ext. D series) made by the accused show that Page 6 of 11 the villagers had resisted their attempts to take possession. These documents convincingly establish the existence of a longstanding land dispute, which forms the background of the incident. Nevertheless, while these materials confirm the accused’s motive to assert possession, they cannot justify the use of force or violent methods to dispossess the villagers. 11. Upon an overall assessment, this Court finds that while the prosecution evidence suffers from certain limitations regarding specificity, the essential elements of unlawful assembly, criminal intimidation, and burning of the houses stand established. At the same time, the materials produced by the defence, coupled with the undisputed land dispute, indicate that the occurrence arose out of a heated property conflict rather than premeditated criminal intent. The accused are also first-time offenders with no prior criminal history. These factors are relevant for the purpose of sentencing, particularly while considering the applicability of beneficial legislation such as the Probation of Offenders Act. Page 7 of 11 12. Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act allows a Court, in certain circumstances, to release an offender on probation if it is satisfied that the offender is not likely to commit a similar offence in the future and that their release would not be detrimental to society. The P.O. Act is applicable to offenders who have committed offences punishable with imprisonment for less than seven years, and in particular, it is meant to rehabilitate those who are relatively young, first-time offenders, or individuals whose character suggests that they are amenable to reformation. 13. In the present case, both Suratha Panigrahi and Mitu (Gyanendra) Panigrahi are first-time offenders. They have no prior criminal antecedents, and they were convicted for offences under Sections 148, 436/149, and 506/149 of the IPC. The appellant No.2-Mitu Panigrahi, being relatively young, aged around 23 years at the time of the offence, is a first-time offender and appears to have been drawn into the incident due to family disputes concerning possession of land. Page 8 of 11 14. The nature of the offence, although serious, involves a land dispute between the appellants and the villagers of Kumbha Jhari, which escalated into criminal acts. The destruction of property, although significant, was limited to the dwelling houses, and the incident occurred in the context of a local dispute over land rights. While the offence warrants a certain degree of punishment, the Court can consider the reformatory aspect of the probation law. 15. In Rattan Lal v. State of Punjab, reported in AIR 1965 SC 444, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the object of the Probation of Offenders Act is to reform the individual offender and to prevent the conversion of a youthful or first-time offender into a habitual criminal by subjecting him to prison life. It was held thus:- “The Act is a milestone in the progress of the modern liberal trend of reform in the field of penology. It is the result of the recognition of the doctrine that the object of criminal law is more to reform the individual offender than to punish him. Broadly stated, the Act distinguishes offenders below 21 years of age and those above that age, and offenders who are guilty of having committed an offence punishable with death or imprisonment for life and those who are guilty of a lesser offence. While in the case of offenders who are above the age of 21 Page 9 of 11 years absolute discretion is given to the court to release them after admonition or on probation of good conduct, subject to the conditions laid down in the appropriate provisions of the Act, in the case of offenders below the age of 21 years an injunction is issued to the court not to sentence them to imprisonment unless it is satisfied that having regard to the circumstances of the case; including the nature of the offence and the character of the offenders, it is not desirable to deal with them under Sections 3 and 4 of the Act.” 16. In light of these factors, particularly the appellants' clean criminal history, the lack of evidence suggesting that they are habitual offenders, and the potential for rehabilitation, it is appropriate to grant the appellants the benefit of probation under the P.O. Act. Therefore, this Court directs the appellants to be released under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act for a period of one year on their executing bond of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand) each within one month 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 behavior and they shall remain under the supervision of the concerned Probation Officer during the aforementioned period of one year. Page 10 of 11 17. Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal is partly allowed. (S.S. Mishra) Judge The High Court of Orissa, Cuttack. Dated the 27th November, 2025/Swarna Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SWARNAPRAVA DASH Designation: Senior Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa Date: 08-Dec-2025 18:33:08 Page 11 of 11