The High Court
Case Details
THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK CRLA No.316 of 2004 (In the matter of an application under Section 374 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973) Giridhari Padhan ……. Appellant -Versus- State of Orissa ……. Respondent For the Appellant : Mr. Piyush Panda, Advocate on behalf of Mr. S. K. Padhi, Advocate For the Respondent : Mr. Sarathi Jyoti Mohanty, ASC CORAM: THE HONOURABLE SHRI JUSTICE SIBO SANKAR MISHRA Date of Hearing: 11.07.2025 :: Date of Judgment: 18.07.2025 S.S. Mishra, J. The present Criminal Appeal, filed by the appellant under Sections 374 of the Cr. P.C., is directed against the judgment and order dated 20.07.2004 passed by the learned Special Judge, Sonepur in
Facts
Sessions Case No.40/30 of 2002, whereby the learned trial Court while acquitting the appellant of the charges under Sections 294 of I.P.C. read with Section 3(1)(x) of SC & ST (PoA) Act, convicted the appellant for the offence under Section 506 of I.P.C. The appellant was sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.500/-, in default, to undergo R.I. for three months on that count. 2.
Legal Reasoning
in the judgment of this Court in the case of Pathani Parida & another vs. Abhaya Kumar Jagdev Mohapatra, reported in 2012 (Supp-II) OLR 469. 12. 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 or to pay fine, this Court directs the appellant to be released under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act for a period of three months on his executing bond of Rs.5,000/- Page 9 of 10 (Rupees Five Thousand) within fifteen with one surety for the like amount to appear and receive the sentence when called upon during such period and in the meantime, the appellant shall keep peace and good behavior and he shall remain under the supervision of the concerned Probation Officer during the aforementioned period of three months.
Arguments
Heard Mr. Piyus Panda, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Sarathi Jyoti Mohanty, learned Additional Standing Counsel for the State. 3. The prosecution case in terse and brief is that:- On 17.06.2001 afternoon, the appellant went to the house of the informant (P.W.1) and abused her husband (P.W.4) and challenged him to come out, so that he would murder him. Hearing the abuses, the informant (P.W.1) came out at the entrance of the house and objected to the appellant. The appellant is not belonging to SC & ST category. However, he abused the informant in vulgar language and raised one Page 2 of 10 lathi threatening to assault her, by abusing her caste. Out of fear, she ran inside the house. The appellant hit the door leaf and bragged that she would be spared but her husband would not be killed and while threatening the appellant went away. After sometime, the husband of the informant returned back home and hearing about the incident from his wife, convened a village meeting but the accused-appellant did not turn up. Hence, the F.I.R. was registered. 4. The investigation was carried out and the police filed charge-sheet against the appellant on the allegation of the commission of the offences under Sections 294/506 of I.P.C. read with Section 3(1)(x) of SC & ST (PoA) Act. Accordingly, the learned trial Court framed charge against the appellant for the offences as mentioned above. 5. The prosecution in order to bring home the charges against the appellant examined seven witnesses whereas the defence examined one witness. Out of which, P.W.1 is the informant/victim, P.Ws.2 & 3 were the occurrence witnesses those who were the neighbours of the P.W.1. Page 3 of 10 P.W.4 is the husband of the informant. P.Ws.5, 6 and 7 were the Investigating Officers of the case. 6. The learned trial Court after analyzing the evidence of the eye witnesses and the informant as well as the occurrence witnesses have arrived at a conclusion that the appellant is guilty of the offence under Section 506 of I.P.C. However, the learned trial Court acquitted the appellant of the charges under Section 294 of I.P.C. read with Section 3(1)(x) of the SC & ST (PoA) Act on the ground that the investigation was not appropriately conducted as per the mandate of law. The trial Court summed up its reasoning to acquit the appellant for offence under SC & ST (PoA) Act inter alia observing as under:- “8. P.W.5 the O.I.C. registered this case and directed, P.W.7, the ASI to take up investigation. In fact, P.W.7 examined the witnesses and did all that is required for investigation and there after the D.S.P (P.W.6) took charge of the investigation of the case from P.W.7 and obtained the caste certificate and submitted charge sheet. He admitted that he had not examined any witness nor seized any material in this case. As appears, he did not conduct real investigation though mandated under rule 7 of SC & ST (PA) Rules and therefore the accused is entitled for acquittal from the Page 4 of 10 charge u/s 3 of the SC & ST (PA) Act as held in Ranjit’s case reported at Vol. 25(2003) OCR 459.” 7. Although on technical ground, the appellant has been let of from the charges of Section 3 of SC & ST (PoA) Act but the learned trial Court on the basis of unimpeachable evidence available on record went on to record a conviction against the appellant for the offence charged under Section 506 of I.P.C. The reasoning for recording the conviction is reflecting in paragraph-9 of the impugned judgment, which reads thus:- the the accused abused “9. It is admitted fact that P.W.2 happened to be the nephew of the informant. He had drafted the F.I.R. but on the sole ground of relationship, his evidence cannot be brushed aside. In such a situation, court is to be on guard and should scrutinize the evidence with caution. Through the I.O. it could be proved that he had not mentioned in his statement u/s 161 Cr.P.C. informant with that threatening to murder her husband and then raised one lathi to assault her for which she entered inside her house and then the accused hit the door leaf by lathi while he was armed with one axe. This P.W.2 had scribed the F.I.R. and had signed therein vide Ext.1/1 mentioning that the accused threatened to kill the husband of the informant and on objection, abused her and raised a lathi for which she out of fear entered inside and the accused hit the door with that lathi and he was armed with one axe also. In his statement u/s 161 cr.p.c. he had not specifically stated Page 5 of 10 that the accused had raised his lathi to assault the informant or that he was armed with one axe. Such omission in the facts and circumstances of this case did not affect the prosecution case to brush aside the offence of criminal intimidation. Similarly, P.W.3 had not mentioned in his statement before the police that the accused raised the lathi to assault her. But his statement was that the lathi blow hit the thatched roof of the informant. For such minor contradictions, the evidence of p.w.3 could not be discarded. Similarly, the evidence of the informant is in consonance with his F.I.R. except minor variation of showing the axe. These minor contradictions occurred when these witnesses belonged to lowest strata of a muffasil village and similar minor contradictions are bound to occur in the case of perfect witnesses. The evidence of P.Ws.1, 2 and 3 are natural and inspire credence. They appear to be truthful and credible. In nut shell, their evidence revealed the accused had threatened to kill the husband of the informant and further threatened to assault her with a view to cause alarm in her mind and in fact, she feared imminent assault and therefore entered inside her house and the raised blow hit the door leaf. Prosecution could brought home the charge u/s 506 I.P.C. against the accused. When the evidence of P.W.1, 2 and 3 revealed that only p.w.2 and 3 were present near the spot at the time of the occurrence and their evidence did not reveal that D.W.1 was also present at his shop, at the time of occurrence and had seen the occurrence, that no such occurrence took place has no basis. It is to be simply rejected. It is found that prosecution could well prove its case u/s 506 I.P.C. against the accused but failed the claim of D.W.1 that Page 6 of 10 to prove the charge u/s 294 I.P.C. read with section 3(1)(x) of the S.C. & S.T. (PA) Act.” 8. I have carefully gone through the evidence adduced by the parties on record and it is found that the testimony of P.Ws.1, 2, 3 and 4 are trustworthy because all of them in unison have stated that on 17.06.2001 i.e. on Sunday at about 5.30/6 P.M., the occurrence had taken place in front of the entrance of the house of the P.W.1. Everybody has stated that the accused-appellant abused the husband of P.W.1. When P.W.1 came out of her house and objected to it, she was abused profusely stating “GHUDADEHI KHEUTINI TORA GHAITA KU AJI MURDER KARIMI TOTE GIHEI GIHEI CHUA KARIDEBI”. It is also stated by all the witnesses that the appellant raised a lathi to assault P.W.1 and P.W.1 out of fear ran inside her house. The lathi blow hit the entrance gate of the house. It is also deposed by the witnesses that the appellant was armed with an axe and continuously threatening P.W.1 stating that he would kill her husband. All the witnesses have sustained very extensively cross-examined by the defence. The witnesses have stated in their cross-examination that although in the statement recorded under Page 7 of 10 Section 161 Cr.P.C. before the police, they might not have detailed the account of occurrence but whatever they have stated before the Court, they stand by the same. The cross-examination of the witnesses has been rightly appreciated by the learned trial Court in its judgment dated 20.07.2004 under challenge particularly in paragraph-9, which has been reproduced above. 9. I have meticulously evaluated the evidence on record and in the light of the same, the finding recorded by the learned trial Court is also appreciated. I find no reason to disagree with the trial Court rather the appreciation of the evidence made by the learned trial Court is apt, justified and unquestionable. Hence, the conviction recorded by the learned trial Court against the appellant stands confirmed. 10. At this stage, Mr. Panda, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the sentence is only fine of Rs.500/- and the appellant belongs to a very poor family. He has been suffering ordeal of trial for about four years. The appeal is pending since 2004. The appellant is at present is about more than 60 years. Therefore, the burden of fine and default Page 8 of 10 sentence may not be imposed on him at this belated stage rather he submits that the appellant may be extended the benefit of Probation of Offenders Act. 11. Taking into consideration the entire features of the present case and the fact that the incident relate backs to the year 2001. At this point in time, the appellant is 60 years of age. The present case is pending for hearing for a long time i.e. about 21 years, I am inclined to accede to the oral prayer made by the learned counsel for the appellant. I am of the view that the appellant’s case is directly covered by the ratio laid down
Decision
13. With the above observation, the CRLA is accordingly disposed of. (S.S. Mishra) Judge The High Court of Orissa, Cuttack. Dated the 18th of July 2025/ Swarna Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SWARNAPRAVA DASH Designation: Senior Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa Date: 22-Jul-2025 17:09:18 Page 10 of 10