The High Court
Case Details
THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK CRLA No.133 of 2002 (In the matter of an appeal under Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973) 1. Panchanan Sethi 2. Prafulla Sethi 3. Rabindra Dhal ……. Appellants -Versus- State of Orissa ……. Respondent
Legal Reasoning
For the Appellants : Mr. S.K. Mishra, Advocate For the Respondent : Mr. Ashok Kumar Apat, AGA CORAM: THE HONOURABLE SHRI JUSTICE SIBO SANKAR MISHRA Date of Hearing: 10.07.2025 : Date of Judgment: 18.07.2025 S.S. Mishra, J. The present Criminal Appeal is directed against the Judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 12.12.2002 passed by the learned Adhoc Additional Sessions Judge, Balasore in S.T. Case No.1/128 of 2002, whereby the learned Court below finding the appellants guilty of commission of the offence punishable under Section 448/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 324/34 of the Indian Penal Code, sentenced them to undergo R.I. for one year on each count. 2. Heard Mr. S.K. Mishra, learned counsel for the appellants and Mr. A.K. Apat, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the Respondent-State. 3. The prosecution story in terse and brief is that the appellants along with one Dhananjay on 30.09.1999 at noon in absence of the complainant, Markanda Sethi, P.W.1 trespassed into his house. Rabindra Dhal, accused-appellant no.3 and Panchanan Sethi, accused-appellant no.1 being armed with bhujali, threatened Sukanti, wife of the informant, i.e., P.W.3. All of them abused her in obscene language and threatened her. Appellant nos.1 and 3 dragged Sakuntala by holding her hair and accused Dhananjay attempted to kill her by means of the bhujali. But unfortunately, P.W.3 escaped. At that time, appellant no.2 gave a blow by means of a lathi on the head of Sukanti, (P.W.3) causing her bleeding injuries. When the complainant, (P.W.1) came to his house from the Page 2 of 9 paddy field, he found his children were crying. Thereafter, the accused persons again came and threatened the informant. Out of fear, he remained in the house of one Raghunath Panda. In the meanwhile, the villagers came to the spot and took P.W.3, Sukanti to Basta hospital for treatment. On the basis of the aforementioned allegation, the F.I.R. was registered. After investigation, the police filed the charge sheet against the appellants and Dhananjay on alleged commission of the offences punishable under Sections 448/294/323/307/506/34 of the Indian Penal Code. 4. Learned trial Court has framed the charges for the offences as mentioned above against the three accused persons, namely, the three appellants. They were put to trial. However, the co-accused Dhananjay was not put to trial, as he was absconded. 5. The prosecution, so as to substantiate its case, examined five witnesses. P.W.1 is the informant. P.W.2 is an independent witness. P.W.3 is the injured. P.W.4 is the doctor, who examined P.W.3. P.W.5 is the Investigating Officer of the case. Page 3 of 9 6. Learned trial Court, after analysing the evidence brought on record by the prosecution, found the appellants guilty for the offences punishable under Sections 448/324/34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced each of them to undergo R.I. for one year on each count. Hence, the appellants are aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and order of sentence, have filed the present Criminal Appeal. 7. I have carefully gone through the entire evidence on record and also the judgment of the learned trial Court. The conviction of the appellants is based upon the evidence of three witnesses, namely, P.Ws. 1, 3 and 4. P.W.1 is the informant, who is the husband of the injured. P.W.3 is the injured herself whereas P.W.4 is the doctor, who examined the injured. P.W.3, in her testimony has stated thus: “P.W.1 is my husband. I know the accused persons. The occurrence took place about three years back on a Thursday at 12 noon in my house. P.W.1 was absent from my house and my children were in the house. The accused Rabindra and Panchanan Sethi cacme to my house and accd. Panchanan abused me in obscene language as Sali, gihali besya. The accused Rabindra caught hold of my hair and dragged me outside the house. When I fell down, the acc. Panchanana came armed with a tangia and tried to assault me and the accd. Prafulla assaulted me by means of bamboo lathi on my left side of my head, sustained bleeding injury and I fell down on the ground. I lost my sense. My husband came and Page 4 of 9 separated them and I was taken to hospital for treatment. My husband reported the matter at PS I was examined by police.” Hence, she was subjected to elaborate cross-examination. But nothing could be elucidated by the defence to doubt her testimony. 8. The version of P.W.3 stood corroborated with the testimony of P.W.1, the informant. P.W.1, who also sustained extensive cross- examination, but for no avail to the defence. However, the only independent witness P.W.2 has turned hostile. That apart, the testimony of P.W. 4, the doctor assumes importance to appreciate the case of the prosecution. P.W.4 in his testimony has inter alia stated thus: “On 1.10.99, I was serving O.G. Specialist at U.G.P.H.C., Basta and on police requisition I examined Sukanti Sethi W/o Markand Sethi of village Talanendua and found the following injuries. 1. One laceration of size 1 inch X 1/3rd inch. over left parietal region in head it was simple in nature caused by blunt object within 24 hours. The patient complains of pain over neck region and leg but no external injury was noted. Patient conscious, alert and oriented. Ext.2 is my report and Ext.2/1 is my signature.” 9. Learned trial Court, by rightly appreciating the evidence of all the aforementioned witnesses, has come to the conclusion that the appellants are guilty of the offence punishable under Sections Page 5 of 9 448/324/34 of the Indian Penal Code and accordingly sentenced them to undergo R.I. for one year. 10. I find no reason to interfere with the judgment of the learned trial Court in so far as the conviction is concerned. At this stage, Mr. S.K. Mishra, learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that the appellant no.1 is 58 years of age whereas appellant no.2 is 88 years of age and appellant no.3 is 51 years at present. The incident had taken place in the year 1999. Much has changed within 26 years. All the appellants are settled in their life. The appellants, the injured and the informant are closely related to each other and they belong to the same family. They have also reconciled themselves and they are leading peaceful life. Therefore, at this stage, sending the appellants to the prison for serving out the remaining sentence which was imposed by the trial Court would not only be harsh but also create hostility in the family. Therefore, Mr. Mishra, learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the appellants may be extended the benefit of the Probation of Offenders Act. Page 6 of 9 11. In that regard, Mr. Mishra, learned counsel has relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ramesh vs. State of Rajasthan1. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has held thus: “17. The present appellant is about 70 years old. His conviction under the more serious offence under Section 307 IPC has been already set aside by the High Court and he has been convicted only under Sections 326, 325, 452 and 323 IPC and the maximum period of punishment awarded by the High Court is six months imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 5000/- and has already undergone more than 4 months of imprisonment as of now. 18. Under the circumstances, we are inclined to invoke the jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution of India and grant the benefit of the Probation Act to the present appellant also, which had been granted to the other accused belonging to the other conflicting group in the cross case, considering the fact that a settlement was reached between the parties and neither any criminal antecedents nor any adverse material against the conduct of the appellant, have been brought to the notice of this Court.” He has also relied upon the judgment of this Court in case of Saradhakar Sahu vs. State of Orissa2. He emphasised in para-15, which reads as thus: “15. Sitting in revision and having considered the features of the case, I could have dealt with the petitioner under the Probation of Offenders Act. It has, however, been brought to my notice by Mr. Indrajit Ray, the learned Additional Government Advocate, that the petitioner has already suffered 1 2025 SCC OnLine SC 50 2 MANU/ OR/ 0311/ 1985 Page 7 of 9 imprisonment pursuant to the sentence imposed, for about 25 days. He surrendered to the sentence on 21-1-1985 to satisfy the rule framed by the High Court that unless a person sentenced to substantive imprisonment surrenders to the sentence, his revision would not be placed for admission, though in suitable cases the petitioner may be granted exemption. When the petitioner has already suffered imprisonment for 25 days, injustice would be compounded if I would now grant him the treatment under the Probation of Offenders Act. I would, therefore, while maintaining the conviction, reduce the sentence to the period already undergone. The revision is allowed to the aforesaid extent. The petitioner be set at liberty forthwith.” 12. On the strength of the aforementioned judgment and the fact scenario of the present case, Mr. Mishra, learned counsel submitted that the appellants may be extended to the benefit of the Probation of Offenders Act. 13. I have taken into consideration the submission made by Mr. Mishra, learned counsel for the appellants and the learned counsel for the State. I am of the view that the sentence imposed by the learned trial Court should sustain. However, keeping in view the age of the appellants, their clean antecedents and the fact that the incident had taken place in the year 1999 and the appellants are related to each other Page 8 of 9 and they belong to the same family, I am inclined to extend the benefit of Probation of Offenders Act to the 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 appellants to suffer imprisonment, 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 with 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. 15.
Decision
With the above observation, the CRA is accordingly disposed of. (S.S. Mishra) Judge The High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Dated the 18th of July, 2025. Subhasis Mohanty Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SUBHASIS MOHANTY Designation: Personal Assistant Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack. Date: 21-Jul-2025 19:16:34 Page 9 of 9