The High Court
Case Details
THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK CRLA No. 301 of 2006 (In the matter of an application under Section 374 of Criminal Procedure Code) Bidei @ Bidyadhar Maharana &&. Appellant -Versus- State of Orissa &&. Respondent For the Appellant : Ms. Bhaktisudha Sahoo, Amicus Curiae For the Respondent : Ms. Suvalaxmi Devi, ASC CORAM: THE HONOURABLE SHRI JUSTICE SIBO SANKAR MISHRA Date of Hearing: 06.11.2025 : Date of Judgment: 11.11.2025 S.S. Mishra, J. The present Criminal Appeal is preferred by the appellant challenging the judgment and order dated 18.07.2006 passed by the learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Cuttack in S.T.
Legal Reasoning
No. 615 of 2004 arising out of G.R. Case No. 77 of 2003, convicting him for offence under Section 324 of IPC and sentenced him to undergo R.I. for a period of one year. 2. This appeal is pending since 2006. When the matter was taken up for hearing, consistently in many dates of hearing, nobody
Legal Reasoning
appeared for the appellant. Therefore, on the request of the Court, Ms. Bhaktisudha Sahoo, learned counsel has agreed to appear for the appellant to assist the Court. 3. Heard Ms. Bhaktisudha Sahoo, learned Amicus Curiae for the appellant and Ms. Suvalaxmi Devi, learned Additional Standing Counsel for the State. 4. The narrative of the prosecution report in the present case is that the informant Saranga Naik (P.W.1) is a member of Scheduled Caste being "Pana" by caste, whereas the caste of the accused is "Kamara" and as such he is neither a member of Scheduled caste nor Scheduled Tribe. The accused runs a "Kamara Sala" in his village at Nuapatna. The informant, P.W.1 used to supply charcoal to the accused and he had supplied some charcoal to the accused on credit basis. Therefore, on 24.02.2003, around 9 A.M., the informant had gone to the 8Kamara Sala9 of the accused and demanded payment of his credit dues. It is alleged that the accused flatly declined to make any payment, for which the informant made further request as to why his genuine dues would not be paid and that having remained unpaid Page 2 of 13 for a long period, there was no justification for the accused to further delay in making payment. The informant then insisted that unless his due was cleared, he would not leave the place. At this, the accused brought a red hot iron rod from his 8Sala9 and pierced on the abdomen of the informant causing linear burn injury. It is also alleged that the accused had abused the informant in filthy language such as: "Sala, Magiha= by causing the above injury on his abdomen. The informant after receiving the injury, underwent severe pain and in order to save his life, as he was in a helpless condition, left the place. 5. On the basis of the aforementioned allegations, Tigiria P.S. Case No. 29 of 2003 was registered, investigation was conducted and the appellant stood charged for the alleged commission of offence punishable under Section 324 of IPC read with Section 3(1)(x) of the S.C. & S.T. (P.A) Act and on his stance of complete denial and claim for trial, he was put to trial. 6. To establish the charges, the prosecution examined twelve witnesses. Out of them, P.W.1 is the injured informant, whereas P.Ws.2, 3, 6 and 8 were the villagers of the nearby village of the informant and P.W.4 was the co-villager of P.W.1. P.W.5 was the scriber of the F.I.R., whereas P.W.7 was a local Grama Rakhi and a Page 3 of 13 witness to the seizure of the wearing apparels of P.W.1. P.W.12 was also a witness to the said seizure. P.W.10 was the first investigating officer entrusted with the investigation after registration of the case by the O.I.C. and P.W.9 was the S.D.P.O., who submitted charge sheet on completion of investigation and P.W.11, the doctor, who examined P.W.1 on police requisition. 7. The learned trial court, after analyzing the evidence on record, have not found the appellant guilty of offence punishable under Section3(1)(x) of the S.C. & S.T. (P.A) Act, and come to the following findings:- <9. It is the settled position of law that evidence of a witness cannot be kept out of consideration or discarded, simply on the ground of enmity, although that puts the Court on guard to examine and scrutinise the evidence with little more care and caution. Similarly on the score of acceptability of the testimony of a, solitary witness it the trite law that the same can form the foundation, of guilt provided the testimony is found to be wholly reliable and safe to be acted upon being above reproach and suspicion. Keeping in mind these principles of law and submission of learned counsel, let the evidence on record be appreciated. P.W.1 is the star witness for the prosecution and is the injured informant. It is his evidence that after the demand was advanced by him, accused came with a hot iron rod and immediately pierced the same in his abdomen. And at that time he was wearing a sporting Page 4 of 13 banian and under banian. He has deposed that because of that the banian and under banian got burnt at that, particular point. F.I.R. in the case has been lodged very promptly within 2 hours of the incident. In the FIR, the version of P.W.1 presented during trial clearly finds mention in all material particulars. There is no such variance or major discrepancy to throw doubt on the veracity of the prosecution case. Rather the prompt lodging of the F.I.R., with all required detail narration about the incident not only shows immediate disclosure, but also rules out the possibility of exaggeration. So the F.I.R. version lends corroboration to the evidence of P.W.1. Further corroboration in this regard is available in the evidence of Doctor, P.W.11, who has stated that he noticed a burn wound of the size ½ "x ¼ " depth, linear on left side upper abdomen of P.W.1. He has further deposed that such an injury can be caused by a hot iron rod pierced at that point. The banian and the under banian of P.W.1 were produced during trial and marked M.Os.I and II respectively, and on those, the burning points are also noticed. P.W.1 says that he was wearing the banian and under banian at the time of occurrence and those have been seized in connection with this case on production by P.W.1 at the P.S. on that very day shortly after lodging of the FIR. As per the evidence of P.W.1, the incident took place in the Kamar sala of the accused and that was a lonely place, when his evidence is clear that nobody was present when he arrived there. Although the prosecution has examined some witnesses, such as: P.Ws.2 & 3 etc. but they having not supported the prosecution case, in the facts and circumstance of the of the case and on the face of available evidence which is otherwise acceptable, is no ground to have an adverse impact on the prosecution case and to term evidence of P.W.1 as untrustworthy. Furthermore, it is not there in evidence that prior to the date, there had happened some untoward incident between the accused and P.W.1 and this exchange of words shortly before the incident cannot also lead to infer that the accused and P.W.1 were enemically disposed towards each other indicating any reason for false implication. Page 5 of 13 In view of my above discussion, it is held that the prosecution has been able to establish the charge U/s 324 I.P.C. against the accused and therefore, the accused is held guilty of the said offence is convicted thereunder while being acquitted for the offence U/s 3(1)(x) of S.C. & S.T. (P.A.) Act.= 8. On such basis of the appreciation of the prosecution evidence, the learned trial court while acquitting the appellant of offence under Section 3(1)(x) of the S.C. & S.T. (P.A) Act, convicted him for offence under Section 324 of the IPC and sentenced him to undergo R.I. for one year. 9. Learned Amicus Curiae, by taking me to the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, has pointed out many contradictions. She has contended that though the incident had taken place at 9.00 A.M., but about 10.30 A.M. the P.W.1 (injured) was examined by the doctor. However, the injury report, Ext.2 indicates that the age of the injuries were 16 to 20 hours old, which creates a serious doubt as to whether the injuries on P.W.1 were indeed caused in the same incident or it was old injuries. Apart from that, learned Amicus Curiae has also relied upon various judgements in support of the case, which are State of Maharastra vrs. Datta Maruti Salagar and others, reported in
Decision
1998 Cri.L.J 3756, Ram Prasad vrs. State of U.P. disposed of on 15th November, 2018; Subedar vrs. State of U.P., reported in 2003 Cri.L.J Page 6 of 13 1090 All and Washeem vrs. State of U.P., reported in 2003 Cri.L.J. 1080 All. 10. The prosecution case is primarily hinges upon the evidence of P.W.1, who was the injured informant in the present case. P.W.5 the scriber of the FIR was also a post occurrence witness and P.W.11, the doctor, who had examined the victim, P.W.1. 11. P.W.1 in his testimony has very categorically implicated the appellant, inter alia, stating as under:- <2. The occurrence took place 2 ½ years back at about 9 A.M. in the Kamarsala of village of accused at Nuapatna. I was supplying charcoal to the accused for running his sala. I was some time giving charcoal on credit and by the time of occurrence, the accused was to pay Rs.300/- to me towards the charcoal supplied by me on credit. On that day I had been to ask the accused to clear my dues. Accused was at that time engaged in his work in the sala and was heating an iron rod. When I asked him to pay the accused refused. When I insisted the accused came with an hot iron rod and saying <SALA PANA GIA TOTE MANA KARUCHI= pierced the same in my abdomen. At that time I was wearing a sporting banian and under banian. Both of those were burnt at one point due to piercing of that hot iron rod.= He has sustained extensive cross examination. He has deposed that he has been supplying charcoal to the appellant for about one year before the occurrence. However, the appellant was irregular in paying the amount. On the date of incident when due amount demanded by him to the appellant, the appellant out of fit of rage brought a hot iron rod Page 7 of 13 and stabbed in his abdomen, as a result of which, the iron rod pierced in his body. He has also stated that he informed the entire incident to P.W.5, who scribed the FIR. The said witness has undergone an extensive cross-examination by the defence, but none of his version relating to the incident has been varied. 12. P.W.5, the scribe of the FIR also stated that immediately after the incident P.W.1, the injured narrated the incident to him and he had written the FIR, which was lodged in the police station and the FIR was marked as Ext.1. The version of P.W.1 further stood corroborated with the evidence of P.W.11, who was the doctor and examined P.W.1. The doctor in his testimony has stated as under:- <On 24.02.2003 I was working as O&G Specialist attached to Govt. Hospital, Tigiria. On that day on police requisition I examined Saranga Nayak, S/o of Dari Nayak, of village Badavejia and found one burn wound of the size ½= x ¼= depth, linear on left side upper abdomen. The injury was simple in nature and might have been caused by hot hard and blunt object. A hot iron rod can caused such injury if pierced at that point of abdomen. The age of injury was within 16-20 hour of my examination.= In the cross-examination, the doctor has stated as under: <The injury noted by me cannot be caused by simply remaining by the side of fire. The injury is possible if a hot pointed blunt object gets pierced at the particular point.= Page 8 of 13 13. From the evidence of P.W.11, two things could be elucidated. Firstly, P.W.1, the injured has sustained one burn wound of size ½= x 1/4th= depth linear on left side upper abdomen and secondly the injury was simple in nature. He has also stated that hot iron rod pierced at the point of abdomen. The evidence of these three witnesses coupled with other corroborative evidence has been rightly appreciated by the learned trial court and arrived at the findings as recorded above. Since the evidence brought on record by the prosecution is unambiguous, trustworthy and corroborative in nature, I have no hesitation to affirm the same. 14. Having found the appellant guilty of offence under Section 324 of IPC, the learned trial court has sentenced the appellant to undergo R.I. for a period of one year. At the stage of hearing on sentence, the appellant had prayed for treating him under P.O. Act. However, the learned trial court has rejected the contention of the defence counsel inter alia recording as under:- <Convict is present with his learned counsel. Learned special Public Prosecutor is also present. Heard them in the matter of imposition of sentence. Convict states that he is the sole bread earner of his family which he maintains by running Kamara Sala. And his family would be ruined if he would be sentenced to imprisonment. Learned counsel for the convict submits that taking into account that the convict is not a habitual offender and he is poor man hailing from rural background, benefit of Probation of Offenders Act be extended. Alternatively he Page 9 of 13 submits that a lenient view be taken while imposing sentence in this case. Learned Special Public Prosecutor submits for imposition of appropriate sentence keeping in view the nature of offence and the facts and circumstance of the case. Considering the manner of commission of the offence and the reason thereof, I am not inclined to extend the benefit of Probation of Offenders Act to the convict.= 15. Learned Amicus curiae by reiterating the stand of the appellant before the trial court regarding treating him under P.O. Act has stated that the appellant in the present case has already undergone about 14 days custody. The appellant was arrested on 26.02.2003 and he was released on bail on 12.03.2003 during the trial. She has also pointed out that the incident relates back to the year 2003 and at that point of time the appellant was about forty years of age and at present he is aged about 62 years. She 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, she would rather confine her argument to the quantum of sentence. She submitted that the incident pertains to the year 2003. The appellant has undergone the rigors of trial for more than one year. Thereafter, the appeal was preferred in the year 2006. The appeal has been prolonging to be heard for about 19 years. The appellant who was in his early forties then is now is aged about sixty two years and therefore, sending him Page 10 of 13 to custody for fulfilling his remaining sentence at this belated stage would serve no purpose. The learned Amicus Curiae 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. Incarcerating him after such a long delay, it is argued, would serve little penological purpose and may in fact be counter-productive, casting a needless stigma not only upon him but also upon his family members, especially when there is no suggestion of any repeat violation or ongoing non-compliance with regulatory norms. Therefore, in the fitness of situation, the appellant may be extended the benefit of Probation of Offenders Act read with Section 360 Cr.P.C. I am inclined to accede to the prayer made by Ms. Sahoo, learned Amicus Curiae for the appellant on the facts scenario of the case. 16. Regard being had to the societal position of the appellant, clean antecedents and the fact that the incident had taken place in the year 2003, I am of the considered view that the appellant is entitled to the benefit of the Probation of Offenders Act and Section 360 of Cr.P.C. Additionally, the case of the appellant is also covered by ratio of the Page 11 of 13 judgment of this Court in the case of Sk.Wahed Ali Vs. State of Orissa1, wherein while dealing with an offence of a similar nature, the Court had extended the benefit of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 to the appellant who had been convicted under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code. The ratio of the said decision, emphasizing the reformative approach of criminal jurisprudence in cases involving personal disputes and absence of criminal antecedents, is fully applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case. 17. 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 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/- (Rupees Five Thousand) within one month 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. 1 2025 ILROnline Orissa 254 Page 12 of 13 18. Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal is partly allowed and disposed of. 19. This Court records the appreciation for the effective and meaningful assistance rendered by Ms. Bhaktisudha Sahoo, learned Amicus Curiae. She is entitled to an honorarium of Rs.7,500/- (Rupees seven thousand five hundred) to be paid as token of appreciation. (S.S. Mishra) Judge The High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Dated the 11th 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: 12-Nov-2025 14:58:30 Page 13 of 13