The High Court
Case Details
THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK CRLA No. 300 of 2005 (In the matter of an application under Section 374 of Criminal Procedure Code) Sushanta Jena ……. Appellant -Versus- State of Orissa ……. Respondent
Legal Reasoning
For the Appellant : Mr. Debashish Samal, Advocate For the Respondent : Mr. Sarathi Jyoti Mohanty, A.S.C CORAM: THE HONOURABLE SHRI JUSTICE SIBO SANKAR MISHRA Date of Hearing: 15.07.2025 : Date of Judgment: 31.07.2025 S.S. Mishra, J. The present appeal is directed against the judgment and order of dated 24.05.2005 passed by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Bhadrak in S.T. No.8/11 of 2003 arising out of G.R. Case No. 340/2002 , whereby the present appellant has been convicted U/s. 324 of the Indian Penal Code and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years. 2. The prosecution story tersely stated is that, during the dusk hours of 9.4.2002, P.W.3 Laxmidhar Jena (victim) while he was on his way to Ranital Bazar (a nearby place) on his bicycle, the accused-appellant Sushanta Jena suddenly appeared when the victim was midway and started assaulting him with a Bhujali (Knife). The appellant’s brother co- accused (acquitted) Prashanta was also present nearby. In the meantime victim fell from the bicycle and the appellant attacked to the hands and left leg of the victim causing bleeding injuries following this the victim raised an alarm for help, hearing him P.Ws.4 and 5 rushed in, subsequently after the arrival of P.W.2, father of the victim at the spot, he was taken to the hospital for treatment. Consequently, P.W.2 presented a written report about the same at the Bhadrak Rural Police Station, following which the criminal law was set into action and the accused persons were arrested during the night hours of the incident and forwarded to the court on the subsequent day and were charge-sheeted Page 2 of 7 accordingly. At this point it will also be apt to mention that the accused persons and the victims were in litigating terms. 3. On the basis of the aforementioned prosecution version, the appellant stood charged for the offence under Sections 307/34 and 324 of I.P.C. In order to bring home charges, the prosecution examined 7 witnesses including the informant. P.W.1 was the treating doctor of the victim, P.W.2 is the father of the victim, P.W.3 was the victim himself, P.Ws. 4 and 5 were the witnesses to the occurrence P.W. 6 was the witness to the seizure of the cycle and P.W.7 was the Investigating Officer. Besides oral evidences, certain documentary evidences vide Exts. 1 to 4 are also relied upon by the prosecution. Apart from this, the defence also examined two witnesses vide D.Ws. 1 and 2. 4. The learned court below after dealing with the evidences on record in details, have categorically held the accused no. 2 found guilty of offences punishable U/s.324 of the IPC and have sentenced him accordingly. Aggrieved by the same, this appeal is preferred. Page 3 of 7 5. Heard Mr. Debashis Samal, learned Counsel on behalf of the appellant and Mr. Sarathi Jyoti Mohanty on behalf of the Respondant. 6. Mr. Samal, learned counsel for the appellant, instead of challenging the conviction by assailing the judgment of the court below has limited his arguments to the quantum of sentence. He submitted that the accused at the stage of arguing in sentence also prayed for the grant of the benefits under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, which was turned down by the learned Trial Court. The Trial Court while denying the benefit under the P.O. Act held thus: “Heard the convict Sushanta Jena, the learned counsel for the defence and the learned Addl. P.P. on the question of sentence. The learned Counsel for the defence submits that the convict is a first offender and no previous conviction at his credit and he may be released under the Probation of Offenders Act. However, keeping in view the facts and circumstances of this case and pre-planned manner in which the offence was committed, I do not feel it expedient in the interest of justice to extend the benefit of Probation of Offenders Act to the convict….” 7. Learned Counsel for the appellant further submitted that the incident pertains to the year 2002 (09.04.2002). The appellant has already undergone the rigors of trial for about two years. Thereafter, the Page 4 of 7 appeal was preferred in the year 2005 (22.07.2005). The appeal has been prolonging to be heard for about 20 years. At the time of incident, the appellant was very young in his twenties. At present he is in mid-forties, leading a respectful life along with his family. The learned Counsel additionally submits 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. It is also stated that the appellant has also undergone one month in custody. Therefore, in the fitness of situation, the appellant may be extended the benefit of the Probation of Offenders Act read with Section 360 Cr. P.C. Page 5 of 7 8. Regard being had to the procastinated judicial process undergone, his societal position, clean antecedents and the fact that the incident had taken place in the year 2002, 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 squarely covered by ratio of the judgment of this Court in the case of Pathani Parida & another vs. Abhaya Kumar Jagdevmohapatra1. 9. 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 six 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 1 2012 (Supp-II) OLR 469 Page 6 of 7 Officer during the aforementioned period of six months. Additionally a fine of Rs.5000/- shall be paid by the appellant which shall be disbursed to the victim in accordance with Section 357 of Cr.P.C, in default of which the appellant is sentenced to undergo R.I for 3 months. 10. With the above observation, the Criminal Appeal is accordingly
Decision
disposed of. (S.S. Mishra) Judge The High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Dated the 31st 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: 01-Aug-2025 19:59:10 Page 7 of 7