The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK CRLA No.167 of 2003 & CRLA No.177 of 2003 In the matter of Appeals under Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and from the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 30.06.2003 passed by the learned Special Judge, Sonepur in Sessions Case No.28/27 of 2002. ---- CRLA No.167 of 2003 Sarat Kumar Das @ Sarad Das; Sugriba Sethi -versus- …. Appellants State of Orissa …. Respondent CRLA No.177 of 2003 Purusottam Adabar; Tambu Bhoi -versus- …. Appellants State of Orissa …. Respondent Appeared in this case by Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual/Physical Mode): For Appellant -
Legal Reasoning
Mr. Abhishek Pradhan, Advocate For Respondent - Mr. G. N. Rout, Additional Standing Counsel CRLA Nos.167 & 177 of 2003 Page 1 of 6 CORAM MR. JUSTICE D.DASH Date of Hearing :20.05.2024 : Date of Judgment : 21.06.2024 D.Dash,J. Since both these Appeals arise out of one Criminal Trial culminated in passing of the judgment of conviction and order of sentence against the Appellants of both the Appeals, those were heard together for their disposal by this common judgment. The Appellants with another, namely, Saheba faced the trial being charged for commission of offence under section 147/148/294/427/506/149 the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, ‘the IPC’), and section 3 of the Scheduled Caste & Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Attrocities) Act, 1985 (for short, “SC & ST (PA) Act”). The Trial Court on examination of evidence on record and their evaluation has acquitted that Saheba of all the charges. It has also acquitted these Appellants (accused persons), who are four in number of the charges under section 147/148 of the IPC and out of them accused Tambu and Sugriba have also been acquitted of the charge under section 3 of the SC & ST (PA) Act whereas accused Purusottam and Sarat have been held guilty for the offence under section 3 of the SC & ST (PA) Act and all the accused persons have been held guilty for commission of offence under section 506/427 of the IPC. The accused persons CRLA Nos.167 & 177 of 2003 Page 2 of 6 accordingly have been directed to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and pay fine of Rs.100/- in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 15 days each on each count for the offence under section 506/427 of the IPC and section 3 of the SC & ST (PA) Act. 2. Learned counsel for the Appellants (accused persons) submitted that the conviction for the offence under section 3 of the SC & ST (PA) Act cannot be sustained as it is wholly unspecific and the charge on that score suffers from the vice of illegality, which has caused grave prejudice to the accused persons in the trial. Having argued as above, he now instead of questioning the finding of guilt of the accused persons for the other offences under section 427/506 of the IPC confined his submission to the question of sentence. It was stated that the Appellants have undergone mental agony of criminal trial for near about 23 years and they too have remained in custody at the initial stage for few days. It was submitted that the Appellants hail from rural background and all of them are now within the age group of 70 to 85+. He further submitted that when no such report is forthcoming that these accused persons had either any criminal antecedent nor anything is stated about their commission of any offence is stated that they had indulged CRLA Nos.167 & 177 of 2003 Page 3 of 6 themselves in any criminal activity while on bail; at this distance of time, according to him, it would be in the interest of justice if the sentence for commission of those offences under section 427/506 of the IPC is reduced to the period undergone which according to him would serve and meet the ends of justice. 3. Learned Counsel for the Respondent-State refuting the submission contended all in favour of the finding of the Trial Court holding the accused persons guilty for the offence under section 3 of the SC & ST (PA) Act. He further submitted that the sentence imposed by the Trial Court commensurate the offences committed by them as proved. 4. Keeping in view the submissions made, I have carefully read the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence which have been impugned in this Appeal. I have also gone through the depositions of P.W.1 to P.W.7 as also the documents which have been admitted in evidence and marked Ext..1 to Ext.4. 5. It appears from record that the charge has been framed against the accused persons for commission of offence under section 3 of the SC & ST (PA) Act. A reading being given to the said charge with head which is said to have been read over and explained to the accused persons which they have denied and claimed trial, the same appears to be vague inasmuch as no CRLA Nos.167 & 177 of 2003 Page 4 of 6 further mention/indication as regards the particular sub section/s and clause/s enumerated under section 3 of the said Act, which takes care of the particular objectionable activity as against the person/persons belonging to the Scheudled caste or tribe is given therein. Therefore, for such irregularity in framing the charge, which in my considered view is not a curable one, the conviction under that section 3 of the SC & ST (PA) Act recorded against the accused persons by the Trial Court, cannot be sustained as prejudice on that account is writ large. 6. Now coming to the submission on the question of sentence for the conviction of the Appellants under section 506/427 of the IPC it is borne out from record that the accused persons are now aged about 87, 76, 74 & 70 years. All of them hail from the rural background. Evidence on record do not suggest that there was any prior planning for the said incident. They do not have any criminal antecedents and it is not stated that after being released on bail, they have indulged themselves in any criminal activity. 7. Taking into account all the above factors, this Court is of the considered view that while maintaining the conviction of the Appellants for the commission of the offence 506/427 of the IPC, if they are sentenced to the imprisonment for the period already undergone that would serve and meet the ends of justice. CRLA Nos.167 & 177 of 2003 Page 5 of 6 8. In the result, the Appeals are allowed in part with the modification of the sentence to the extent as indicated above. Gitanjali (D. Dash), Judge. Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: GITANJALI NAYAK Designation: Junior Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA : CUTTACK Date: 27-Jun-2024 12:28:33 CRLA Nos.167 & 177 of 2003 Page 6 of 6