The High Court
Case Details
THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK CRLA No.177 of 2005 (In the matter of an application under Section 374 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973) Ramesh Mallik ……. Appellant -Versus- State of Odisha ……. Respondent For the Appellant : Ms. Anima Kumari Dei, Advocate For the Respondent : Mr. Raj Bhusan Dash, ASC CORAM:
Legal Reasoning
THE HONOURABLE SHRI JUSTICE SIBO SANKAR MISHRA Date of Hearing: 24.07.2025 :: Date of Judgment: 31.07.2025 S.S. Mishra, J. The sole appellant-Ramesh Mallik in the present case has preferred this appeal against the judgment and order dated 07.04.2005 passed by the learned Additional sessions Judge (I), Dhenkanal in Criminal Trial (Sessions) No.98/31 of 2004, whereby the learned trial Court found the appellant guilty of the offence under Section 326 of I.P.C. and in lieu of the said conviction, he was sentenced to undergo R.I. for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.500/-, in default to undergo R.I. for one month for the offence under Section 326 of the I.P.C. 2. Heard Ms. Anima Kumari Dei, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Raj Bhusan Dash, learned Additional Standing Counsel for the State. 3 The prosecution case in terse and brief is that on 16.11.2002 at about 7.00 P.M., while the injured Udayanath Mallik (P.W.10) was returning to his hosue, near Manichhaka bridge, eight accused persons including the present appellant being armed with lathi, bhujali assaulted him, as a result of which, he sustained injuries on his person. After getting the information, the father of the injured, namely, Krushna Mallik (P.W.8) rushed to the spot and found that his son was lying on the ground with bleeding injuries. On being asked, the injured stated that the accused persons assaulted him by means of bhujali and lathi. 4. On the basis of the aforementioned allegation, Gondia P.S. Case No.138 dated 17.11.2002 was registered for the offence under Sections Page 2 of 7 147/148/307/149 of I.P.C. After investigation, charge-sheet was filed against as many as eight accused persons including the present appellant. Accordingly, charges were framed under Sections 307/34 and they were put to trial. 5. The prosecution in order to bring home charges examined as many as eleven witnesses. Amongst them, P.W.10 is the injured himself, P.W.8 is the father of the injured and the informant of the case. P.W.1 is the post occurrence witness, who came to know about the incident from the injured. P.Ws.2, 3, 4, 6 and 7 were the independent witnesses but have not supported the prosecution case in its entirety. P.W.5 was a hear- se witness who deposed that he heard the incident from the injured (P.W.10). P.W.9 was the Medical Officer, who had examined the injured. P.W.11 was the Investigating Officer of the case. 6. The learned trial Court taking into consideration the evidence of P.Ws.8 and 10 and finding no corroboration to their testimony with the doctor’s evidence (P.W.9), acquitted all the accused persons of the offences punishable under Sections 307/34 of I.P.C., however, arrived at a conclusion that the case of the present appellant stand alone as the Page 3 of 7 injured witness has categorically deposed that the present appellant has dealt a bhujali blow to him. The evidence of the blow caused by the appellant to the injured stands corroborated with the testimony of P.W.9, the doctor. P.W.9, who examined the injured (P.W.10) on 16.11.2002 on police requisition has found one abrasion on the forehead of P.W.10, one incised wound on the right ear and one chap wound on the right arm of P.W.10. He opined that the injuries on the forehead and right ear are simple in nature, however, the injury on the right arm is grievous in nature. By analyzing the aforementioned evidence on record, the learned trial Court has arrived at the following conclusion:- “15. It is to be seen next as to what offences the accused Ramesh Mallik has committed in the instant case. In the instant case, P.W.10 has sustained simple injuries i.e. on fore-head and right leg and one grievous hurt on right hand. The Medical Officer (P.W.9) has not stated that the injuries are sufficient in ordinary course of nature to cause death. It is to be seen whether the accused Ramesh Mallik did the act with the intention or knowledge to attempt the life of the injured. The evidence of the witnesses revealed that the accused Ramesh left the spot after giving blows to P.W.10 as some witnesses arrived at the spot. No blow was given on the vital part of P.W.10. The blow on the right hand is a non- vital part. The facts and circumstances discussed Page 4 of 7 above show that the accused Ramesh Mallik had no intention to attempt on the life of the injured. Accordingly, it is not a case covered u/S. 307 I.P.C. However, the accused Ramesh Mallik caused simple and grievous hurt on the right ear and right hand of P.W.10 by dealing blows with bhujali. P.W.10 sustained a chap wound on the right arm, the skin, muscle, blood vessel, nerves, bone humerus of right hand cut 4” below right shoulder joint. Hence, I find that the offence committed by the accused Ramesh Mallik squarely attracted by section 326 I.P.C.” 7. I have carefully gone through the evidence on record and also analysed the judgment under question. I find no reason to disagree with the learned trial Court in so far as recording of conviction against the present appellant for the offence under Section 326 of I.P.C. because one of the injuries, the doctor (P.W.9) has found to be grievous in nature. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the conviction recorded by the learned trial Court. At this stage, Ms. Dei, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the incident relates back to 16.11.2002. At that point in time, the appellant was 24 years of age. He has no criminal antecedents. She further submits that the appellant had surrendered before the Court on 08.01.2003 and he was admitted to bail on 24.04.2003. After the trial, the appellant was found guilty for the Page 5 of 7 offence as mentioned above vide judgment dated 07.04.2005 and he was taken into custody. This Court vide order dated 11.05.2005 granted bail to the appellant. He was released on bail on 21.08.2005. Therefore, the appellant has already undergone custody period of about six months. In the light of the aforementioned, Ms. Dei, learned counsel confined her argument limited to the question of sentence and submitted that the sentence of one year awarded by the learned trial Court may be reduced to that of sentence the appellant has already undergone. 8. Regard being had to the fact that the appeal is pending since 2005 and the incident relates back to the year 2002, sending the appellant back to the custody to serve out the remaining period of sentence would be harsh because the appellant is at present about in his fifties. He has no criminal antecedents. 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 Page 6 of 7 non-compliance with regulatory norms. Therefore, I am of the view that the sentence awarded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (I), Dhenkanal is liable to be modified. 9. Accordingly, the sentence of one year awarded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (I), Dhenkanal vide its judgment and order dated 07.04.2005 against the appellant stands modified to the period that the appellant had already undergone. However, in so far as fine amount is concerned, the same remained unaltered. 10. With this observation, the CRLA is partly allowed. The High Court of Orissa, Cuttack. Dated the 31st of July 2025/ Swarna (S.S. Mishra) Judge Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SWARNAPRAVA DASH Designation: Senior Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa Date: 01-Aug-2025 20:23:51 Page 7 of 7