(In the matter of an application under Section 374 of the Criminal v. State of Orissa

Judgment

22.05.2026 S.S. Mishra, J. This appeal has been jointly filed by eight appellants assailing the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 30.04.2008 passed by the learned Adhoc Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court-IV, Cuttack in S.T. Case No. 507 of 2006 [arising out of G.R. Case No. 97 of 2006], whereby the appellants were found guilty of offence punishable under Sections 147/323/149 of IPC and were acquitted of the charges under Sections 307/294/506/149 of IPC and on the count of their conviction, they have been released by extending the benefit under Section 3 of the Probation of Offenders Act by only admonition.

Heard Ms. Baisakhi Mohanty, learned counsel for the appellants and Mr. P.S. Nayak, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State.

#3. During pendency of the present appeal, the appellant no.4- Kumudalata Moharana has expired. Therefore, vide order dated

23.04.2026, the appeal qua the deceased-appellant No.4 stood abated in the absence of any application under Section 394 Cr.P.C. moved by her legal heirs or next friend. Accordingly, consideration of the present appeal is confined to the appellant Nos.1 to 3 and 5 to 8 only.

#4. The prosecution case, in terse and brief, is that one Alaya Kumar Maharana (P.W.5) reported at the police station on

15.12.2006, inter alia, alleging that at about 7 A.M. on that day while he was returning after attending the call of nature, he saw his father (P.W.6) and mother (P.W.7) were overpowered by the appellants and were assaulted by means of bricks, as a result of which his parents sustained bleeding injuries. After investigation, the police filed charge sheet for the alleged commission offence punishable Sections 147/323/149/307/294/506 of IPC and on the stance of the appellants complete denial of the alleged commission of offence, they were put to trial after the charges were framed.

#5. In order to substantiate its case, the prosecution examined ten witnesses in total. Among them, P.Ws.1 and 2 were the immediate neighbours of the complainant; P.Ws.3 and 8 were the doctors, who took treatment of the injured; P.W.4 was the I.O. of the present case; P.W.5 was the complainant; P.Ws. 6 and 7 were the injured; P.W.9 was a neighbor and P.W.10 was an independent witness.

#6. Essentially this case is arising out of family property dispute. The appellants’ and the informant’s family are inimically disposed. There are interested civil disputes pending in the court. It is borne on record that court cases on the same incidents have also been filed by the complainant party. In the light of the aforementioned, the complainant/injured have attempted to establish that the appellants and their family members are the aggressors in attacking them. The defence plea, which borne on record from the statement of the accused persons recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and the suggestion made by them to the prosecution witnesses also reveals that there are various civil disputes pending between the parties. The complainant’s parents were the aggressors and due to their assault, two of the accused appellants, namely, Banamali Maharana and Kumuda Maharana, who sustained grievous injuries and the issue, got aggravated. It is further contended by the appellants that the parents of the complainant in fact sustained injuries while they were assaulting the accused persons. The defence has also relied upon an FIR, medical report and charge sheet in Mahanga P.S. Case No. 38 of 06 arising out of G.R. Case No. 96 of 2006 corresponding to S.T. Case No. 521 of 2006. The evidences in totality could reveal the aforementioned inimical relationship between the two groups.

#7. It could be also seen that the independent eye witnesses, i.e., P.W.2 did not support the prosecution case. P.W.5, who is the informant in the present case, inter alia, deposed before the court that on 15.12.2006 at about 7.00 A.M. near the tube well in the back side of his house while his father was brushing his teeth and mother washing the dishes, the accused persons surrounded both of them and assaulted them by means of bricks, as a result of which both his parents sustained bleeding injuries on their head and other parts of the body. He raised alarm seeking help of others and when the villagers and neighbours came to the spot, the accused persons flee away from the spot. Except general attributions, no specific overt act has been assigned to the accused persons individually. P.Ws.6 and 7 were the injured witnesses in the instant case. They too have narrated the incident in the similar fashion. P.W.6 has stated that all the accused persons came near them and suddenly threw stones at him and his wife. He made the effort to escape the stones biting and in that process he fell down on the ground. The accused persons, namely, Kuma, Malati, Sabita, Kabita caught hold of him and pushed on the ground and they assaulted him by means of bricks on his head, as a result of which, he sustained bleeding injury. Similarly, he deposed that the accused Anadi, Uday, Banalata and Gayadhar caught hold his wife and pushed her to the ground and assaulted her. P.W.7 the other injured witness although narrated the incident in the similar fashion, but the overt act attributed by her to the accused persons is completely different from the overt act attributed by P.W.6. P.W.3 is the doctor who examined P.Ws.6 and 7 and he has found the following injuries:- “i) Lacerated wound on the centre of head 4cm x 2cm x 2cm with active bleeding. (ii) Lacerated wound on front part of the right fore hand. 1cm x 1cm x 1cm with active bleeding. The injured complaining pain all over his body. The injuries are simple in nature and might have been caused by assault with heavy blunt weapon and blows with fists. Age of the injury are around three hours. One Bhagabat Jena identified the injured to me. I have obtained the signature of the said Bhagabat Jena in my report. Accordingly, I prepared my injury report marked Ext.1 and Ext.1/1 is my signature.” P.W.8 was the referral doctor, who examined P.W.7. He deposed that P.W.7 received nose injury, which appears to be a fracture in nasal and he has exhibited his report as Ext.7. P.W.9 is one of the villagers, who is a post occurrence witness, whose testimony stood corroborated with the testimony of P.Ws.1, 6 and 7. Even P.W.10 has deposed against the accused persons though he was the post occurrence witness. He has stated that he saw the family members of Udayanath have assaulted P.Ws.6 and 7. If the evidence of all the witnesses read in unison, it would be clear that the findings recorded by the learned trial court on the appreciation of the evidence of the prosecution cannot be faulted with.

#8. The learned trial court after scrupulous and meticulous analysis of the evidence brought on record by the prosecution has arrived at the following findings:- “In view of the aforesaid discussion we have to examine to what extent the prosecution has been successful to establish its case against the accused persons. The accused persons have been charged Under Sections 147/294/506/307/149 of the I.P.C. The evidence on behalf of the prosecution consistently canvassed that the accused persons assaulted the injured P.Ws 6 and 7 by means of bricks, but there is no direct and independent corroboration in this regard. It is not out of place to remind ourselves that the apple of discord between the parties is civil litigation. That part, the medical evidence on record does not fully corroborate the prosecution as the doctor has not ruled out the possibility of the injury otherwise than by an assault. He rather admitted that the injury may be possible by a fall on the hard and blunt surface. There is no evidence on record indicating the intention or knowledge of the accused persons to commit the murder of P.Ws 6 and 7. So the charge under section 307 of the I.P.C. fails. Similarly, the charge under section 294 of the I.P.C. also fails as the place of occurrence is the common backyard of the parties' and there is no evidence of any public being annoyed. There is no evidence of criminal intimidation by the accused persons to causing danger to the life of the injured. In this view of the matter, the charge under section 506 of the I.P.C. therefore sections acquitted 294/307/506/149 of the I.P.C. fails. The accused persons are charges The evidence on behalf of the prosecution unfailing establishes that the accused persons formed an unlawful assembly with the common object of assaulting the family members of the complainant went to their "Bari" where P.Ws 6 and 7 were performing their morning work. First they caught hold of them, then manhandled them and pushed them to the ground and overpowered them as a result the injured sustained injuries on their respective persons. It is true that the accused persons did not carry any weapons with their conduct clearly establishes their common object i.e.to assault the parents of the complainant may be for reasons whatsoever. Thus, the evidence on record on - behalf of the prosecution establishes the charges against all the accused persons for the offences Under Sections 147,323/149 147, of the I.P.C. beyond all reasonable doubt. Therefore, they are held guilty of the said they are convicted offences and accordingly thereunder.” them but

#9. The learned trial court, therefore, has rightly arrived at a conclusion that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubt in so far as the allegation of commission of offence punishable under Sections 307/294/506/149 of IPC. However, the cumulative analysis of the evidence led the trial court to arrive at a conclusion that the appellants are guilty of offence under Sections 147/323/149 of IPC. I find no reason to disagree with the findings of the learned trial court, hence the inevitable conclusion is that the conviction recorded by the learned trial court stands affirmed.

#10. Coming to the sentence part of the impugned judgment, it is seen that the learned trial court has rightly applied the provisions of Probation of Offenders Act keeping in view the relationship between the parties and taking into consideration the cross case pending amongst the parties relating to ancestral and family property. The learned trial court instead of sending the convicts to imprisonment invoked Section 3 of the Probation of Offenders Act and admonized all of them. Therefore, in true sense, there is no effective sentence awarded by the learned trial court against the convicts. Needless to say that Section 12 of the P.O. Act clearly erases the disqualification attached to a conviction. Therefore, the challenge made by the appellants to the conviction order to remove the stigma may not be necessitated in view of the protection provided under Section 12 of the Act. For convenience of ready reference, Section 12 of the P.O. Act is reproduced:- “12. Removal of disqualification attaching to conviction.—Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law, a person found guilty of an offence and dealt with under the provisions of section 3 or section 4 shall not suffer disqualification, if any, attaching to a conviction of an offence under such law: Provided that nothing in this section shall apply to a person who, after his release under section 4 is subsequently sentenced for the original offence.”

#11. It is also relevant to mention that in the recent judgment the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Chellammal and Another v. State represented by the Inspector of Police reported in 2025 INSC 540 it has been authoritatively held that in the case of present nature, the benefit of P.O. Act needs to be mandatorily extended. Therefore, in the considered view of this Court, the learned trial court has aptly applied the provisions of the P.O. Act by simply admonizing the convicts instead of sentencing them and sending them to custody.

#12. In view of the aforementioned, no interference is called for. Hence, the appeal fails. The High Court of Orissa, Cuttack. Dated the 22nd of May, 2026/Ashok (S.S. Mishra) Judge