The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK CRLA No.346 of 2015 In the matter of an Appeal under Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and from the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 19.06.2015 passed by the learned Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge, Jagatsinghpur in C.T. Case No.69 of 2014. Purna Chandra Das ---- -versus- …. Appellant State of Odisha …. Respondent Appeared in this case by Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual/Physical Mode): For Appellant -
Legal Reasoning
Mr. T. K. Swain & Mr. S. K. Palei, Advocates For Respondent - Mr. S. K. Nayak, Additional Government Advocate CORAM MR. JUSTICE D.DASH Date of Hearing : 17.05.2024 : Date of Judgment : 20.05.2024 D.Dash,J. The Appellant, by filing this Appeal, has assailed the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 19.06.2015 passed by the learned Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge, Jagatsinghpur in C.T. Case No.69 of 2014, arising out of CRLA No.346 of 2015 Page 1 of 5 G.R. Case No.922 of 2013, corresponding to Kujang P.S. Case No.67 of 2013, of the Court of learned J.M.F.C.(P), Kujang. The Appellant (accused) has been convicted for commission of the offence under section 451/354 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, ‘the IPC’) and Section 3(1)(xi) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Attrocities) Act,1989 (for short, ”the SC & ST (PA) Act”) . Accordingly, he has been sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for one year and pay fine of Rs. 2000/- in default to undergo simple imprisonment for three months for commission of the offence U/s. 451 of IPC; undergo simple imprisonment for two years and fine of Rs.2000/- in default to undergo simple imprisonment for six months for offence U/s. 354 of IPC; and undergo simple imprisonment for two years and pay fine of Rs. 2000/-, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for six months for commission of the offence under section-3(i)(xi) of the SC & ST (PA) Act. The accused has been acquitted of the charges U/s.294/506 of the IPC, read with Section 3(1)(X) of SC/ST (PA) Act. It is further stipulated that the substantive sentence would run concurrently. 2. Prosecution case is that on 25.08.2013, the informant (P.W.1) was sleeping in her dilapidated house and then the accused came to her with an ill-intention and taking advantage of the absence of CRLA No.346 of 2015 Page 2 of 5 her husband, the accused called the informant to the shop which she refused. The accused again came and called the informant (P.W.1), when father-in-law of the informant woke up and gave him cigarette and betel to the accused and asked him to leave. The accused came again in the night at about 2 A.M. and entered into the house of the informant and molested her, when she was asleep. The informant (PW 1) woke up and tried to raise hullah, but she was gagged by the accused. It is stated that the accused attempted to commit rape upon the victim by lifting her wearing apparels but the informant raised hullah. The son and father-in- law of the informant woke up and the accused went away by threatening. A written information to the above effect being lodged by the informant (PW 1) with the Inspector-In-charge (IIC) Kujang Police Station, the same was treated as FIR and case was registered. Basing upon that the investigation being taken up, the accused on completion of investigation was placed through the final form to face the trial for commission of offence under section 451/294/354(B)/506 of the IPC as well as section 3(1)(x)(xi) of SC/ST (PA) Act. 3. The Trial Court upon examination of the evidence and their scrutiny has acquitted the accused of the charges under section 294/506 of the IPC and section 3(1)(X) of SC/ST (PA) Act. CRLA No.346 of 2015 Page 3 of 5 However, the accused has been convicted for commission of offence under Section 451 /354 of the IPC and section 3(1)(xi) of SC/ST (PA) Act. Accordingly, he has been sentenced as aforenoted. 4. Learned counsel for the Appellant from the beginning instead of questioning the finding of the Trial Court against the accused holding him guilty for commission of offence Us. 451/ 354 of the IPC as well as section 3(1)(xi) of SC/ST (PA) Act on merit contended for reduction of the sentenced to the period already undergone. Placing the order sheet of the court below he contended that when the accused at the initial stage has remained in custody for few days, at this distance of him, when the accused would be around 40 years of the age and has undergone the mental agony of the criminal trial for about 9 years by now, the sentence against the accused to undergo further imprisonment would stand too harsh. He further submitted that the accused who hails from rural background and live on cultivation of very small area of land and mostly on wages earned by him by working here and there be sentenced leniently. He, therefore, submitted that after such lapse of time imprisonment of the Appellant (accused) would cause undue sufferance to his family members who all depend upon him. CRLA No.346 of 2015 Page 4 of 5 5. Learned counsel for the State submitted that the sentence imposed by the trial court commensurate the offence. 6. Considering the submissions made, when it is seen that the accused had remained in custody at the initial stage for few days and as no material is placed that he has indulged in any criminal activity during the period or even had criminal antecedent beforehand, the submissions of the learned counsel for the accused is accepted as that in my considered view would be in the interest of justice and meet its end and that is hereby so done. 7. in that view of the matter while confirming the conviction of the accused for the offences under Section 451/354 of the IPC and section 3(1)(xi) of SC/ST (PA) Act, the Appellant (accused) is hereby sentenced to the period already undergone. 8. The Appeal is accordingly allowed in part, with the modification of the order of sentence to the extent as indicated above. Monalisa Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: NARAYAN HO Reason: Authentication Location: OHC Date: 23-May-2024 13:32:52 CRLA No.346 of 2015 (D. Dash), Judge. Page 5 of 5