The High Court
Case Details
THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK CRLREV No.22 of 2012 (In the matter of an application under Sections 401 read with Section 397 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973) Ratikanta Baral ……. Petitioner -versus- State of Orissa ……. Opposite Party For the Petitioner : Mr. B.P. Das, Advocate
Legal Reasoning
Probation of Offenders Act has relied upon the judgment of this Court in the case of Pathani Parida & another vs. Abhaya Kumar Jagdevmohapatra, reported in 2012 (Supp-II) OLR 469. 9. Accordingly, this Court directs the petitioner 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) with one surety for the like amount to appear and receive the sentence when called upon during such period and in the meantime, the petitioner shall keep peace and good behavior and he shall remain under the supervision of the concerned Probation Officer during the aforementioned period of six months. 10. The Criminal Revision is accordingly allowed. (S.S. Mishra) Judge The High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Dated the 16th July, 2024/ Amit Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: AMIT KUMAR MOHANTY Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK Date: 19-Jul-2024 09:46:21 Page 7 of 7
Arguments
For the Opp. Party : Mr. B.K. Ragada, Addl. Government Advocate CORAM: THE HONOURABLE SHRI JUSTICE SIBO SANKAR MISHRA Date of Hearing: 01.07.2024 : Date of Judgment: 16.07.2024 S.S. Mishra, J. The petitioner having been convicted for the offence under Sections 341/324 of I.P.C. by the learned J.M.F.C., Anandapur in G.R. Case No.20 of 1998 was sentenced to undergo S.I. for seven days on the first count and S.I. for two years on the second count and it was directed that both the substantive sentences would run concurrently vide judgment and order dated 23.04.2008. Being aggrieved with the said judgment and order, the petitioner preferred appeal before the learned Addl. Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge (Vigilance), Keonjhar in Criminal Appeal No.43/51 of 2011-2008. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, the appellate Court confirmed the order of conviction but waived the substantive sentence and imposed a fine of Rs.200/- for the offence under Section 341 of I.P.C. and reduced the S.I. from two years to two months for the offence under Section 324 of I.P.C. vide judgment and order dated 22.12.2011. Being aggrieved with the said judgment and order, the petitioner has preferred the present revision petition before this Court. 2. The prosecution case is that on 17.01.1998, the informant Rabindra Kumar Swain (P.W.1) filed a report before the police inter alia alleging that on that day at about 12.00 P.M., while he and some other persons were travelling in a Maruti van driven by him, they were intercepted by the accused persons armed with deadly weapon such as sword, bhujali, etc. They parked the motor cycle in front of the Maruti van and started attacking him and the other occupants in the car, causing serious injuries. On the basis of such allegation, the F.I.R. was registered Page 2 of 7 and the investigation was carried out. In the investigation, it was found that when the informant and other persons accompanying him were going to participate in the President election of Alati Cooperative Society in a Maruti van, the accused persons had obstructed them by parking their Rajdoot motor cycle in front of them. One Pravat Baral, Kalia Das, Kuna Samal, Aju Das, Kanhu Mallick and other persons were armed with khanda and bhujali reached at the spot and destroyed the vehicle. Ratikanta Baral and Pravat Baral dealt sword blows to Bharat Majhi causing severe bleeding injury. On the basis of said investigation, six people were charge sheeted for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 147/148/341/323/324/427/506/149 of the IPC. 3. The prosecution had examined seven witnesses and exhibited eight documents to establish the case against the accused persons. 4. The vital witness in the prosecution case was P.W.1, who was the informant in the case. P.W.3 one of the occupants in the vehicle who was attacked, named as was one of the eye-witness. P.W.2 was also a crucial witness because he happened to be a chance witness, who was travelling in a scooter behind the Maruti van, which was damaged. The testimony Page 3 of 7 of the P.Ws.1, 2 & 3 were very consistent and impeccable. They were subjected to lengthy cross-examination by the defence to discard their versions. P.W.5, who was the doctor, had recorded the injury report and had also deposed regarding injury being caused to the victim. 5. The learned trial Court took into consideration the entire evidence on record and mitigated the facts of the present case to arrive at a conclusion that the petitioner alone was liable for the offence punishable under Sections 341/324 of the IPC. However, the leaned trial Court opined that the petitioner cannot be held guilty for the offence punishable under Sections 147/148/323/427/506 of the IPC and accordingly, acquitted him under Section 248(1) of the Cr.P.C. The learned trial Court had also arrived at a conclusion that except the present petitioner none of the other co-accused persons were liable for any offences for which they were charged with. Accordingly, all the accused persons were acquitted. The learned trial Court while sentencing the petitioner rejected the prayer to extend the benefit of P.O. Act for the offence under Section 341 of the IPC. The petitioner was sentenced to Page 4 of 7 S.I. for seven days whereas for offence under Section 324 of the IPC, the petitioner was sentenced to undergo S.I. for a period of two years. 6. The judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 23.04.2008 passed by the learned J.M.F.C., Anandapur against the petitioner was called in question by filing appeal before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Keonjhar in Criminal Appeal No.43/51 of 2011-2008. The appellate Court meticulously examined the evidence and evaluated the judgment of the Court below and returned the following finding: “7. The learned court below found the appellant guilty for offences punishable U/s.341/324 I.P.C. and acquitted him for rest offences. The court confined itself to the evidence on record only to ascertain whether the appellant committed alleged offences of wrongful restrainment and voluntarily caused grievous hurt to the injured persons. Admittedly from the evidence of P.W.1 P.W.6 the court finds that appellant wrongfully restrained the occupants of the Maruti van bearing Registration No.DL5C-6070 and assaulted them by means of a sword. The learned court below committed no wrong at all while appreciating the entire evidence led by prosecution. Not only that the witness who was examined by appellant namely Purna Chandra Sahu as D.W.1 and his evidence also came to be rightly appreciated by the court below. D.W.1 stated that there was an accident concerning the alleged Maruti can and for that the occupants of the vehicle sustained injuries. In cross-examination D.W. stated that he found the Maruti can capsized. D.W.1 reached at the spot after the vehicle capsized. Once again the statement was carried by D.W.1 and claimed that the Maruti van capsized in front of him. There is absolutely no evidence on record from the side of appellant to show that any such case was registered for the alleged vehicular accident. Rather the materials on record unerringly suggest that the Maruti can was Page 5 of 7 seized by the investigating Officer after the alleged incident. No plausible reason appears to disbelieve the testimony of P.W.1 in contradistinction to the evidence of D.W.1. hence, the irresistible conclusion of the court is that the order of conviction as against the appellant for offence punishable U/s.341 & 324 I.P.C. is absolutely justified and as per law.” 7. I have gone through the evidence on record. After thorough analysis of the judgment of the Courts below, I find no reason to disagree with the findings recorded in regard to the conviction recorded against the petitioner for the offences punishable under Sections 341/324 of the IPC. Accordingly, I confirm the judgment of conviction. 8. In so far as the sentence imposed against the petitioner is concerned, the appellate Court has been lenient. The appellate Court has modified the sentence of two years S.I. for the offence under Section 324 of the IPC to that of two months S.I. and directed to set off the sentence already undergone by the petitioner under Section 428 of Cr.P.C. The incident had taken place in the year 1998. It appears that there was a political rivalry between the accused persons and the victim. A free fight appears to have broken out on the date of the incident between both the parties. All the co-accused persons except the petitioner have been let off by the Court below. The petitioner is aged about 62 years old now. Page 6 of 7 Therefore, he is entitled for the benefit of Section 4 of the P.O. Act. Learned counsel for the petitioner while pressing for the benefit of