The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK CRLA No.332 of 2024 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 02.04.2024 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge, Jajpur Road, Jajpur in Spl. G.R. Case No.61 of 2021. Anil Raj @ Sania ---- -versus- …. Appellant State of Orissa …. Respondent Appeared in this case by Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual/Physical Mode): For Appellant -
Legal Reasoning
Mr.Arijeet Mishra, Advocate For Respondent - Mr. S. K. Nayak, Additional Government Advocate CORAM MR. JUSTICE D.DASH Date of Hearing : 02.05.2024 : 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 02.04.2024 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-cum- Special Judge, Jajpur Road, Jajpur in Spl. G.R. Case No.61 of 2021, arising out of Korei P.S. Case No.298 of 2021. CRA No.332 of 2024 Page 1 of 6 The Appellant (accused) has been convicted for commission of offence under section 341/324 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, ‘the IPC’). Accordingly, the Appellant has been sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for ten (10) days for the offence under section 341 of the IPC and simple imprisonment for six (06) months for the offence under section 324 of the IPC. 2. Prosecution case is that on 28.10.2021 around 4.30 P.m., when the Informant Tikina Jena (P.W.1) was going with his mother (P.W.2) in a motorcycle to the house of the elder father of the Informant (P.W.1) situated at village Ostapal, on the way, the accused intercepted the motorcycle and asked them to return to their house. It is stated that the accused then abused them by treating their caste and without keeping their request for leaving them, the accused gave fist blows and slaps upon the Informant. It is further stated that the accused brought out a knife and caught hold the neck of the Informant (P.W.1) to cut his throat and in the process when the Informant (P.W.1) attempted to snatch away the knife, he (P.W.1) sustained injury on his left hand. It is further stated that the accused abused P.W.2 by taking her caste and when she protested, she was given pushes. The parents of the accused arrived and they attempted to assault by CRLA No.332 of 2024 Page 2 of 6 thenga and went on abusing. The Informant, therefore, out of fear left the place and informed the matter over telephone to the Deputy Superintendent of Police. On the basis of the report of the Informant (P.W.1), case being registered investigation was taken up. Finally, on completion of investigation, the accused was placed to face the Trial for commission of offence under section 341/294/324/506 of the IPC read with section 3(1)(r)(s) and 3(2)(va) of the Scheduled Caste and the Schedules Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. The Trial Court upon examination of the evidence both oral and documentary let in by the prosecution as well as the defence has held the prosecution to have failed to establish the charges under section 294/506 of the IPC read with section 3(1)(r)(s) and 3(2)(va) of the SC & ST (PoA) Act. The Trial Court however on the available evidence has held the accused guilty for commission of offence under section 341/324 of the IPC. Accordingly, he has been sentenced as aforestated. 3. Mr. Arijeet Mishra, learned counsel for the Appellant (accused) submitted that the evidence on record would reveal that there being a quarrel between the accused on one hand and the Informant (P.W.1) and his mother (P.W.2) on the other, the case has been foisted against the accused. He further submitted CRLA No.332 of 2024 Page 3 of 6 that the Trial Court having found the charges under section 294/506 of the IPC read with section 3(1)(r)(s) and 3(2)(va) of the SC & ST (PoA) Act to have failed; conviction has only been recorded for under section 341/324 of the IPC. He under the circumstance instead of questioning the finding of guilt against the accused as has been returned by the Trial Court on merit submitted that the accused being a young boy aged about 21 years since the offences are not found to be involving moral turpitude and rather some personal dispute and in the mean time, the accused, who hails from rural background and is undertaking some technical education has faced the agony of a criminal trial for more than two years, the sentence of imprisonment for both the offences stand too harsh. He, therefore, submitted that at this point of time, it would be in the interest of justice and serve its end if the accused is sentenced to pay fine as deemed just and proper with the observation that the conviction being not for the offences involving moral turpitude, the same would not stand as a stigma or in any way as an impediment in the future career of the Appellant. 4. Mr. S. K. Nayak, learned Additional Government Advocate for the Respondent-State submitted that the sentence imposed by the Trial Court commensurate the offence established. He CRLA No.332 of 2024 Page 4 of 6 however does not dispute the present age of the accused to be around 23/24 years and that he hails from rural background while further stating that the evidence do not indicate any prior planning behind the said incident but on account of some dispute at their personal level. 5. Keeping in view the submissions made, I have carefully read the impugned judgment of conviction and have also extensively travelled through the depositions of the witnesses (P.Ws.1 to P.W.11) as also have perused the documentary evidence, Ext.P-1 to Ext.P-8. 6. Taking into account the submissions, the age of the Appellant being viewed with the background from which he hails as well as his long future, this Court is of the considered opinion that instead of the sentence of simple imprisonment for ten days for the offence under section 341 of the IPC and six months for the offence under section 324 of the IPC, sentence to pay fine of Rs.500/- (Rupees Five Hundred) for the said offence under section 341 of the IPC with default stipulation to undergo simple imprisonment for seven days and fine of Rs.2500/- (Rupees Two Thousand Five Hundred) in default to undergo simple imprisonment for three months would be in the interest of justice and serve its end. CRLA No.332 of 2024 Page 5 of 6 7.
Decision
Accordingly, the Appeal is allowed in part only with regard to the modification of the sentence as indicated above. The conviction of the Appellant for offence under section 341/324 of the IPC being maintained, he is hereby sentenced to pay fine of Rs.500/- (Rupees Five Hundred) for the said offence under section 341 of the IPC with the default stipulation to undergo simple imprisonment for seven days and pay fine of Rs.2500/- (Rupees Two Thousand Five Hundred) in default to undergo simple imprisonment for ninety days. It is further directed that from out of fine if so realized; the injured (P.W.1) would be paid a sum of Rs.2500/- (Rupees Two Thousand and Five Hundred only). It is further observed that since these offences do not involve moral turpitude, this order of conviction would not run as stigma in the future life and career of the Appellant (accused) so as to stand as an impediment in any way. Gitanjali Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: GITANJALI NAYAK Designation: Junior Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: OHC Date: 21-May-2024 18:27:08 CRLA No.332 of 2024 (D. Dash), Judge. Page 6 of 6