The High Court
Case Details
THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK CRLREV No.723 of 2012 (In the matter of an application under Section 401 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973) Abhiram Sethy @ Sethi ……. Petitioner -Versus- State of Orissa ……. Opposite Party
Legal Reasoning
For the Petitioner : Mr. P.R. Barik, Advocate For the Opp. Party : Mr. Sashanka Patra, Addl. Standing Counsel CORAM: THE HONOURABLE SHRI JUSTICE SIBO SANKAR MISHRA Date of Hearing: 12.07.2024 : Date of Judgment: 30.07.2024 S.S. Mishra, J. The present Criminal Revision, filed under Section 401 of Cr.P.C., is directed against the judgment and order dated 12.09.2012 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Baripada in Criminal Appeal No.67/87 of 2009-08, whereby the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the learned J.M.F.C., Udala in G.R. Case No.302 of 1999 (T.C. No.05 of 2005) has been confirmed. 2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that, on 27.12.1999 the accused was arrested by the police of Udala Police Station in G.R. Case No.198 of 1998 and constable Jambeswar Sahu and Subash Ch. Rout were directed to produce the accused before the Court of learned S.D.J.M., Udala. Accordingly, command certificate was issued to Constables Jambeswar Sahu and Subash Ch. Rout to bring the accused Abhiram Sethi to the Court of learned S.D.J.M., Udala. Since it was a holiday, the General Bench Clerk in the office of learned S.D.J.M., Udala and the two constables produced the accused at the residence office of learned S.D.J.M., Udala. Thereafter, the accused was taken to the Court complex by the Sub-Inspector and kept in the Court hazat. The General Bench Clerk handed over the I.C. warrant to the constables for taking the accused to jail at 7.30 P.M. While the Constables opened the gate of Court hazat and were in the process of putting handcuff on the accused, when the accused pushed them and escaped from their custody and ran towards the weekly hat of Udala. In spite of all sincere attempts, the Constables could not apprehend the accused. Then, they immediately reported the matter to the O.I.C., Udala Police Station, which was registered and investigation was taken up. During the course of investigation, the I.O. seized command certificate and I.C. warrant issued against the accused, examined the escort party Constables Page 2 of 6 and other material witnesses and after completion of necessary investigation, submitted charge sheet under Section 224 of I.P.C. against the accused. 3. To bring home the charges, the prosecution had examined as many as six witnesses and exhibited four documents. The plea of defence was that of complete denial. In proof of their defence, no witness has been examined. 4. The learned trial Court analyzed the entire evidence on record and found that the Petitioner is guilty of the offence under Section 224 of I.P.C and sentenced him to undergo R.I. for a period of six months and the period of detention undergone by the convict as U.T.P. to be set off. 5. The judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 07.11.2008 passed by the learned J.M.F.C., Udala in G.R. Case No.302 of 1999 was called in question by filing Criminal Appeal No.67/87 of 2009-08 before the Court of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Baripada by the petitioner. The learned appellate Court vide its judgment and order dated 12.09.2012 dismissed the appeal and upheld the judgment of the learned trial Court. 6. Having failed in the appeal, the petitioner has challenged the judgment/order of conviction and sentence of both the Courts below in the present Revision Petition. Page 3 of 6 7. Heard Mr. P.R. Barik, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Sashanka Patra, learned Additional Standing Counsel for the State. 8. I have perused the evidence on record and analyzed the judgments of the learned trial Court as well learned appellate Court. The learned trial Court examined six witnesses, out of them P.W.3, the police Constable, was the informant and P.W.4 accompanied P.W.3 at the time of commission of offence. They were the vital witnesses to the prosecution. To draw corroboration to the evidence of P.Ws.3 & 4, the testimony of P.W.2, who was the General Bench Clerk in the office of the learned S.D.J.M., Udala, who issued the I.C. warrant, was examined. P.W.6 was the Court Assistant Sub- Inspector, Udala, who had witnessed the entire incident was also a material witness. The learned trial Court, relying upon the testimony of P.Ws.2,3,4 & 6, had convicted the petitioner for commission of offence under Section 224 of the IPC and sentenced him to undergo R.I. for a period of six months. The learned trial Court appreciating the evidence on record, had returned the following finding: “9. It is seen that the police constables and Court A.S.I. have successfully proved that they had kept the accused in the hazat awaiting receiving of I.C. warrant from the peskar. While the peskar handed over the I.C. warrant, the constables open the haat gate. In the process of putting handcuff to the accused, he fled away giving push to the Page 4 of 6 police constables. This three witnesses have successfully proved that they chased the accused, but they could not apprehend him since he concealed in the weekly hat. At the same time, the accused admits that the escort police constables allowed him to flee away from the custody. The plea that the police constables allowed him to flee away from the custody is not at all believable. So it is held that the accused has escaped from the lawful custody on the aforesaid date and time.” 9. I have gone through the evidence of all the prosecution witnesses very meticulously and concur with the finding recorded by the learned trial Court. The finding of the Court below is just and proper and a culmination of right appreciation of the evidence on record. Therefore, I am not inclined to interfere in the present matter in so far as the conviction recorded against the petitioner for commission of offence under Section 224 of the IPC is concerned. 10. It is seen from the record that the petitioner was taken into custody on 12.09.2012 and eventually, he was enlarged on bail on 10.12.2012 by this Court in Misc. Case No.1027 of 2012. Therefore, he had already undergone custody for about three months. The incident had taken place in the year 1999 and at that time the petitioner was aged about 55 years. Therefore, at this stage, sending the petitioner to custody to serve the remaining sentence of three months will be harsh. Regard being had to the aforementioned, I am of Page 5 of 6 the view that the sentence awarded to the petitioner for the offence under Section 224 of the IPC shall be modified to that of the sentence he has already undergone. 11.
Decision
The CRLREV is accordingly disposed of. …………………. (S.S. Mishra) Judge The High Court of Orissa, Cuttack The 30th July, 2024/Amit Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: AMIT KUMAR MOHANTY Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK Date: 13-Aug-2024 10:03:33 Page 6 of 6