The High Court
Case Details
THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK CRLA No.370 of 2010 (In the matter of an application under Section 374(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973) Titu @ Prakash Nayak @Prakash Kumar Nayak and another ……. Appellants -Versus- State of Orissa ……. Respondent For the Appellants : Mr. Neelakantha Panda, Advocate For the Respondent : Ms. Sarita Moharana, ASC CORAM: THE HONOURABLE SHRI JUSTICE SIBO SANKAR MISHRA Date of Hearing: 31.07.2025 : Date of Judgment: 19.08.2025 S.S. Mishra, J. The present Criminal Appeal, filed by the appellants under Section 374(2) of the Cr. P.C., is directed against the judgment and order dated 30.06.2010 passed by the learned Special Judge, under S.C. & S.T. (P.A.) Act, Khurda in T.R. Case No.26/116 of 2004 arising out of G.R. Case No.1110 of 2002 corresponding to Bolagarh P.S. Case No.138 of 2002, whereby the learned trial Court has convicted the accused-appellants for the offences under Sections 452/332/34 of the Indian Penal Code,1860 (hereinafter the Code for brevity) and, accordingly, sentenced them to undergo S.I. for period of one year on each count and that the sentence to run concurrently. 2.
Legal Reasoning
Heard Mr. Neelakantha Panda, learned counsel appearing for the appellants and Ms. Sarita Moharana, the learned Additional Standing Counsel for the State. 3. When the matter was taken up for hearing on 05.08.2025, Mr. Panda, learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that he has received instructions that appellant No.2- Manu @ Santosh Raut @ Santosh Kumar Rout has expired. Accordingly, the present appeal qua the appellant No.2 stands abated. Hence, the appeal is considered only in respect of Appellant No.1-Titu @ Prakash Nayak @ Prakash Kumar Nayak. 4. That the case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 09.12.2002 at about 9.00 P.M., while the informant, who was working as the Block Development Officer (B.D.O.) of the Bolagarh Block, was verifying the Page 2 of 12 official dak of the Bolagarh Block inside his official residence, at that relevant point of time, the appellants came there and abused the informant in filthy language, saying "MAA GHIA B.D.O, KABAT KHOL". Hearing the aforesaid abusive language of the appellants, the informant inquired as to why the kerosene oil had not been supplied to Dabardhua Panchayat. Hearing this, the Informant politely told the appellants to come on the next day to the Block Office. However, the appellants again gave a violent knock at the door of the informant’s residence and again told him to open the door of his house by saying "MAA GIHA B.D.O, KOBAT KHOL AJI TOTE SESH KARI DEBU". In fear, the Informant did not open the door, but ultimately, due to the violent push and strike by the appellants, the door was forced open, and the appellants entered inside the residence of the informant. All of a sudden, appellant No.1, Titu @ Prakash Nayak, assaulted the informant with a fist blow on the forehead. Observing this high-handed action, the informant tried to escape from the clutches of the appellants, but at that time, the appellant No.2, Manu @ Santosh Raut, caught hold of the ganji (banian) of the informant, as a result of which, the said Page 3 of 12 banian was torn. Thereafter, the appellants assaulted the informant with fists and kicks and shouted from behind "MAA GIHA DHOBA AAJI KUADE JIBU". Due to the assault, the informant sustained bodily injuries and shouted for help. Hearing the noise, the Office Peon, one Deba, and the Driver, Bijaya, reached there. On seeing them, the appellants fled away from the spot by a Suzuki motorcycle bearing No. OR-02-G-4932. Thereafter, the informant reached the Police Station and lodged a written F.I.R. at about 9.30 P.M. Accordingly, after receipt of the F.I.R., the O.I.C., Bolagarh Police Station, registered the case against the appellants, seized the torn banian, sent the informant for medical examination, arrested the appellants on 10.12.2002, and forwarded them to the Court of the learned S.D.J.M., Khurda, for legal action. The investigation was handed over to the S.D.P.O., Khurda, and after submission of the charge sheet, the learned S.D.J.M., Khurda, took cognizance of the offences and committed the case before the Court of the learned Special Judge, S.C. & S.T. (P.A.) Act, Khurda, for necessary trial. Page 4 of 12 The appellants were charged for the offences punishable under Sections 452/294/332/186/506/341/34 of the Code and Section 3(1)(x) of the S.C. and S.T. (P.A.) Act, 1989, to which the accused persons pleaded not guilty; hence, they faced trial. 5. That, in order to prove its case, the prosecution examined as many as nine witnesses. The informant was examined as P.W.6, the Medical Officer as P.W.7, and the Investigating Officer as P.W.8 in support of the case. P.W. Nos.2, 3, 4 and 5 who were claimed to be the occurrence witnesses have turned hostile. No witnesses were examined on behalf of the defence. 6. The learned trial Court analysed the evidence on record in detail and returned the following findings:- “I have gone through the evidence adduced by the prosecution carefully. P.W.2, P.W.3, P.W.4 and P.W.5 who are said to be the occurrence witnesses have turned hostile and they have not deposed anything about the occurrence. P.W.6, who is the informant of this case, has specifically and categorically supported the prosecution case. He stated that on 9.12.2002 at about 9 P.M. while he was looking to the official Dak in his official residence, situated inside the Block Office, both the accused persons came and abused him as “MAA GIHA B.D.O.” He further stated that they challenged as to why Kerosene oil is not supplied to Dabardhua Gram Panchayat and when he asked them to come to his office on the next day, for verification, they Page 5 of 12 for the accused persons the cross-examination of directed him to open the door and threatened to finish him. He also stated that out of fear he did not open the door, but the accused persons gave repeated blows to the door, for which the door was opened. He stated in Para-5 of his evidence that accused Titu was aiming a fist blow to his face, but he slightly bent his face downward and the fist blows fell on his fore head. He stated that while he was going to his drawing room, accused Manu pulled his banion, as a result of which, it was torne. I have gone through this witnesses very carefully. However, I do not find any discrepancies or inconsistencies worth the name available to disbelieve him. Learned counsel forcefully submitted that the evidence of P.W.6 cannot be accepted in absence of any corroboration from independent source. Learned Special P.P. on the other hand argued that the evidence of P.W.6 inspire confidence since he has vividly described the sequence of the occurrence and nothing has been elicited to disbelieve him. I am unable to persuade myself to accept the submission of the learned defence counsel. Corroboration is not a rule of law but it is only a rule of prudence. There is no law which says that without corroboration, a case cannot be ended in conviction. Rather, the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in a decision reported in (2003) 26 O.C.R. Page-106 (Chittar Lal-Vrs-State of Rajastan) propounded that:- “If the testimony of a solitary witness is found to be reliable, there is no legal impediment to convict the accused. The Hon’ble Supreme Court further propounded that it is the quality and not the quantity of evidence, which is necessary to prove or disprove a fact.” Similarly, our Hon’ble Court, in a decision reported in 1985 C.L.R. Page-186 (The State-Vrs.- Budha Panji) hold that an order of conviction can be well founded on the basis of the solitary evidence, if such evidence is found to be truthful, honest and acceptable. I have already stated that there is nothing to disbelieve the evidence of P.W.6, who is a responsible Government servant, having no axe to grind against the accused persons. P.Ws.2 to 5 were examined in the Court, when P.W.6 was already transferred from Bolagarh Block. They have been rightly declared hostile by Page 6 of 12 the prosecution. It is found that we are living in a society where values and ethos are all given a go-bye. People hesitate to come forward to speak the truth. Hon’ble Apex Court taking the society into consideration have observed as hereunder in a decision reported in (2000) 1 S.C.C. Page- 247 (Himanchal Pradesh – vrs.- Lekhraj) that:- “The criminal trial cannot be equated with a mock scene from a stunt film. The legal trial is conducted to ascertain the guilt or innocence of the accused arraigned. In arriving at a conclusion about the truth, the Courts are required to adopt a rational approach and judge the evidence by its intrinsic worth and the animus of the witnesses. The hyper technicalities or figment of imagination should not be allowed to divest the Court of its responsibility of shifting and weighing the evidence to arrive at the conclusion regarding the existence or otherwise of a particular circumstance keeping in view the peculiar facts of each case, the social position of the victim and the accused, the larger interest of the society particularly the law and order problem and degrading values of life inherent in the prevalent system. The realities of life have to be kept in mind while appreciating the evidence for arriving at the truth. The Courts are not obliged to make efforts either to give latitude to the prosecution or loosely construe the law in favour of traditional dogmatic hypertechnical approach has to be replaced by a rational, realistic and genuine approach for administering justice in a criminal jurisprudence cannot be considered to be a utopian thought but have to be considered as part and parcel of the human civilization and the realities of life. The Courts cannot ignore the erosion in values of life which are a common feature of the present system. Such erosions cannot be given a bonus in favour of those who are guilty of polluting society and mankind.” the accused. The trial. Criminal 7. By appreciating and analyzing the evidence brought on record by the prosecution and taking into consideration the defence plea eventually Page 7 of 12 the learned trial Court recorded the guilt of the appellants by concluding as under: “It is however proved by the prosecution that P.W.6, who is a public servant, while looking to the official Dak, sitting in his official residence, the accused persons entered inside and they assaulted him. It is further proved that the accused persons made their entry with a view to assault P.W.6, who is a public servant and the then B.D.O. of Bolagarh Block. Therefore, prosecution has able to prove the charge U/s 452/332/34 of I.P.C. against the accused persons.” 8. Although the appellants stood charged for the offence punishable under Sections 452/294/332/186/506/341/34 of the Code and Section 3(1)(x) of the S.C. and S.T. (P.A.) Act, 1989 but the learned trial Court relying upon the evidence of the prosecution particularly the evidence of P.W.6 (informant) arrived at a conclusion that the appellants are guilty of offences punishable under Sections 452/332/34 of the Code and, accordingly, sentenced them to undergo S.I. for a period of one year on each count and that the sentence to run concurrently. The appellants have now preferred the present appeal under Section 374(2) of Cr.P.C. assailing the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 30.06.2010 passed by the learned Special Judge, under S.C. & S.T. Page 8 of 12 (P.A.) Act, Khurda in T.R. Case No.26/116 of 2004. For ready reference, Section 374(2) of Cr.P.C. reads as under:- “(2) Any person convicted on a trial held by a Sessions Judge or an Additional Sessions Judge or on a trial held by any other court in which a sentence of imprisonment for more than seven years [has been passed against him or against any other person convicted at the same trial], may appeal to the High Court” Reading of the above provision makes it clear that the present appeal on the set of available facts is not maintainable. 9. This Court is alive to the aforementioned statutory position of law. However, taking into consideration the facts that the incident relates back to the year 2002 and the trial went on for about eight years to only end up on 30.06.2010 and the appeal had been pending since 2010 onwards, this Court is not inclined to knock out the appeal on the technical ground as mentioned above particularly for the reasons that the learned trial Court by a deep analysis of the evidence brought on record has found the appellants guilty for the offences as mentioned above. 10. While analyzing the evidence on record, I find no reason to disagree with the findings returned by the learned trial Court, particularly because none of the independent witnesses have supported the Page 9 of 12 prosecution case. Hence, I affirm the conviction recorded against the appellants for the offence under Sections 452/332/34 of the Code. 11. At this stage, Mr. Panda, learned counsel for the appellants submits that the appellant No.1 has already faced the ordeal of trial for eight years and the appeal has been pending for the last fifteen years. Therefore, the appellant No.1 may not be sent to custody to serve out the sentence at this belated stage. The incident relates back to the year 2002. At that point in time, the appellant No.1 was in his early thirties. At present he must be in his late forties. He submitted that, over the years, he has led a dignified life, integrated well into society, and is presently leading a settled family life. Incarcerating him after such a long delay, it is argued, would serve little penological purpose and may in fact be counter-productive, casting a needless stigma not only upon him but also upon his family members, especially when there is no suggestion of any repeat violation or ongoing non-compliance with regulatory norms. Therefore, in the fitness of situation, the appellant No.1 may be extended the benefit of the Probation of Offenders Act read with Section 360 Cr. Page 10 of 12 P.C. Therefore, I am inclined to accede to the prayer made by Mr. Panda, learned counsel for the appellants. 12. Regard being had to the age of the appellant No.1, his societal position, clean antecedents and the fact that the incident had taken place in the year 2002, I am of the considered view that the appellant No.1 is entitled to the benefit of the Probation of Offenders Act and Section 360 of Cr.P.C. Additionally, the case of the appellant No.1 is also covered by ratio of the judgment of this Court in the case of Pathani Parida & another vs. Abhaya Kumar Jagdevmohapatra1. 13. In such view of the matter, the present Criminal Appeal in so far as the conviction is concerned is turned down. But instead of sentencing the appellant No.1 to suffer imprisonment, this Court directs the appellant No.1 to be released under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act for a period of three months on his executing bond of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand) within one month with one surety for the like amount to appear and receive the sentence when called upon 1 2012 (Supp-II) OLR 469 Page 11 of 12 during such period and in the meantime, the appellant No.1 shall keep peace and good behavior and he shall remain under the supervision of the concerned Probation Officer during the aforementioned period of three months.
Decision
14. With the above observation, the CRLA is accordingly disposed of. (S.S. Mishra) Judge The High Court of Orissa, Cuttack. Dated the 19th August, 2025/ Swarna Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SWARNAPRAVA DASH Designation: Senior Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa Date: 22-Aug-2025 15:18:50 Page 12 of 12