The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK CRLREV No.257 of 2025 Khuntala Khamari & another …. Petitioners Mr. Jagabandhu Sahu, Advocate -Versus- State of Odisha …. Opposite Party Mr. P.K. Sahoo, ASC CORAM: MR. JUSTICE R.K. PATTANAIK
Decision
ORDER 24.07.2025 Order No. 02. 1. Heard Mr. Sahu, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Sahoo, learned ASC for the State. 2. Instant revision petition is filed assailing the impugned judgment in Criminal Appeal No.11/15 of 2015-17 of learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Balangir confirming the order of conviction and sentence awarded by the court of learned Special Judicial Magistrate, Balangir in G.R. Case No.165 of 2010 on the grounds stated therein. 3. Mr. Sahu, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that petitioner No.1 has been convicted for an offence under Section 509 IPC and sentenced to a fine of Rs.500/- with a default sentence of three months, whereas, petitioner No.2 was released after admonition in terms of Section 3 of Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as ‘P.O. Act’). It is Page 1 of 5 further submitted that petitioner No.1 is a retired Government servant, who was working as a Teacher in a school and he was not at all involved in the incident and in so far as the evidence of the victim, namely, wife of the informant is concerned, it lacks corroboration, the fact, which was lost sight of by the learned Courts below. Referring to the impugned judgment as at Annexure-1 of the court of first instance, it is submitted by Mr. Sahu, learned counsel that no case is made out for an offence under Section 509 IPC in absence of any such corroboration and therefore, it was not justified on the part of the learned Special Judicial Magistrate, Balangir to convict him for the alleged offence and also the impugned judgment i.e. Annexure-2 in appeal an hence, the same is required to be interfered with including the order under Section 3 of the P.O. Act vis-à-vis petitioner No.2. 4. Mr. Sahoo, learned ASC for the State, on the other hand, submits that there is evidence not only from the victim examined as P.W.2, it has received corroboration from P.W.1, namely, her husband. The submission is that the details of the alleged incident stood narrated by P.W.2 before the Trial Court, considering which, the order of conviction was passed with the sentence followed and rightly, confirmed in appeal by the learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Balangir. 5. LCR is received and the same is perused. The deposition of P.W.2, namely, the victim is gone through. In fact, the alleged incident took place near a tube well, where petitioner No.1 said to have passed a comment, which did not Page 2 of 5 go down with her and it was informed to P.W.1 and thereafter, the other events followed. It is alleged that the accused persons chased P.W.1 and others and committed other mischief described by P.W.1. The FIR was lodged by P.W.1 alleging the mischief to have been committed by the petitioners and others. On such report received, Balangir Sadar P.S. Case No. 60 dated 7th March, 2010 was registered under Sections 294,506,509 read with Section 34 IPC. Ultimately, with the chargesheet filed, evidence was received during trial and it has led to the passing of the impugned judgment as at Annexure-1 and thereafter, Annexure-2 by the learned court in appeal. 6. On a reading of the evidence as made to reveal from the LCR, P.W.2 clearly deposed about the comment received from petitioner No.1 and her intimation to P.W.1 shortly thereafter leading to other events taking place. Considering the evidence of P.W.1 and other witnesses including the I.O., namely, P.W.8, the Court is of the view that there is corroboration to the testimony of P.W.2. In other words, the contention of absence of corroboration supporting the claim of P.W.2 as has been alleged by Mr. Sahu, learned counsel for the petitioners is not acceptable, rather, the evidence shows that the alleged mischief was committed by all the accused persons and initially by petitioner No.1 and in view of the comment aimed at her, the report was lodged by her husband. This Court does not find any error or illegality being committed by the learned courts below while appreciating the evidence on record. So to say, the evidence of P.W.2 well established the involvement of the Page 3 of 5 petitioners in the alleged incident and therefore, this Court is not inclined to interfere and intervene with the judgment i.e. Annexure-2 confirming the decision of the Court of first instance as per Annexure-1. 7. In so far as the sentence awarded to petitioner No.1 is concerned, it appears to the Court that he is a first-time offender. In fact, nothing has been revealed from the record regarding previous misconduct or similar antecedent of petitioner No.1, who is also a retired Government servant. It is submitted by Mr. Sahu, learned counsel for the petitioners that any such sentence even of fine awarded to petitioner No.1 is a stigma and could amount to disqualification. 8. Considering the objection of Mr. Sahoo, learned ASC for the State and having regard to the nature of allegation vis-à- vis petitioner No.1, who is though responsible for the alleged comment attributed to the victim, namely, P.W.2, it is a fit case where he should also be released under Section 3 of the P.O. Act like petitioner No.2 and other convicts. In so far as the release of petitioner No.2 is concerned as per the P.O. Act, the Court’s equally not inclined to interfere with the same. The conclusion as a result is that the order of conviction in respect of petitioner No.2 should be sustained, whereas, petitioner No.1 in the facts and circumstances of the case is required to be allowed to go on probation with an admonition in terms of Section 3 of the P.O. Act as the same would rather serve the purpose and meet the ends of justice. Such is the view of the Court keeping in view the entirety of the evidence and for the Page 4 of 5 fact that petitioner No.1 should not be dealt with harshly and hence to be released with a warning as any such release on probation does not amount to any disqualification in view of Section 12 of the P.O. Act. 9. Accordingly, it is ordered. 10 In the result, the revision petition stands allowed in part. As a necessary corollary, the impugned judgment at Annexure-2 in Criminal Appeal No.11/15 of 2015-17 of learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Balangir is hereby modified with a direction for release of petitioner No.1 on probation under Section 3 of the P.O. Act like petitioner No.2. 11. Issue urgent certified copy as per rules. (R.K. Pattanaik) Judge Alok Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: ALOK RANJAN SETHY Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT Date: 25-Jul-2025 19:04:36 Page 5 of 5