The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK CRLA No.460 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 18.04.2024 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Salipur in S.T No.27 of 2021. Saroj Bandhu Das @ Kalia …. Appellant ---- -versus- State of Orissa …. Respondent Appeared in this case by Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual/Physical Mode): For Appellant -
Legal Reasoning
Mr. Satya Ranjan Mulia Advocate For Respondent - Mr. S. K. Nayak, Additional Government Advocate CORAM MR. JUSTICE D.DASH Date of Hearing :16.05.2024 : 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 18.04.2024, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Salipur in S.T No.27 of 2021, arising out of Mahanga P.S. Case No.84 of 2019, arising out of G.R. Case No.348 of 2019, on the file of learned Judicial Magistrate First Class (JMFC), Salipur. CRLA No.460 of 2024 Page 1 of 5 The Appellant (accused) thereunder has been convicted for commission of offence under section 324/341 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, ‘the IPC’). Accordingly, he has been sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for three (3) years for the offence under section 324 of the IPC and simple imprisonment for a period of one month for the offence under section 341 of the IPC with the stipulation that the substantive sentenced would run concurrently. The Appellant (accused) stood charged for commission of offence under section 341/324/307/506 of the IPC. The Trial Court upon examination of the evidence and their scrutiny has found the prosecution to have failed to establish the charge under section 307/506 of the IPC and accordingly, the Appellant (accused) has been acquitted of the said charges. He has however been held guilty with that set of evidence to have committed the offence under section 341/324 of the IPC. 2. Learned counsel for the Appellant (accused) from the beginning instead of questioning the finding of guilt of the accused as has been returned by the Trial Court, holding him guilty for commission of offence under section 341/324 of the IPC, confined his submission as to the modification of the sentence. He submitted that the Appellant (accused) has been facing the CRLA No.460 of 2024 Page 2 of 5 criminal trial for about 5 years by now and he has undergone the mental agony of the trial for all these period. He submitted that there was no prior planning for the incident and it arose out of a dispute with regard to the fixing of an electric pole. It was further submitted that the accused is now in his fifties and he hails from the rural background living on cultivation and wages and as such maintaining his family. In view of all these, he urged that the imposition of sentence of imprisonment for the offences for which the accused has been convicted at this distance of time would stand too harsh and disproportionate. He, therefore, contended for modification of the sentence for those offences by imposition of fine with the default stipulation as deemed just and proper. 3. Learned Counsel for the Respondent-State inviting the attention of this Court to the nature of injuries sustained by the injured persons in course of the incident resulting from the act of the accused, submitted that the sentence imposed by the Trial Court commensurate the offence. 4. Keeping in view the submissions made, I have carefully read the judgment of conviction and have travelled through the deposition of all the witnesses P.W. 1 to P.W.10. I have also perused the documents admitted in evidence. CRLA No.460 of 2024 Page 3 of 5 5. Allegation stands that the accused assaulted P.W.1 by means of a spade and that was preceded by altercation between the accused and the P.W.1 concerning fixation of a electric pole. It has been held by the Trial Court that the nature of injury clearly establishes the fact that there was not so much strength in the blow and persistence in the attack of the accused. That P.W.1 had sustained lacerated wound as well as linear abrasion which are simple in nature and as per the evidence of the Doctor (P.W.10) those might have been caused by hard and blunt object. The seat of injury was no doubt the head. Fact remains that the case is running from the year 2019 and the accused has undergone the mental agony of criminal trial for about 5 years by now. Accused is now in his fifties and is a permanent resident of a village under Mahanga Police Station. No such report is forthcoming that either previously or after the incident, the accused has been involved in any such criminal activity. 6. Taking all these factors into account, this Court is of the considered view that instead of sentence of imprisonment for a term of three years for the offence under section 324 of the IPC, the sentence of fine of Rs.25,000/-(Rupees Twenty Five Thousand) with default stipulation to undergo simple imprisonment for one (1) year and fine of Rs.500/- (Rupees Five Hundred) with the CRLA No.460 of 2024 Page 4 of 5 default stipulation of undergoing simple imprisonment for one (1) month for the offence under section 341 of the IPC would serve the interest of justice and meet its end when the injured (P.W.1) is duly compensated. 7. In that view of the matter while confirming the conviction of the Appellant (accused) for the offence under section 341/324 of the IPC, he is sentenced to pay fine of Rs.25,000/-(Rupees Twenty Five Thousand) in default to undergo simple imprisonment for one (1) year for the offence under section 324 of the IPC and fine of Rs.500/- (Rupees Five Hundred) in default to undergo simple imprisonment for one (1) month for the offence under section 341 of the IPC. It is further directed that from out of the fine as would be so realized; a sum of Rs.25,000/- shall be paid to the injured (P.W.1). 8. In the result, the Appeal is allowed in part with the modification of the sentence to the extent as indicated above. 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.460 of 2024 (D. Dash), Judge. Page 5 of 5