The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK CRLA No.470 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 30.04.2024, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Dharamgarh in C.T. Case No.28 of 2016 (Sessions). Nabeswar Meher …. Appellant ---- -versus- State of Orissa …. Respondent Appeared in this case by Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual/Physical Mode): For Appellant -
Legal Reasoning
Mr. Satya Narayan Mishra-4, Advocate For Respondent - Mr. Soubhagya Ketan Nayak, Additional Government Advocate CORAM MR. JUSTICE D.DASH Date of Hearing :15.05.2024 : 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 30.04.2024, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Dharamgarh in C.T. Case No.28 of 2016 (Sessions), arising out of C.T. Case No.231 of 2015, corresponding to Junagarh P.S. Case No.229 of 2015, pending on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class (JMFC), Junagarh. The Appellant (accused) thereunder has been convicted for commission of offence under section 341/325 of the Indian Penal Code, CRLA No.470 of 2024 Page 1 of 5 1860 (for short, ‘the IPC’), and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and pay fine of Rs.5000/- in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two months for the offence under section 325 of the IPC and pay fine of Rs.500/-in default to undergo simple imprisonment for five days for the offence under section 341 of the IPC with the stipulation that out of the realized fine, a sum of Rs.3000/- would be paid to the injured. 2. Prosecution Case:- On 05.07.2015, around 3 pm, one Rusanta Meher (P.W.2) presented a written report before the Inspector-in-Charge (IIC) of Junagarh Police Station stating therein that in the morning around 8 am, when his father, Sibaram was tilling their land, which was in their possession for last 30 years by a power tiller, the accused and his wife came there and claimed the land to be their own. They also asked as to why their lands were being cultivated. The accused and his wife then abused uttering filthy words directing at Sibaram. It is further stated that when accused raised a tangia to assault on the head of Sibaram (P.W.9) in order to kill him, Sibaram having managed to take off his head, the tangia blow fell on his shoulder and he sustained injuries. It is also stated that the wife of the accused then assaulted Sibaram (P.W.9) by means of thenga on his neck. Rusanta (P.W.2) having received the said information, rushed to the spot and shifted Sibaram (P.W.9) to the Community Health Centre (CHC), Junagarh and thereafter to the District Head Quarter Hospital, Kalahandi at Bhawanipatna. CRLA No.470 of 2024 Page 2 of 5 A report to the above effect being received, the IIC treated the same as FIR and registering the case directed the Sub-Inspector (SI) of Police of that Police Station (P.W.14) to take up the investigation. 3. On completion of investigation, Final Form was submitted by placing this accused to face the trial for commission of offence under section 341/323/324/325/ 307/34 of the IPC. The case being committed to the Court of Sessions, the Trial Court commenced by framing the charge for offence under section 341/294/323/324/ 325/307 of the IPC. 4. The Trial Court upon examination of the evidence of the prosecution witnesses (P.W.1 to P.W.14) and also the documents admitted in evidence and marked Ext.1 to Ext.8 repelled the plea of complete denial and false implication raised by the accused and held that the prosecution has established the charge against the accused for commission of offence under section 324/341 of the IPC. Accordingly, the accused has been acquitted in the charge under section 294/307 of the IPC. 5. Mr. Satya Narayan Mishra-4, learned counsel for the Appellant (accused) from the beginning without questioning the finding of guilt of the accused as has been returned by the Trial Court for commission of offence under section 325/341 of the IPC, confined his submission only with regard to the modification of the sentence. He submitted that the evidence on record would reveal that there was no prior planning behind the incident and the dispute between the parties was with regard to the possession of the land which was then at that point of time being cultivated by Sibaram (P.W.9) was resisted by the accused, who was CRLA No.470 of 2024 Page 3 of 5 levying the competing claim over the said property. He, further submitted that the accused is now aged about 60 years and he hails from a rural background and is maintaining his family by cultivation. He then contended that it is not shown that the accused is having any criminal track record. It is further submitted that the incident having taken place on account of the dispute over the possession of the landed property where the parties were asserting rival claims, as in the meantime, the Appellant has undergone the mental agony of a criminal trial for about 9 years, the imposition of further sentence of imprisonment for the offence under section 325 of the IPC would stand too harsh. He, therefore urged for appropriate modification of the sentence by imposing fine as deemed and proper. 6. Learned Counsel for the Respondent-State submitted that the sentence imposed by the Trial Court needs no modification as the same commensurate the offence. 7. Keeping in view the submissions made, the record being produced, it is seen that the accused is now aged about 60 years and he has undergone the mental agony of a criminal trial for a period of 9 years. The evidence on record reveal that there was no prior planning behind the incident and the parties were having the dispute on account of the rival claim that they were asserting over the landed property in question. It also reveals from the evidence that when the injured (P.W.9) was tilling the land, this accused and his wife went to object the said act by stating as to why their lands was being ploughed and inevitably there CRLA No.470 of 2024 Page 4 of 5 was quarrel. Moreover, no such material is available on record to show that the accused is having any criminal cases to his credit. 8. Taking all these factors into account when the accused has been acquitted of all the major charges for the failure of the prosecution to establish the same through clear, cogent and acceptable evidence, he having undergone the mental agony of the criminal trial for quite a long period; this Court is of the considered view that while maintaining the conviction of the accused for commission of the offence under section 325/341 of the IPC, interest of justice would be served and its end would be met if at this distance of time, the accused is sentenced to imprisonment for the period already undergone and pay fine of Rs.10,000/- in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year for the offence under section 325 of the IPC and also sentenced to pay fine of Rs.500/- in default to undergo simple imprisonment for five days for the offence under section 341 of the IPC with the stipulation that on payment of fine by the accused, a sum of Rs.10.000/- would be paid to the injured (P.W.9). 9.
Decision
The Appeal is accordingly disposed of. 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.470 of 2024 (D. Dash), Judge. Page 5 of 5