Criminal Appeal No. 20/40 of 2010 · The High Court
Case Details
THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK CRLREV No.169 of 2013 (In the matter of an applications under Sections 397 & 401 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973) Gadadhar Palta Singh & another ……. Petitioners -Versus- State of Odisha ……. Opposite Party For the Petitioners : Mr. Surya Narayan Mishra, Advocate For the Opp. Party : Mr. B.K. Ragada, Addl. Government Advocate CORAM: THE HONOURABLE SHRI JUSTICE SIBO SANKAR MISHRA Date of Hearing: 21.06.2024 : Date of Judgment: 16.07.2024 S.S. Mishra, J. The present Criminal Revision filed under Sections 401 r/w 397 of Cr.P.C. is directed against the judgment and order dated 17.12.2012 passed by the learned IInd Additional Sessions Judge, Puri in Criminal Appeal No.20/40 of 2010-09, whereby the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 21.10.2009 passed by the learned S.D.J.M., Puri in G.R. Case No.1518 of 2007/T.R. No.597 of 2008 has been partially modified. 2. The prosecution case as per the F.I.R. is that one Laxmidhar Swain being the informant alleged that on 24.10.2007 at about 3 P.M. inside the campus of District Headquarters Hospital, Puri an incident had happened. At the time of occurrence, the informant was working as Laboratory Technician in the said hospital and was discharging his duty as a Public Servant. The accused persons reached in the hospital and asked him about the report of a patient namely Lily Paltasingh. The informant replied that he had sent the report. Still the accused persons abused the informant in filthy language, caught hold of his shirt collar, pulled him from blood bank area to labour ward and assaulted him. The informant got annoyed with such actions of the accused persons and reported the matter to the A.D.M.O. (Medical), Puri which was sent to the I.I.C., Kumbarpada Police Station for registration of a case. Page 2 of 9
Legal Reasoning
Accordingly FIR was registered, charge sheet was filed and petitioners were put to trial. 3. To bring home charges, the prosecution had examined as many as four witnesses and exhibited two documents. The plea of defence was that of complete denial. 4. The learned Trial Court analyzed the entire evidence on record and sentenced them to undergo S.I. for one and half years for the offence under Section 332 of the IPC and further sentenced them to undergo S.I. for fifteen days for the offence under Section 341 of the IPC. 5. The judgment of conviction and sentence dated 21.10.2009 passed by the learned S.D.J.M., Puri in G.R. Case No.1518 of 2007/T.R.No.597 of 2008 was called in question by filing Criminal Appeal No.20/40 of 2010-09 before the Court of the learned IInd Addl. Sessions Judge, Puri by the petitioners. 6. Having failed in their appeal, the petitioners have challenged the judgment/order of conviction and sentence of both the Courts below in the present Revision Petition. Page 3 of 9 7.
Legal Reasoning
Heard Mr. S.N. Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. B.K. Ragada, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State. 8. Perused the impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed against the petitioners and meticulously evaluated the evidence on record. 9. The present revision petition is directed against the judgment of the learned IInd Addl. Sessions Judge, Puri dated 17.12.2012 in Criminal Appeal No.20/40 of 10/2009 whereby the learned IInd Addl. Sessions Judge, Puri being the Appellate Court has confirmed the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 21.10.2009 passed by the learned S.D.J.M., Puri in G.R. Case No.1518 of 2007. The petitioners aggrieved by the aforementioned judgment of conviction and order of sentence recorded by the Courts below filed the present revision. 10. The petitioners were charged for the offences punishable U/Ss. 332/341/294/34 IPC. The case of the prosecution is that one Laxmidhar Swain being the informant had informed the police that on 24.10.2007 at about 3 P.M., when he was working in the District Headquarters Page 4 of 9 Hospital, Puri as a Laboratory Technician, the accused persons came near him and asked him about the medical report of a patient namely Lilly Paltasingh. The informant replied that he had already sent the report to the doctor. In spite of that, the accused persons abused the informant in obscene language and dragged him towards the Labour Ward and assaulted him. Since the informant was discharging his official duty as a public servant, he reported the matter to the ADMO (Medical), Puri, which was thereafter informed to the Police Station and culminated into an F.I.R. 11. The prosecution examined four witnesses. P.W.1 was the informant whereas P.W.2 was the Ward Attendant in the hospital. P.W.3 was employed as a Sweeper and alleged to have witnessed the incident whereas P.W.4 was the Investigating Officer. 12. Relying upon the testimony of P.Ws. 1, 2 & 3, learned Trial Court recorded the conviction against the accused persons having found them guilty for the offences U/Ss.332/341/34 IPC. Accordingly, the learned Trial Court sentenced the petitioners to undergo of S.I. for one and half years for the offence U/S.332 IPC and further sentenced them to undergo Page 5 of 9 S.I. for fifteen days for the offence U/S.341 IPC. Even after setting-off of the period already undergone, learned Trial Court declined to extend the benefit of the provisions of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958. 13. The petitioners have challenged the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the learned S.D.J.M., Puri by filing an appeal. Learned IInd Addl. Sessions Judge, Puri vide its judgment dated 17.12.2012, although confirmed the conviction recorded against the petitioners, but extended the benefit of Section 3 of the Probation of Offenders Act. 14. At the time of pendency of the appeal, the informant and the petitioners have entered into a compromise and filed a petition in that regard on 27.09.2012. The Appellate Court allowed the application to compound the offence U/S.341 IPC, however, rejected the application for settlement in so far as the offence U/S.332 IPC is concerned. Therefore, the Appellate Court has upheld the conviction recorded by the Court below for the offence U/S.332 IPC alone. Accordingly, the sentence awarded by the Court below for the offence U/S.332 IPC has been modified by extending the benefit of the Probation of Offenders Page 6 of 9 Act. The petitioners have challenged the order of conviction recorded by the Courts below by filing the present revision petition. 15. I have perused the evidence on record and analyzed the judgments of the Courts below regarding recording of the conviction against the petitioners for the offence U/S.332 IPC. 16. It is elucidated from the record that the informant-victim i.e. P.W.1 has not sustained any external injury. Accordingly, he was not subjected to the medical examination. Therefore, nothing has come on the record to suggest that the victim was indeed hurt at the instance of the petitioners. The petitioners have been acquitted for the alleged offence U/S.294 IPC by not believing the version of P.Ws.1, 2 & 3. Apart from that, so far as the offence U/S.341 IPC is concerned, the victim-informant himself has entered into a settlement and moved an application for compounding the same. Therefore, in absence of any evidence either to bring home the charge of Section-294 IPC or Section- 341 IPC, the conviction recorded by the Court below for the offence U/S.332 IPC creates a serious doubt as such not sustainable. The Appellate Court while analyzing the evidence has held as under: Page 7 of 9 “7. I carefully examined the evidence on record with assistance of the learned counsel for both the parties. P.W.1, the informant-victim has categorically stated regarding the alleged incident on the relevant date and time. To be specific, he has stated that on 24.10.2007 at about 3 P.M he was on duty as the Laboratory Technician in the blood bank of DHH, Puri and as to how the accused persons came and restrained him and also pulled him towards labour ward by holding his shirt collar and thereby deterred from discharging his duty as a public servant. The above evidence of P.W.1 remained unchallenged as no cross-examination has been made on behalf of the defence. P.Ws. 2 and 3 are employees of the DHH, Puri and as such whose presence are require natural at the place of incident have supported the evidence of P.W.1 in material particulars and such evidence of P.Ws. 2 and 3 also remained unchallenged. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellants that no independent witnesses have been examined to support the evidence of P.Ws. 1, 2 and 3 though the place of occurrence was a crowded place as admitted by the I.O. P.W.4. The fact remains that the evidence of the victim and the occurrence witnesses have not been challenged by the accused persons. Though ordinarily the place of incident is a crowded place being a hospital, still there is no evidence on record to show that at the material time any independent persons were present and have seen the alleged incident. Independent corroboration is not a rule of law, rather only a rule of prudence but where the evidence of the official witnesses are found to be unblemished and free from any suspicion then a conviction can lie basing on their such evidence. In the case at hand, nothing has been elicited to show that P.Ws. 2 and 3 are any way inimical towards the accused persons or that they are interested for the cause of the informant-victim P.W.1. So, there is nothing to discard their evidence only because they are the co-employees of the informant-victim P.W.1. In such view of the legal position, the argument advanced by the appellants merits no consideration.” learned counsel the for 17. I am not inclined to agree with the Appellate Court so far as the aforementioned finding is concerned, as the testimony of P.Ws.1, 2 & 3 are shaky and inspire no confidence to sustain the conviction recorded against the petitioners for the offence U/S.332 IPC, particularly when Page 8 of 9 these witnesses were not believed vis-à-vis other alleged offences are concerned. 18. Accordingly, the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 17.12.2012 recorded against the petitioners by the Appellate Court for the offence U/S.332 IPC is set-aside and the petitioners are acquitted of the said charges. Bail bond furnished by the petitioners stands discharged.
Decision
19. The Criminal Revision is accordingly allowed and disposed of. …………………. (S.S. Mishra) Judge The High Court of Orissa, Cuttack The 16th July, 2024/Amit Mohanty, Secretary Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: AMIT KUMAR MOHANTY Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK Date: 19-Jul-2024 09:46:21 Page 9 of 9