Criminal Appeal No. 90 of 2004 · The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK CRLREV No.310 of 2016 An application under Section 401 read with Section 397 of Criminal Procedure Code. Laxmidhar Swain …. Petitioner State of Orissa Mr. Satyajit Mohapatra-2, Advocate -versus- …. Opp. Party Mrs. Siva Mohanty, A.S.C. CORAM: JUSTICE A.K. MOHAPATRA _____________________________________________________ Date of Hearing : 27.11.2024 | Date of Judgment: 27.11.2024 ______________________________________________________ A.K. Mohapatra, J. : 1. The present revision petition has been filed challenging the judgment dated 08.03.2016 passed in Criminal Appeal No.90 of 2004 by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Athagarh thereby
Legal Reasoning
confirming the judgment dated 16.10.2004 passed by the learned J.M.F.C., Athagarh convicting the petitioner for commission of offence under Sections 341, 323, 326, 34 of I.P.C. The Petitioner has been sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- for the offence under Section 341 of I.P.C. and further sentenced to undergo simple Page 1 of 6 imprisonment for a period of one month and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- for the offence under Section 323 of I.P.C. and further sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- for the offence under Section 324 of I.P.C. All the sentences were directed to run concurrently. The aforesaid sentence of the trial court was modified by the appellate court to the extent that the conviction under Section 341 of I.P.C. was set aside and the petitioner was convicted for commission of offence under Sections 323/324 of I.P.C. However, the sentence in respect of the offences under Sections 323/324 of I.P.C. as awarded by the learned trial court remained untouched by the learned appellate court. 2. The case of the prosecution, in short, is that one Gadadhara Sahu, S/o., Kasinath Sahu of village Godijharia, lodged an F.I.R. at the Tigiria P.S. alleging that on 22.11.1993 his son, Manas, aged about 10 years was playing with the daughter of the accused- Petitioner. While they were playing, they both had a quarrel with each other. At that time accused-Laxmidhara intervened and dealt slaps to the son of the informant. When the wife of the informant asked as to why the accused assaulted Manas, the accused- Laxmidhara abused her in filthy language. The informant after Page 2 of 6 returning to his house in the evening, inquired about the incident, upon which the accused-Petitioner assaulted the informant by an iron rod causing bleeding injury. Accordingly, Tigiria P.S. Case No.106/93 was registered and the investigation of the case commenced. After conclusion of the investigation, the I.O. filed charge sheet for commission of offence punishable under Sections 341/323/326/34 of I.P.C. 3. During the trial the prosecution has examined 8 witnesses. Out of which P.W.1 is the informant, P.W.3 is his wife and P.W.6 is his son. P.W.8 is the M.O. who examined the informant. P.W.2, 4 and 5 are the independent witnesses to the occurrence. P.W.7 is the I.O. On the other hand, the defence examined two witnesses to rebut the allegations made by the prosecution. 4. The learned trial court after recording of evidence and appreciating the same, found the accused-Petitioner guilty of offences punishable under Sections 341, 323, 324 of I.P.C. and convicted the Petitioner thereunder. Being aggrieved by the judgment of the trial court the accused-petitioner preferred an appeal before the appellate court. The learned appellate court, on a careful scrutiny and appraisal of the evidence on record as well as the judgment of the trial court found the Petitioner guilty of the charges. Page 3 of 6 However, the conviction of the Petitioner was modified to the extent that his conviction for the commission of offence under Section 341 of I.P.C. was set aside and the conviction under Section 323/324 of I.P.C. was sustained. Being aggrieved by the confirmation of the conviction of the accused-Petitioner under Section 323, 324 of I.P.C., the Petitioner has preferred the present revision application. 5. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner as well as learned counsel for the State. Perused the L.C.R. as well as the evidence of the witnesses and other materials on record. 6. Learned counsel for the Petitioner at the outset submitted that the trial court committed an illegality by convicting the Petitioner initially under Section 341/323/324 of I.P.C. and thereafter the appellate court modified the same by virtue of the appellate court’s judgment and convicted the Petitioner under
Legal Reasoning
Section 323/324 of I.P.C. Learned counsel for the Petitioner further contended that the injury sustained by the injured are simple in nature. Therefore, the conviction under Section 324 of I.P.C. is unsustainable in law. He further contended that the entire conviction of the Petitioner is based on evidence of the interested witnesses like the informant, his wife and his son. He further contended that no independent witnesses have supported the case of prosecution. On Page 4 of 6 such ground, learned counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the conviction of the Petitioner under Section 323/324 of I.P.C. is unsustainable in law. 7. Learned counsel for the State on the other hand contended that the learned courts below have not committed any illegality in convicting the petitioner under the aforesaid sections. She further contended that on the basis of the evidence and materials on record, the Petitioner’s guilt is clearly established. She further submitted that the injured witnesses have themselves supported the case of the prosecution and that their evidences remains un-impeached even after a prolonged cross-examination. On such grounds, learned counsel for the State submitted that the impugned judgments do not call for any interference by this Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction. 8. Having heard the learned counsels appearing for the parties, on a careful examination of the materials on record, further on a scrutiny of the L.C.R. and the evidence of the witnesses, this Court is of the view that the injured witnesses have supported the case of the prosecution and such evidence of the injured witnesses have remained un-impeached. In such view of the matter, this Court is of the view that the impugned judgment of the learned court below Page 5 of 6 does not call for any interference by this Court at this stage. However, taking into consideration the fact that the occurrence is of the year 1993 and in the meantime several decades have passed, this Court, in the larger interest of justice, is inclined to modify the sentence. Accordingly, the sentence of simple imprisonment is hereby set aside. Further, the fine amount is enhanced and the Petitioner shall not pay a consolidated fine of Rs.5000/- (Rupees Five Thousand). Further in exercise of power under Section 357 Cr.P.C. it is directed that the aforesaid fine amount shall be released in favour of the victim as compensation. 9. With the aforesaid modifications of sentences, the revision
Decision
petition stands disposed of. Orissa High Court, Cuttack The 27th November, 2024/ Anil/ Jr. Steno (A.K. Mohapatra) Judge Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: ANIL KUMAR SAHOO Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa Date: 02-Dec-2024 14:29:17 Page 6 of 6