The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK CRLREV NO. 568 OF 2022 Tikeswar Netty @ Neti & Another …. Petitioners, Mr.Sudipto Panda, Advocate -versus- State of Odisha …. Opposite Party. Mr. S.K. Nayak, AGA. CORAM: MR. JUSTICE D.DASH ORDER 31.08.2023 Order No. 01. 1. This matter is taken up through hybrid arrangement (virtual/physical) mode. 2. Heard. Admit.
Legal Reasoning
On consent of the learned Counsel for the Petitioners and the learned Counsel for the State; the Revision is heard on merit. Perused the judgments passed by the Courts below. Order No.
Decision
ORDER 31.08.2023 (D. Dash), Judge. 02. 1. The Petitioners by filing the above Revision have called in question the judgment dated 11.11.2022 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sundargarh in Criminal Appeal No.11/09 of 2021-22. By the said judgment, the Petitioners (accused persons) being convicted for commission of offences under section- 341/323/325/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, ‘the Page 1 of 5 // 2 // IPC’) each had been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two (2) years and pay fine of Rs.2000/- in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two (2) months for the offence under section-325 of the IPC, rigorous imprisonment for one year for the offence under section-323 of the IPC and to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month for offences under section-341 of the IPC by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Sundargarh in S.T. Case No.21/15 of 2013, their challenge to the same by filing the Appeal, has been dismissed by the impugned judgment. 2. Learned Counsel for the Petitioners at the outset instead of questioning the concurrent finding of the Courts below as to role played by the Petitioners (accused persons) and act done, confined his submission with regard to the finding as to commission of offence under section-323 and 341 of the IPC as also to the quantum of sentence in contending that in the facts and circumstances, the sentence imposed upon the Petitoners (accused persons) for the offence under section-325 of the IPC appears to be highly disproportionate. He submits that the evidence of P.W.5 being read in entirety would go to show that he is suppressing something with regard to the genesis of the occurrence and that is for obvious reason to hide his role in igniting the incident which of course, he fairly submits to have not been further highlighted during cross-examination. In support of the same, he submits that when P.W.5 states to have been assaulted from back, the injuries noticed are on the forehead and chest. He further submits that once the Court’s Page 2 of 5 // 3 // below have held the Petitioners (accused persons) guilty for commission of offence under section-325/34 of the IPC, the conviction for the offence under section-323/34 of the IPC is unwarranted since the injured is one that is P.W.5. It is also submitted that the evidence of P.W.5 being taken as it is, the ingredients of the offence under section-341 of the IPC are not satisfied. He further submits that the Petitioners (accused persons) and the injured are co-villagers. He submits that by now the Petitioners (accused persons) have undergone mental agony of criminal trial for about twelve (12) years, and there stands no such report that they had indulged in any criminal activity at any time, during this period, when it is also not stated that they have misused the liberty which had been granted during trial as well as the pendency of this Appeal. He further submits that as these Petitioners (accused persons) have already undergone imprisonment for more than one month, keeping their present age and the fact that they hail from rural background, earning their livelihood from cultivation, on whom the whole family depend, in the absence of any report that the Petitioners (accused persons) have during the time indulged in any criminal activity or that they were having criminal antecedent, sentence for undergoing further custodial sentence for said conviction under section-325 of the IPC would not be in the interest of justice and rather would stand too harsh at this distance of time. He therefore, contends for interference with the said order of sentence for appropriate reduction. Page 3 of 5 // 4 // 3. Learned Counsel for the State submits all in favour of the finding of guilt of the Petitioners (accused persons) for the offences under section-325/323/34 of the IPC in further contending that the quantum of sentence as has been imposed by the Appellate Court in the backdrop of all the happenings in the incident and the role played and the acts done by the Petitioners (accused persons) appear to be just and proper. 4. Keeping in view the submissions made, I have carefully read the judgment passed by the Trial Court as well as the Appellate Court. Bestowing due attention and giving anxious consideration as to the facts and circumstances leading to the incident as those emerge from the evidence let in by the prosecution as also other surrounding circumstances; the submission of the learned Counsel for the Petitioners (accused persons) being accepted as regards the non-sustainability of conviction of the Petitioners (accused persons) for the offences under section-341 and 323 of the IPC; it is seen that the Petitioners (accused persons) have been undergoing the mental agony of a criminal trial for more than 12 years and they too have remained in custody for more than one month. It is also not stated that the Petitioners (accused persons) were having criminal antecedent or that they during the trial or appeal have indulged in any criminal activity. In view of all these aforesaid, this Court, while modifying the judgment of conviction passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sundargarh in Criminal Appeal Page 4 of 5 // 5 // No.11/09 of 2021-22 and holding that the Petitioners (accused persons) are liable for commission of offences under section-325 of the IPC; imposes the sentence of imprisonment for the period undergone and fine of Rs.15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Thousand) each in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six (6) months with further stipulation that the realized fine amount, be paid to the Informant-injured (P.W.5) namely, Udit Kumar Patel as compensation. 5. The CRLREV is accordingly disposed of. Issue urgent certified copy as per rules. Narayan (D. Dash), Judge. Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: NARAYAN HO Designation: Peresonal Assistant Reason: Authentication Location: OHC Date: 02-Sep-2023 17:16:14 Page 5 of 5