The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK CRLREV NO.728 of 2024 (An application U/S. 397 r/w. Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973) Krushna Chandra Raula … Petitioner -versus- The State of Odisha … Opposite Party For Petitioner : Mr. B. Sarangi, Advocate For Opposite Party : Mr. A.K. Apat, Addl. PP CORAM: JUSTICE G. SATAPATHY F DATE OF HEARING & JUDGMENT:21.02.2025(ORAL) G. Satapathy, J. 1. This criminal revision is directed against the
Legal Reasoning
confirming the judgment dated 14.03.2024 passed by learned 1st Addl. Sessions Judge, Ganjam, Berhampur, in Criminal Appeal No. 67 of 2022, confirming the Judgment dated 27.08.2022 passed by learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Ganjam, Berhampur in ST Case No. 25 of 2017, convicting the revision-petitioner and one Kuna Panda for commission of offence punishable under Section 341/324/34 of IPC and sentencing each of them to undergo simple imprisonment (SI) for one month with payment fine of CRLREV No.728 of 2024 Page 1 of 8 Rs.500/- in default whereof, to undergo SI for further seven days for offence under Sections 341/34 of IPC; to undergo SI for one year with payment fine of Rs.10,000/- in default whereof, to undergo SI for further six months for offence under Sections 324/34 of IPC with benefit of set off of the pretrial detention against the substantive sentence. By the impugned judgment passed in Appeal, the learned Appellate Court has also confirmed the sentenced of the revision-petitioner, but out of the two convicts, only the present petitioner has preferred this revision on various ground inter alia on the question of sentence. 2.
Legal Reasoning
Heard, Mr. Bhagaban Sarangi, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner virtually and Mr. A.K. Apat, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor in the matter and perused the record. 3. At the threshold, Mr. Sarangi, learned counsel for the revision petitioner does not press the revision on merit, but he confines his submission only to the quantum of sentence. Accordingly, Mr. Sarangi CRLREV No.728 of 2024 Page 2 of 8 submits that since the occurrence took place in the year 2013 and that too, for a petty matter relating to repayment of hand loan of Rs.1,500/-, but the revision- petitioner having detained in custody for more than eight months, some leniency in sentence may kindly be extended to the convict-petitioner. 3.1. On the other hand, Mr. A.K. Apat, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor by producing the custody certificate of the two convicts submits that the revision-petitioner as well as the other convict namely Kuna Panda has already suffered incarceration for a period of 268 days, but no adverse report has been received against any of the convicts from the jail authority. 4. Since the conviction of the revision-petitioner has not been under challenge, this Court, therefore, only recapitulate the necessary part of the facts in precise to address the contention of the revision- petitioner. The relevant facts as it appears are that on 16.01.2013 at about 08.30 AM in the morning while the injured was returning home after taking tiffin, on CRLREV No.728 of 2024 Page 3 of 8 the way, the revision-petitioner and one Kuna Panda met him and demanded Rs.1,500/- from him which he had taken as hand loan from the revision-petitioner about two days before, but when he later expressed his inability to pay the same immediately, the convict- Kuna Panda caught him tightly and the revision- petitioner assaulted him by one kati and as the injured tried to ward off the blow by showing his hands, he sustained cut injury on his both hands and the injured was accordingly shifted to hospital. On this incident, FIR was lodged, investigation ensured and charge sheet was submitted. Accordingly, the convict faced the trial before the learned Asst. Sessions Judge for commission of offence under Sections 341/323/324/307/34 of IPC, but the convicts were found guilty of the offences punishable under Sections 341/324/34 of IPC. However, both the convicts were sentenced to the punishment indicated in the previous paragraph. 4.1 Being aggrieved with the conviction, both the convicts preferred an appeal which was registered CRLREV No.728 of 2024 Page 4 of 8 vide Criminal Appeal No. 67 of 2022 and the same was heard and disposed of by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Ganjam at-Berhampur confirming the judgment and sentence. Accordingly, one of the convict namely Krushna Chandra Raula has preferred this revision. 5. Judged the case on the above backdrop of facts vis-(cid:224)-vis the conviction of the revision-petitioner being not challenged, this Court only confines itself to examine the quantum of sentence of the revision- petitioner as well as that of co-convict, despite the co- convict Kuna Panda has not preferred any revision. The object of punishment is never retributive, but it is deterrent and reformative, however, the custody certificate produced by the learned Addl. Public Prosecutor in the case reveals custody period of around 8 & ‰ months of the revision-petitioner and the co-convict without any adverse report being submitted against them. Further, the co-convict-Kuna Panda, who has not preferred the revision has not assaulted the injured, rather his role is only confined to holding the injured, but on the other hand, the CRLREV No.728 of 2024 Page 5 of 8 revision-petitioner has been alleged to have assaulted to the hand of the injured. Further, the incident has occurred around 12 years back and at this stage, keeping the convict in confinement would not serve any fruitful purpose, rather the parties should be encouraged to remain in main stream. Moreover, the convicts are right now in their mid of forties and they must have dependent family members, but keeping them in custody for further period would not only be counterproductive, but would also affect their family members. 6. In the aforesaid facts and circumstance, especially when there is no adverse report with regard to conduct of the revision-petitioner so also the co- convict while remaining in jail, this court considers it appropriate to reduce/modify the sentence of the revision-petitioner as well as that of co-convict Kuna Panda to undergo SI for eight months with payment of fine of Rs.1,000/- in default whereof, to undergo SI for seven days for offence under Sections 324/34 of IPC; and to undergo SI for one month with payment fine of CRLREV No.728 of 2024 Page 6 of 8 Rs.500/- in default whereof, to undergo SI for seven days for offence under Sections 341/34 of IPC. Since the co-convict Kuna Panda has neither challenged his conviction nor his sentence as confirmed in the appeal, but he having convicted for the same offences as the revision-petitioner, it would be travesty of justice, if the benefit of modification of sentence is not extended to the co-convict Kuna Panda merely because he has not challenged his conviction and sentence by way of any criminal revision and this Court, therefore, considers in the interest of justice to extend the benefit of modification of sentence to convict Kuna Panda without prejudice to his right and contention in the matter. This Court, however, made it clear that in case, the convict Kuna Panda prefers any revision, the same shall be considered on merit without being influenced by this order. However, in absence of challenge of conviction and sentence by co-convict Kuna Panda, but by taking into consideration of demand of justice, the convict Kuna Panda is also directed to undergo the modified punishment till he CRLREV No.728 of 2024 Page 7 of 8 prefers any revision subject to limitation or in case he does not wish to prefer any revision, the aforesaid modification of sentence against him is made absolute. It is, however, ordered that both the convicts shall not be detained in custody after they undergo the modified sentence. 7. In the result, the criminal revision by the petitioner stands dismissed on contest, but in the circumstance, there is no order as to costs. Consequently, the conviction of the revision-petitioner stands maintained, but his sentence stands modified to the extent indicated above. (G. Satapathy) Judge Orissa High Court, Cuttack, Dated the 21st day of February, 2025/Jina Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: JINA DIGAL Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa Date: 24-Feb-2025 16:18:06 CRLREV No.728 of 2024 Page 8 of 8