The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK CRLA No.1345 of 2024 (An appeal U/S.374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 against the judgment passed by Sri Raj Kumar Das, 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Berhampur in ST Case No.218 of 2023 arising out of Pattapur PS Case No.346 of 2023, of the Court of Nyayadhikari, Grama Nyayalaya, Sanakhemundi). Siba Sankar Jena State of Orissa -versus- … … Appellant Respondent For Appellant : Mr. K.P. Dash, Advocate For Respondent : Mr. S.K. Rout, Addl. PP CORAM: JUSTICE G. SATAPATHY F DATE OF HEARING & JUDGMENT:07.04.2025(ORAL) G. Satapathy, J. 1. This criminal appeal is directed against the impugned judgment dated 25.07.2024 passed by the learned 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Berhampur in ST Case No.218 of 2023 convicting the appellant for commission of offences punishable U/S.420 of IPC and sentencing him to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment (RI) for two years and to pay a fine of CRLA No.1345 of 2024 Page 1 of 8 Rs.40,000/-, in default whereof, to undergo RI for six months, while acquitting him of the charge for offences punishable U/Ss.489(B)/489(C)/489(E) of IPC. 2. The prosecution case in gist is, on 01.06.2023 the appellant came to the village of the informant and approached her to take a group loan at low interest rate and believing the version, the informant and other co-villagers namely Arati Bisoyi, Chitrasen Bisoyi and Mamashree Rauta of village Adapada gave their Aadhaar Cards and Bank passbooks to the appellant and after some days of taking documents, the appellant told them that the documents are mismatching and called them to Janaseva Kendra at village Kankorada and linked their Aadhaar numbers with Bank passbooks and, thereafter, the appellant fraudulently taken a cash of Rs.7,000/- from the informant and different amounts from the other villagers of the informant as processing charges for the loan. While the matter stood thus, on 14.06.2023, the appellant came and CRLA No.1345 of 2024 Page 2 of 8 gave one bag to the informant and told that there is cash of Rs.6,00,000/-(Rupees Six Lakhs) in the bag and he would come on later date to provide loan to the respective villagers. After this, when the appellant did not come to the informant, the informant and other villagers checked the bag and found dummy GC notes (children playing GC notes) therein.
Legal Reasoning
On this incident, PW1 lodged an FIR under Ext.P-1 before IIC, Pattapur, who registered Pattapur PS Case No.346 of 2023 and took up the investigation and, accordingly, PW9-the IIC submitted charge-sheet against the appellant for commission of offences U/Ss.420/489(B)/489(C)/489(E) of IPC resulting in trial in present case before the learned trial Court. 3. In substantiation of its case, the prosecution examined altogether 9 witnesses and relied upon documents proved under Exts.P-1 to P-13 as against no evidence whatsoever by the defence. CRLA No.1345 of 2024 Page 3 of 8 The plea of the appellant in the course of trial was denial simplicitor and false implication. 4. On conclusion of trial, the learned trial Court after analyzing the evidence on record upon hearing the parties, passed the impugned judgment convicting the appellant for offence U/S. 420 of IPC and sentencing him to the punishment indicated in the preceding paragraph. 5. In the course of hearing of the appeal,
Legal Reasoning
Mr. Kuresh Prasad Dash, learned counsel for the appellant by filing a memo, which is taken on record, does not press the appeal on merit, but he, however, prays for reduction in sentence of the appellant. Accordingly, Mr. Kuresh Prasad Dash submits that the appellant is ready to pay the fine amount and, therefore, substantive sentence imposed against the appellant may kindly be reduced to the period already undergone, to such prayer, Mr. S.K. Rout, learned Additional Public Prosecutor has raised no objection. CRLA No.1345 of 2024 Page 4 of 8 6. After having considered the submission as advanced for the parties and on going through the materials placed on record, it appears that the appellant has been convicted for offence U/S.420 of IPC and is, accordingly sentenced to Rigorous Imprisonment (RI) for two years and to pay a fine of Rs.40,000/- in default whereof, to under RI for six months. On a careful scrutiny of the evidence on record keeping in view the conviction of the appellant for offence U/S. 420 of IPC, this Court, does not find such conviction of the appellant to be suffering from any illegality and thereby, the conviction of the appellant for the aforesaid offence needs no interference by this Court. In order to address the sentence, this Court, however, has requested the Addl. Public Prosecutor to obtain the custody certificate of the appellant together with a report of his past conduct in the jail and, accordingly, the Addl. Public Prosecutor produced the same in the Court today in which the Senior Superintendent, Circle Jail, Berhampur has stated the conduct of the appellant CRLA No.1345 of 2024 Page 5 of 8 inside the jail to be good. From the custody certificate, the appellant is found to have already undergone incarceration for a period of 651 days which is approximately 01 year 9months 21 days, out of the substantive sentence of RI for two years as awarded to the appellant. 7. The object of punishment being not to finish the criminal, but to finish the crime and the appellant having already undergone substantial period of his substantive sentence and his conduct being good inside the jail, this Court considers that the appellant deserves some leniency on sentence. True it is that the appellant has been found convicted for offence U/S.420 of the IPC for cheating some innocent ladies, who on the expectation of getting some loans paid some amount like Rs.7,000/-, Rs.8,000/- & Rs.9,000/-, all total Rs.40,000/- to the appellant, but the appellant is prepared to deposit the aforesaid amount as indicated in the memo filed by the learned counsel for the appellant today. The learned trial Court has also indicated in the impugned CRLA No.1345 of 2024 Page 6 of 8 judgment that the fine amount if realized be disbursed to the informant and the victims. 8. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances and taking into account the objective of the punishment, this Court while maintaining the conviction of the appellant for offence U/S. 420 of the IPC, reduces his substantive sentence to the period already undergone by confirming the default sentence for payment of fine of Rs.40,000/- keeping in view his conduct in jail. Accordingly, the appellant is only required to pay the fine amount of Rs. 40,000/- in default whereof, he is required to undergo the default sentence as awarded to him by the learned trial Court. In case of realization of the fine amount, the same shall be disbursed to the person/victim in terms of the judgment of the learned trial Court. 9. In the result, the criminal appeal stands dismissed, but the sentence of the appellant is modified to the extent indicated above. Since the appellant is in jail custody, CRLA No.1345 of 2024 Page 7 of 8 warrant of modified sentence on appeal in Form No.(M)78 of GR & CO, (Criminal) Vol-II be immediately sent to the Officer-in-charge of the concerned jail through e-mail or any other faster communication mode in view of the Rule 155 of the GR & CO, (Criminal) Vol-I. (G. Satapathy) Judge Orissa High Court, Cuttack, Dated the 7th day of April, 2025/S.Sasmal Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SUBHASMITA SASMAL Designation: Jr. Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa Date: 08-Apr-2025 14:04:55 CRLA No.1345 of 2024 Page 8 of 8