Anadi Samal vs State Of Orissa
2023 Latest Caselaw 8600 Ori

                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
                          CRLREV NO.373 OF 2023

            Anadi Samal                      ...                  Petitioner
                                                    Mr.S.K.Dash, Advocate
                                        -versus-
            State of Orissa                 ....             Opposite Party
                                                     Mr.D.K.Mishra, AGA

                      CORAM:
                      MR. JUSTICE D.DASH

                                        ORDER

Order No.                              04.08.2023

   01.      1.      This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement
            (Virtual/Physical Mode).
            2.      Heard.
            3.      Admit.

4. The Petitioner, by filing this Revision, has called in question the legality and propriety of the judgment dated 11.07.2023 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge- cum-Special Judge (Vigilance), Dhenkanal in Criminal Appeal No.12 of 2019 (02 of 2022). The Appellate Court being moved by the present Petitioner challenging the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Dhenkanal in C.T (Sessions) Case No.152 of 2014 (52 of 2014), the Appeal has been allowed in part. The Trial Court had convicted the Petitioner for commission of offence under section 326 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short 'the IPC') and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 5 years and pay of fine of Rs.5000/-

// 2 //

with the default stipulation to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 6 months. The Appellate Court has altered the conviction to one under section 324 of the IPC and thereupon has reduced the sentence to rigorous imprisonment for a period of 2 years and fine of Rs.5000/- in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 3 months.

5. Learned counsel for the Petitioner at the beginning instead of questioning the finding of the lower Appellate Court holding the Petitioner guilty for commission of offence under section 324 of the IPC, however submits that keeping in view the age of the Petitioner, the reason for which the dispute had arisen between the Petitioner and P.W.9 (injured) as also other surrounding circumstances, the sentence as has been awarded is excessive and that does not commensurate the crime. He, therefore, submits that cumulatively viewing the facts and circumstances of the case the sentence of imprisonment stands too harsh.

6. Learned counsel for the State submits that the Appellate Court having convicted the Petitioner for commission of offence under section 324 of the IPC has awarded the sentence which in the facts and circumstances is adequate.

7. Keeping in view the submissions, I have carefully read the judgments passed by the Courts below.

8. The Petitioner and the injured (P.W.9) are co-villagers. The Petitioner at the time of incident was 67 years old and at present, his age is around 70. It is stated by the learned counsel for the Petitioner that he is now having no independent source

// 3 //

of income and is a dependant on other earning members of the family.

Perusal of the judgment of the Courts below reveal that the incident had arisen during the period when the Petitioner was grazing his cows and as then P.W.3 asked the accused not to graze his cows over the said land as that would damage the plants, it is said that the Petitioner assaulted P.W.9 who is the father of P.W.3 being so instigated by Chakradhara and Pranabandhu. It appears that there was no prior planning for the incident. Judicial notice of the fact can be taken that the parties hailing from rural background ordinarily run with high temper and many a times behave differently than what is ordinarily expected.

In view of all these aforesaid, this Court, while confirming the judgment of conviction passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge (Vigilance), Dhenkanal in Criminal Appeal No.12 of 2019 (02 of 2022), feels inclined to modify the order of sentence.

9. Accordingly, the Petitioner is sentenced to pay fine of Rs.15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Thousand) in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 1 (one) year. The fine so realized would be paid to Chania Gadnaik (P.W.9) as compensation.

10. The CRLREV is disposed of accordingly.

Issue urgent certified copy as per rules.

                                                                                (D.Dash)
Signature Not Verified                                                              Judge
Digitally Signed
Signed by: GITANJALI
             Gitanjali NAYAK
Reason: Authentication
Location: OHC
Date: 09-Aug-2023 15:45:26