Gangadhar Harijan vs State Of Orissa
2023 Latest Caselaw 8766 Ori

                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
                           CRLREV NO.93 OF 2022

            Gangadhar Harijan                ...                     Petitioner
                                                       Mr.T.K.Sahu, Advocate
                                        -versus-
            State of Orissa                 ....                Opposite Party
                                                        Mr.D.K.Mishra, AGA

                       CORAM:
                       MR. JUSTICE D.DASH

                                       ORDER

08.08.2023 I.A. No.135 of 2022 Order No.

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

2. In course of hearing, learned counsel for the Petitioner does not want to press this application.

In view of above, the I.A. stands dismissed as not pressed.

                                                             (D.Dash)
                                                              Judge


                                        ORDER
Order No.                              08.08.2023

   02.      1.      Heard.
            2.      Admit.

3. The Petitioner, by filing this Revision, has called in question the legality and propriety of the judgment dated

// 2 //

22.11.2021 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Koraput at Jeypore in Criminal Appeal No.16 of 2018. The Appellate Court being moved by the present Petitioner challenging the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate-cum-Assistant Sessions Judge, Koraput at Jeypore in Criminal Trial No.1 of 2017, the Appeal has been dismissed. The Trial Court had convicted the Petitioner for commission of offence under section 324 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short 'the IPC') and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one (1) year. The Appellate Court has confirmed said judgment of conviction and order of sentence.

4. Learned counsel for the Petitioner at the beginning instead of questioning the finding of the Courts below 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.6 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 which needs interference by sentencing the Petitioner to pay such fine as would meet the ends of justice.

5. Learned counsel for the State submits that the Appellate Court having convicted the Petitioner for commission of

// 3 //

offence under section 324 of the IPC has awarded the sentence which in the facts and circumstances is adequate.

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

7. The Petitioner and the injured (P.W.6) are co-villagers. The present age of the Petitioner is 55 and he has been facing the agony of criminal trial since the year 2017 for about five years by now.

Perusal of the judgment of the Courts below reveal that the incident had arisen during the period when the Informant and the injured (Padlam Gonda-P.W.6) had been to their paddy fields to cultivate and irrigate the same. It is said that the Petitioner who had dealt a Tangia blow on P.W.6 from behind causing bleeding injuries on the head. 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. It is not stated that the Petitioner has any criminal antecedent. It is also not stated that the Petitioner is still continuing with such strained relationship with P.W.6.

In view of all these aforesaid, this Court, while confirming the judgment of conviction passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Koraput at Jeypore in Criminal Appeal No.16 of 2018, feels inclined to modify the order of sentence.

8. Accordingly, the Petitioner is sentenced to pay fine of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) in default to undergo

// 4 //

rigorous imprisonment for 6 (six) months. The fine so realized would be paid to Padlam Gonda (P.W.6) as compensation.

9. The CRLREV is disposed of accordingly.

Issue urgent certified copy as per rules.

(D.Dash) Judge

Gitanjali

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: GITANJALI NAYAK Reason: Authentication Location: OHC Date: 17-Aug-2023 17:26:57