Aru @ Premananda Mallick @ vs State Of Odisha
2023 Latest Caselaw 7190 Ori

                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
                         CRLREV NO. 102 OF 2023
            Aru @ Premananda Mallick @             ....            Petitioner,
            Premananda Mallik
                                                  Mr.A.R. Panda, Advocate
                                       -versus-
            State of Odisha                       ....       Opposite Party.
                                                  Mr. S.K. Nayak, AGA.
                      CORAM:
                      MR. JUSTICE D.DASH

                                     ORDER

Order No.                           03.07.2023
   03.      1.      The Petitioner by filing the above Revision has called

in question the legality and propriety of the judgment dated 02.02.2023 passed by the learned 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Balasore in Criminal Appeal No.22 of 2022.

By the said judgment, the Appeal filed by the Petitioner has been allowed in part. The Trial Court having convicted the Petitioner for commission of offence under section-307/120(B) of the IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven (7) years for the offence under section-307 of the IPC and pay fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two months; the Appellate Court has convicted the Petitioner for the offence under section 324 of the IPC and accordingly, directed that the Petitioner would undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and pay fine of Rs.5,000/- in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months. The co-convict namely Pramod Mallick who was the other

// 2 //

Appellant before the Appellate Court with the present Petitioner has been acquitted.

2. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner placing the facts and circumstances under which the occurrence took place as those emanate from the evidence of the prosecution witnesses instead of questioning the finding of conviction recorded by the Trial Court and so confirmed by the Appellate Court as against this Petitioner, confines his submission on the question of sentence.

According to him, keeping in view the facts and circumstances leading to the occurrence and all those surrounded thereafter, the quantum of sentence is highly disproportionate when this Petitioner has already suffered the imprisonment for 83 days during trial and also for further period after the conviction till he was released on bail after filing the Appeal. He, therefore, submits that by now when the Petitioner has undergone mental agony of criminal trial for about eleven (11) years, it is a fit case for interference with the said order of sentence for appropriate reduction.

3. Learned Counsel for the State submits that the quantum of sentence as has been imposed by the Courts below in the backdrop all the happenings in the incident and the role played by the Petitioner appears to be proportionate.

4. Keeping in view the submissions made, I have carefully read the judgment passed by the Trial Court as well as the Appellate Court.

// 3 //

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, when there remains no criminal track record to the credit of this Petitioner and it is not stated that bad blood still flows between the injured on one hand and this Petitioner on the other, the submission of the learned Counsel for the Petitioner being accepted in part; this Court is of the view that the sentence with which the Petitioner has been visited with need be given a relook.

In that view of the matter, this Court while confining the sentence of imprisonment to the period already undergone; further imposes the sentence of fine of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand) for the commission of offence under section-324 of the IPC to be paid by the Petitioner with the default stipulation to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one and half years. It is further directed that in the event of realization of the fine, the Injured (P.W.8) would be paid with the said sum towards compensation.

5. The CRLREV is accordingly disposed of.

Issue urgent certified copy as per rules.

(D. Dash), Judge.

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed SignedHby: HIMANSU SEKHAR DASH Reason: Authentication Location: OHC Date: 07-Jul-2023 10:58:54