Orissa High Court
Ghasiram Gopal & Another vs State Of Odisha on 20 July, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
CRLREV NO.341 OF 2023
Ghasiram Gopal & Another .... Petitioners
Mr.B.Mohanty, Advocate
-versus-
State of Odisha .... Opposite Party
Mr.S.K.Nayak,
AGA
CORAM:
MR. JUSTICE D.DASH
ORDER
20.07.2023
Order No. CRLREV NO.341 OF 2023
02. 1. This matter is taken up through hybrid arrangement
(virtual/physical) mode.
2. Heard.
3. Admit.
On consent of the learned Counsel for the Petitioners and
the learned Counsel for the State; the Revision is heard on merit.
Perused the judgments passed by the Courts below.
(D. Dash),
Judge.
ORDER
Order No. 20.07.2023
03. 1. This matter is taken up through hybrid arrangement
(virtual/physical) mode.
2. The Petitioners, by filing this Revision have called in
question the legality and propriety of the judgment dated 21.06.2023
passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kuchinda in
Criminal Appeal No.03 of 2015 by dismissing the Appeal filed by
the present Petitioners as the Appellants therein in assailing the
judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 29.05.2015
// 2 //
passed by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Kuchinda in S.T.
Case No.389/24 of 2004.
3. The Trial Court had convicted Petitioner No.1 for the
offence under section 427/308/109 of the IPC and Petitioner No.2
for offence under section 308 of the IPC and section 25(1)(a) of the
Arms Act. Accordingly, the Petitioner No.1 had been sentenced to
undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of 3 (three) months for
commission of offence under section 427 of the IPC and undergo
Rigorous Imprisonment for 1 (one) year for the offence punishable
under section 308/109 of the IPC. The Petitioner No.2 had been
sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of 2 (two)
years and pay a fine of Rs.2000/- (Rupees Two Thousand) in default
to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of 6 (six) months
for commission of offence under section 25 (1) (a) of the Arms Act
and undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for 1 (one) year for
commission of offence under section 308 of the IPC.
4. Learned counsel for the Petitioners at the beginning instead
of challenging the concurrent findings of the Courts below as
regards the guilt of these Petitioners, confines his submission as to
the adequacy of the sentence. He submits that when the Petitioners
have undergone the mental agony of the criminal trial for about 20
years by now; keeping in view their age and the facts and
circumstances which have emanate from the evidence as to the
happening in the incident and the role played by these Petitioners,
the sentence awarded by the courts below is excessive and
disproportionate. He further submits that the Petitioner No.2 has
already remained in custody for more than two weeks and the
Petitioner No.2 has also suffered incarceration for a period of three
(3) months and twenty four (24) days. He further submits that when
// 3 //
finding adequate and special reasons, the Courts below have gone
for reduction of the minimum sentence as fixed under the statute for
commission of offence under section 25(1)(a) of the Arms Act; by
the Petitioner No.2; this Court should consider further reducing the
same to the period undergone and while imposing the sentence of
fine instead of imprisonment for the other offences as against both
the Petitioners.
5. Learned Additional Government Advocate submits that the
Courts below having taken the facts and circumstances of the case
as also other relevant factors have rightly fixed the quantum of
sentence which needs no interference in exercise of the revisional
jurisdiction of this Court.
6. Keeping in view the submissions made, I have carefully
read the judgments passed by the Courts below.
7. The Petitioner No.1 is a permanent resident of the District of
Sambalpur and his present age is shown to be 45 years whereas the
other Petitioner's age is 33 years and he too is a permanent resident
of the same district. Both are facing the agony of criminal trial for
two decades as of now and it is also stated by the learned counsel
for the Petitioner that they have suffered imprisonment for certain
period during the Trial. No report is placed before this Court as to
the involvement of these Petitioners in other criminal activities and
it is also not stated that during the pendency of the Appeal while
enjoying the liberty, they have never misused the same. It is not
stated that these Petitioners have the criminal antecedent. It is
further stated that they are two brothers and the entire family depend
upon them. Taking into account all these aforesaid; this Court is of
the view that the sentence with which the Petitioners have been
visited need be given a relook.
// 4 //
8. Accordingly, the Petitioner No.1 is hereby sentenced to
imprisonment already undergone, and pay fine of Rs.2000/- in
default to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of six
months for the offence under section 308/109 of the IPC and pay
fine of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand) in default to undergo
Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of Six (6) months. The
Petitioner No.2 is accordingly sentenced to undergo imprisonment
the period already undergone and pay fine of Rs.5000/- (Rupees
Five Thousand) in default to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for
one (1) year for the offence under section 25(1)(a) of the Arms Act
and pay fine of Rs.5000/- (Rupees Five Thousand) in default to
undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for six months for the offence
under section 308 of the IPC.
It is further directed that upon realization of fine, a sum of
Rs.5000/- (Rupees Five Thousand) be paid to Droupadi Rana
(P.W.1) and a sum of Rs.5000/- (Rupees Five Thousand) be paid to
Jayakanta Rana (P.W.2) towards compensation.
9. The CRLREV is accordingly disposed of with the
modification of the sentence imposed on the Petitioners as aforesaid
indicated.
Issue urgent certified copy as per rules.
(D. Dash)
Judge
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: GITANJALI NAYAK
Reason: Authentication
Gitanjali
Location: OHC
Date: 25-Jul-2023 17:31:16
