Prasant Kumar Panigrahi vs State Of Odisha
2023 Latest Caselaw 2366 Ori

              IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

                             CRLREV No.842 of 2005

           Prasant Kumar Panigrahi                ....           Petitioner
                                                  Mr. N.K. Dash, Advocate

                                       -versus-

           State of Odisha                         ....          Opp. Party
                                                  Mr. Debasis Biswal, ASC

                    CORAM:
                    JUSTICE CHITTARANJAN DASH
                   DATE OF JUDGMENT : 23.03.2023
Chittaranjan Dash, J
1.

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. This revision is directed against the judgment and order dated 5th December, 2005 passed by the Adhoc Additional Sessions Judge (FTC), Gunupur arising out of the judgment dated 15th February, 2001 passed by the learned S.D.J.M., Gunupur in G.R. Case No.48 of 1994 corresponding to Gudari P.S. Case No. 15 of 1994 wherein the Appellant having found guilty in the offence U/s.323/384 and 506 Indian Penal Code (hereinafter in short called "IPC") was convicted and sentenced to undergo SI for six months under Section 323 IPC, SI for one year under Section 384 IPC and SI for one year under Section 506 IPC with direction to run the sentences concurrently.

3. The background facts of the case are that the Informant V. Kodanda Rao a Lecturer from Gunupur College, Gunupur was deputed to Gudari Science College, Gudari as Center Superintendent to conduct the +2

// 2 //

Final examination of Council of Higher Secondary Education (hereinafter CHSE) from 16th March 1994 to 12th April, 1994.

4. It is alleged that on 3rd April, 1994 at about 7.30 a.m. the Appellant the Principal, Gudari Science College, Gudari came to his place of residence i.e. College hostel and asked him to come to the college for making telephone call. Sri Rao went with him to the college but instead of making any telephone call the Appellant asked to hand over the charge of Center Superintendent to him, to which he refused. The Appellant being engaged gave a slab to him on his face and forced him to hand over the keys of the Almirahs where the examination materials were stored. The Appellant also threatened him to cripple him if he does not obey his instruction. Under the aforesaid circumstances, Sri Rao handed over keys to him and gave in writing with he delivered the charge of Center Superintendent by forced on health ground. The Appellant put the keys from Sri Rao with malafide intention in order to put Sri Rao in trouble, apprehending a foul play on him so also a danger to his life if he continued to stay in Gudari and stayed the career of the student. The Appellant would not conduct the examination of the student in accordance with the norms of the CHSE. Sri Rao lodged a written report with the Gudari P.S. in connection with the matter.

5. On the basis of the report, the IIC, Gudari P.S. registered the case vide Gudari P.S. Case No.15 of 1994 and took up investigation. In course of investigation, the I.O. examined the witnesses, seized the incriminating articles, visited the spot and prepared the spot map, arrested the Appellant and forwarded to court and upon completion of the

// 3 //

investigation submitted the Final Form on the offence above stated and as such the Appellant faced the trial.

6. To prove the culpability of the Appellant the prosecution examined nine (9) witnesses and proved documents vide Ext. 1 to 5/1. The Appellant on the other hand to substantiate his case examined one witness in support of his defence. The learned court below having assessed the evidence found the Appellant guilty and convicted there under as stated above.

7. Being aggrieved by the said order of the learned S.D.J.M., the Appellant preferred appeal before the Additional Sessions Judge, Rayagada and on being taken to the files of the learned Adhoc Additional Sessions Judge, Gunupur the appeal was disposed of vide judgment and order dated 5th December, 2005 as impugned herein. Wherein the learned Appellate court concurred with the findings of the learned S.D.J.M. and preferred to dismiss the appeal. Being aggrieved, the Appellant preferred to the present revision.

8. In course of the hearing in the revision, the learned counsel submitted that the learned courts below have failed to appreciate the evidence laid before it in right perspective and there being contradictions and discrepancies on material particular, the court ought not have accepted the evidence as reliable and ought to have held the Appellant not guilty and acquitted him. According to the learned counsel, the evidence is inadequate to bring home the charges in the offence and the same being not in consonance with the position of law is liable to be set aside.

// 4 //

9. Learned Additional Standing Counsel, on the other hand, contended that the impugned order passed by the learned court below concurrently requires no interference as it is based on sound principle of law and evidence.

10. Regard being had to the argument placed by the parties, this Court delved into the merit. Perusal of the evidence reveals that the version of PW 5, the informant is akin to the FIR story as well as the statement made by the Informant before the police as recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. on its material particular. His version finds supports from the version of the witnesses who are none but the Lecturers engaged in Gudari Science College, Gudari besides the staff at the relevant time. The time, place and manner of the incident forthcoming from the mouth of the witnesses are not only consistent but also in tune with their respective statements recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. Though the witnesses have to put to cross examination by the defence they found well stood to the test and nothing could be elicited by the defence to shake their credibility. There is absolutely nothing from the side of the defence to challenge the version of the prosecution witnesses and the only evidence laid from the side of the defence through DW1 looses significance on the face of the evidence laid by the prosecution witnesses with consistency and the probability of the incident as proved beyond reasonable doubt.

11. Having regard to the nature of the incident there was no occasion for the informant, in absence of an animosity between him and the Appellant that he would make a false allegation and would hatch a case against the Appellant just to harass him without any cause. The promptitude with

// 5 //

which the informant lodged the report with the police, there was no room to disbelieve the case of the prosecution or to draw an inference that the informant could have implicated the Appellant for any ulterior motive. Consequently, no eyebrow can be raised to the testimony of the witnesses so also to the genesis of the prosecution case. This is more so when the circumstances also substantiate the factum of incident in the manner that the incriminating materials such as the key of the Almirah and other material concerning the examination of the CHSE was seized from the possession of the Appellant therefore the prosecution case as laid through its witnesses in general and the evidence of the Informant PW5 in particular are truthful and inspired confidence to be relied upon to be based upon conviction.

12. As far as the offences are concerned, having regard to the evidence the ingredients necessary to constitute the offences are found well established. This Court, therefore, is of the opinion that the courts below have passed a well reasoned order and requires no interference therein. However, having regard to the fact that the incident is of the year 1994, when the Appellant was only 43 years old and the same having been disposed of after about 30 years, keeping in view the age of the Petitioner who would be about 73 years, this Court is inclined to release the accused on admonition resorting to the benevolent provision of the Probation of offenders Act, 1958 and hence, ordered.

13. It is directed that the Petitioner to be released U/s 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 for a period of two years on his executing a bond of Rs.5000/- with two securities for the like amount to appear and receive sentence when called upon during such period and in the mean

// 6 //

time to keep peace and be of good behavior. The Petitioner shall remain under the supervision of the concerned Probationary Officer during the aforesaid period.

14. The Criminal revision is disposed of accordingly.

(Chittaranjan Dash) Judge

KCBisoi/Secretary