Jiten @ Jitendra Naik & Others vs State Of Odisha
2023 Latest Caselaw 10654 Ori

                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
                          CRLREV NO. 413 OF 2023
            Jiten @ Jitendra Naik & Others        ....          Petitioner,
                                                  Mr.S. Sourav, Advocate
                                       -versus-
            State of Odisha                       ....       Opposite Party.
                                                  Mr. S.K. Nayak, AGA.
                        CORAM:
                        MR. JUSTICE D.DASH

                                     ORDER

Order No.                           02.09.2023
   01.      1.       This matter is taken up through hybrid arrangement
            (virtual/physical) mode.
            2.      Heard.
            3.      Admit.

4. On consent of the learned Counsel for the Petitioners and the learned Counsel for the State; the Revision is heard on merit.

5. The Petitioner, by filing this Revision, has assailed the judgment dated 6th July, 2023 passed by the learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Bolangir in Criminal Appeal No.24/71 of 2017. The Petitioners (accused persons) stood convicted by the learned S.D.J.M., Bolangir in G.R. Case No.519 of 2012 corresponding to Trial No.799 of 2012 by its judgment dated 24.06.2017 for commission of offence under sections 324/34 of the IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years each and pay fine of Rs.1,000/- each and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for three months, each. Being aggrieved by the above judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed

// 2 //

by the Trial Court, these Petitioners (accused persons) had carried the Appeal. The Appellate Court by the impugned judgment has dismissed the same and thereby confirmed the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the learned Trial Court.

6. Learned counsel for the Petitioners at the outset instead of questioning the concurrent finding of the courts below with regard to the role played and act done by these Petitioners (accused persons) in the said incident as those emanate from the evidence of the prosecution witnesses corroborated by documentary evidence confines his submission with regard to the sentence in contending that the same in the facts and circumstances of the case is highly disproportionate. He submits that judicial notice of the fact can be taken that all these Petitioners (accused persons) hail from rural background and normally temper among them run high and they many a times unexpectedly respond even in an ordinary situation. He further submits that all these Petitioners (accused persons) are members of one family and there was no prior planning for the incident and as said it had taken place all of a sudden, that too, not for any serious reason. It is also submitted that the Petitioners (accused persons) have felt the rigorous of custodial detention and no report is forthcoming that while enjoying the liberty during trial and pendency of the Appeal, they have misused the liberty nor it is said that they were having past criminal

// 3 //

antecedents. In view of all these, he urges appropriate modification in the order of sentence.

7. Learned counsel for the State submits that the Petitioner having rightly been convicted for commission of offence under section 324 of the IPC, in the facts and circumstance, the sentence as has been awarded commensurate the crime.

8. Keeping in view the submission made, I have carefully read the judgments passed by the Courts below.

9. Given a reading to the deposition of the Doctor (P.W.1), who had medically examined the Injured-P.W.3, it is seen that he had noticed lacerated wounds over upper portion of the head and incised wound over right hand of the injured-P.W.3 and it is his evidence that the nature of all those injuries were simple. The Petitioners (accused persons) are found to have undergone the mental agony of the criminal trial for more than twelve years by now and they too had suffered the rigors of custodial detention. It appears that no report as to their criminal antecedent had been placed before the Courts below and it is also not stated that during the Trial and Appeal, they have misused the liberty.

In view of all these aforesaid, this Court, while confirming the judgment of conviction passed by the learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Balanir in Criminal Appeal No.24/71 of 2017 in holding that the Petitioners (accused persons) are liable for commission of offence under section 324 of the IPC; imposes the sentence of imprisonment for the

// 4 //

period undergone and fine of Rs.4,000/- (Rupees Four Thousand) each in default each would undergo rigorous imprisonment for six (6) months with further stipulation that the realised fine amount be paid to the Informant-injured (P.W.3) as compensation.

10. The CRLREV is disposed of accordingly.

Issue urgent certified copy as per rules.

(D. Dash), Judge.

H

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: HIMANSU SEKHAR DASH Reason: Authentication Location: OHC Date: 05-Sep-2023 18:03:56