Orissa High Court
Jogendra Bhoi vs State Of Orissa on 20 June, 2024
Author: D. Dash
Bench: D. Dash
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
CRLA No.105 of 2003
In the matter of an Appeal under Section-374(2) of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973 and from the judgment of
conviction and order of sentence dated 16th April 2003 passed
by the learned Adhoc Additional District & Sessions Judge,
Bhubaneswar in Sessions Trial Case No.25/218 of 2002.
----
Jogendra Bhoi .... Appellant
-versus-
State of Orissa .... Respondent
Appeared in this case by Hybrid Arrangement
(Virtual/Physical Mode:
=========================================================
For Appellant - Mr. D.P. Dhal,
Senior Advocate.
For Respondent - Mr. P.K. Mohanty,
Additional Standing Counsel.
CORAM:
MR. JUSTICE D. DASH
DATE OF HEARING: 20.05.2024: DATE OF JUDGMENT: 20.06.2024
D.Dash, J. The Appellant, by filing this Appeal, has assailed the
judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 16th April
2003 passed by the learned Adhoc Additional District &
Sessions Judge, Bhubaneswar in Sessions Trial Case No.25/218
of 2002 arising out of G.R. Case No. 488 of 1998 corresponding
to Kharavelanagar P.S. Case No. 42 of 1998 on the file of
learned S.D.J.M., Bhubaneswar.
CRLA No.105 OF 2003
The Appellant (accused) has been convicted for offence
under section-332 of the Indian penal Code, 1860 (for short,
'the IPC'). Accordingly, he has been sentenced to rigorous
imprisonment for a period of 2 years.
2. Prosecution case is that on 12th February 1998, around 6
pm near the Timber Deport of Unit-IX, Bhubaneswar, the
accused voluntarily caused hurt by dashing mini truck driven
by him to P.W.4 who being the Forest Range was then
discharged his duty as a public servant.
3. The accused faced the trial being charged for commission
of offence under section-332/307 of the IPC. The Trial Court
after examining evidence of the prosecution witnesses and the
scrutinizing the documents admitted in evidence has held that
the prosecution has failed to prove the charge for the offence
under section-307 of the IPC as against the accused.
Accordingly, the accused has been acquitted of the said charge;
whereas he has been held guilty for commission of offence
under section-332 of the IPC and sentenced as aforestated.
4. Mr. D.P. Dhal, learned Senior Counsel for the Appellant
(accused) instead of attacking the finding of the Trial Court in
holding the accused guilty for commission of offence under
section-332 of the IPC on merit, confined his submission as to
the modification of sentence. According to him, considering the
evidence of P.W.4 and looking at the injury sustained by him,
CRLA No.105 OF 2003
at this distance of time, when the accused who hails from rural
background and has undergone mental agony of criminal trial
for more than 25 years and now his age is more than 60 years,
further sentence of imprisonment would stand too harsh.
5. Learned Counsel for the Respondent-State submitted that
the sentence awarded by the Trial Court commensurate the
offence.
6. Taking into account the submissions made, perusal of the
record reveals that accused faced the Trial for commission of
offence under section- 332/307 of the IPC. The accused has in
the meantime undergone the metal agony of a criminal trial for
about 25 years and he too is found to have remained in custody
for quite some time (in the present case), when no report is
forthcoming that he has indulged himself in any criminal
activity or that he was having any such prior involvement.
The deposition of P.W.4 being perused with that of the
evidence of the Doctor (P.W.6), who has stated to have noticed
one lacerated simple injury on the left parital region of P.W.4.
7. Cumulatively, viewing all these above, at this distance of
time, when the accused has undergone mental agony of
criminal trial for more than 25 years and he has by now crossed
60, this Court while confirming the conviction of the accused
for commission of offence under section-332 of the IPC, doth
orders that he be sentenced to the imprisonment for the period
CRLA No.105 OF 2003
already undergone as that in the considered opinion of this
Court would serve the ends of justice and meet its ends too.
8. The Appeal is thus allowed in part with the modification
as to the order of sentence, to the extent as indicated above.
(D. Dash),
Judge.
Narayan
CRLA No.105 OF 2003
