Orissa High Court
Kalu Patra; And vs State Of Orissa on 1 May, 2024
Author: D.Dash
Bench: D.Dash
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
CRA No.43 of 2001
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 2nd February, 2001 passed by the
learned Additional Sessions Judge, Titlagarh in Sessions Case
No.49(B)/19 of 2000.
----
1. Kalu Patra; and .... Appellants
2. Ruturaj Patra
-versus-
State of Orissa .... Respondent
Appeared in this case by Hybrid Arrangement
(Virtual/Physical Mode):
For Appellants - M/s.Jairaj Behera,
S.K. Pradhan & N.K. Tripathy
(Advocates)
For Respondent - Mr.P.K. Mohanty,
Additional Standing Counsel
CORAM
MR. JUSTICE D.DASH
Date of Hearing : 22.04.2024 : Date of Judgment : 01.05.2024
D.Dash,J. The Appellants, by filing this Appeal, have called in
question the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated
2nd February, 2001 passed by the learned Additional Sessions
Judge, Titlagarh in Sessions Case No.49(B)/19 of 2000 arising out
of G.R. Case No.270 of 1999 pending on the file of the learned
Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate (S.D.J.M.), Titlagarh.
By the impugned the judgment of conviction and order of
sentence, the Appellants (accused persons) have been convicted
for commission of the offence under sections 506/427/448 of the
Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, 'the IPC'). Accordingly, each
of them has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment
for one (1) year and three (3) months for commission of the
offence under section 506 of the IPC; rigorous imprisonment six
(6) months for commission of the offence under section 448 of the
IPC; and rigorous imprisonment for six (6) months and pay fine
of Rs.2000/- (Rupees Two Thousand) in default to undergo
further rigorous imprisonment for a period of three (3) months
for commission of the offence under section 427 of the IPC with
the stipulation that the substantive sentences would run
concurrently. It was further directed that if the fine amount is
realized, the same be paid to the lady Subhasini Panigrahi
(P.W.4).
2. Learned counsel for the Appellants (accused), from the very
beginning, instead of questioning the finding of guilt against
these accused persons, as has been returned by the Trial Court,
confined his submission only on the question of sentence. He
submitted that taking into account the age of the Appellants
(accused persons) and the rural background from which they
hail, as they do not have permanent and maintaining their family,
since they have already faced the mental agony of the criminal
trial for about twenty-five (25) years, the sentence of
imprisonment, as has been awarded, stands too harsh. He,
therefore, submitted that it is a fit case that at this distance of
time, keeping in view all the relevant factors and taking those
into account, the sentence be appropriately modified to
imposition of fine as deemed just and proper.
3. Learned Additional Standing Counsel for the Respondent-
State, while submitting that for the offences under sections
506/448/427 of the IPC for which the conviction has been recorded
against these Appellants (accused persons) are punishable with
imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend
to two years, or with fine, or with both; with imprisonment of
either description for a term which may extend to one year, or
with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with
both; and with imprisonment of either description for a term
which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both
respectively, contended that the sentences, as has been awarded
by the Trial Court commensurate the offences committed under
that circumstance.
4. Keeping in view the submissions made, I have carefully
read the impugned judgment of conviction and have also
extensively travelled through the depositions of the witnesses
(P.Ws.1 to P.W.6).
5. The Appellants (accused persons) stood charged for
commission of the offence under sections 307/506/323/324/427/
506/34 of the I.P.C. Upon examination of P.W.1 and P.W.4 as also
other evidence, the Trial Court has found the prosecution to have
failed to establish the charges for commission of the offence
under sections 450/307/324/323/294/34 of the I.P.C. So, for all
those charges, the Appellants (accused persons) have been
acquitted. The Appellants (accused persons), however, have been
convicted for commission of the offence only under sections
506/427/448 of the IPC for having forcibly entered inside the
house of the informant when P.W.4 and another lady were
present inside the house in committing the mischief. As per the
version of P.W.4, the accused persons, at the first instance, when
entered into the house by breaking open the doors, they shouted
and started damaging the household articles. The evidence
against the Appellants for Commission of the offences under
section 307/506/323/324/427/450/34 of the I.P.C, has been held to
be insufficient to establish the commission of said offences. The
Appellants (accused persons) have accordingly been acquitted of
all the charges. The Appellants (accused persons) hail from the
rural background and as it appears, have been undergoing
mental agony of a criminal trial right from the year 2001 till now.
Cumulatively viewing of all these aforesaid, this Court is
the view that the sentence of payment of fine of Rs.500/- (Rupees
Five Hundred) each in default to undergo simple imprisonment
for one (1) month for committing the offence under section 506 of
the IPC; payment of fine of Rs.500/- (Rupees Five Hundred) each
in default to undergo simple imprisonment for one (1) month for
committing the offence under section 448 of the IPC; and
payment of fine of Rs.1000/- (Rupees One Thousand) each in
default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two (2) months for
committing the offence under section 427 of the IPC at this
distance of time, would serve in the interest of justice and meet its
ends.
Accordingly, the Appellants' conviction for the offence
under sections 506/448/427 of the IPC being confirmed; each of
them are sentenced to pay of fine of Rs.500/- (Rupees Five
Hundred) in default to undergo simple imprisonment for one (1)
month for the offence under section 506 of the IPC; fine of
Rs.500/- (Rupees Five Hundred) in default to undergo simple
imprisonment for one (1) month for the offence under section 448
of the IPC; and pay fine of Rs.1000/- (Rupees One Thousand) in
default to undergo simple imprisonment for three (3) months for
committing the offence under section 427 of the IPC at this
distance of time, would serve in the interest of justice and meet its
ends. It is further directed that in the event of realization of fine,
the said sum be paid to P.W.4.
6. In the result, the Appeal is allowed in part with the
modification as to the order of sentence dated 2nd February, 2001
passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Titlagarh in
Sessions Case No.49(B)/19 of 2000 to the extent as indicated
above.
(D. Dash),
Judge.
Basu
Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA : CUTTACK
