Orissa High Court
Sri Ram Krushna Mohanty @ vs State Of Orisa on 20 May, 2024
Author: D.Dash
Bench: D.Dash
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
CRLA No.152 of 2003
In the matter of an Appeal under Section 374 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973 and from the judgment of conviction
and order of sentence dated 11th June, 2003 passed by the learned
Ad hoc Additional Sessions Judge, FTC No.II, Puri in S.T. Case
No.6/219 of 2002.
----
1. Sri Ram Krushna Mohanty @ .... Appellant
Rama Krishna @ Bubu @ Basu
Mohanty
-versus-
State of Orisa .... Respondent
Appeared in this case by Hybrid Arrangement
(Virtual/Physical Mode):
For Appellant - Mr.K.B. Kar, P.K. Naik and
B.K. Naik
(Advocates)
For Respondent - Mr.P.K. Mohanty
Additional Standing Counsel
CORAM
MR. JUSTICE D.DASH
Date of Hearing : 16.05.2024 : Date of Judgment : 20.05.2024
D.Dash,J. The Appellant, by filing this Appeal, has called in question
the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 11th June,
2003 passed by the learned Ad hoc Additional Sessions Judge,
FTC No.II, Puri in S.T. Case No.6/219 of 2002 arising out of G.R.
Case No.145 of 2002 corresponding to Puri Town P.S. Case No.37
of 2002 on the file of the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial
Magistrate (S.D.J.M.), Puri.
The Appellant (accused) thereunder has been convicted for
commission of the offence under section 307 of the Indian Penal
Code, 1860 (for short, 'the I.P.C.') and section 9(B)(1)(b) of the
Explosive Act.. Accordingly, he has been sentenced to undergo
rigorous imprisonment for two (2) years for commission of the
offence under section 307 of the IPC; and rigorous imprisonment
for six (6) months for commission of the offence under section
9(B)(1)(b) of the Explosive with the stipulation that the
substantive sentences would run concurrently.
2. The prosecution case is founded upon the facts that there
being the dispute, between the accused and the Informant (P.W.4)
for placement of a cabin, in the night of 4/5.2.2002, the accused
entered inside the house premises of the Informant (P.W.4) and
started rebuking him in obscene language. It is also stated that he
then threatened the family members of the Informant (P.W.4) and
attacked them with the help of explosives (bombs). The father of
the victim tried to persuade the accused to leave the place.
However, the accused did not hear anybody and aiming the
family members of the Informant (P.W.4), he threw the bombs
which were then exploded and it is said that the Informant
(P.W.4) and his family members raised hullah, which invited the
attention of the village gentries. The accused persons thereafter
fled away. The matter, being reported at the concerned Police
Station by the Informant (P.W.4), the same was treated as FIR and
the case, being registered, investigation was taken up.
3. This accused faced the trial for commission of the offence
under section 294/506/307 of the IPC and section 9 (B)(1)(b) of the
Explosive Act. He has been held guilty for commission of the
offence under section 307 of the IPC and section 9(B)(1)(b) of the
Explosive Act.
4. Heard learned counsel for the Appellant and the learned
Additional Standing Counsel for the Respondent-State. The
evidence both oral and documentary have been gone through.
5. Accepting the case of the prosecution, as laid, through the
evidence tendered during Trial by examining witnesses in toto,
this Court is of the considered view that the conviction of this
accused under section 307 of the IPC is not sustainable. Secondly,
bald statement of the interested witnesses including that of the
Informant (P.W.4) without corroboration from other sources; this
Court is also of the considered view that the conviction of the
accused for commission of the offence under section 9(B)(1)(b) of
the Explosive Act has no base to stand upon.
6. The Trial Court, perhaps being conscious of the above
possession, appears to have very rightly made the following
observation while passing the order upon hearing on the question
of sentence:-
"It is a fit case not to award sentence of any fine.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, age
and character of the offender. I find that some period of
imprisonment will meet the ends of justice. Accordingly,
the accused/convict (Babu @ Ramakrushna Mohanty) is
sentenced to undergo R.I. for two years under section 307 of
the IPC. It is further sentenced to undergo R.I. for six
months under section 9(B)(1)(i) of Explosive Act. Sentences
are to run concurrently. Period of detention as U.T.P., if
any, be set off."
7. In the result, the Appeal is allowed. The judgment of
conviction and order of sentence dated 11th June, 2003 passed by
the learned Ad hoc Additional Sessions Judge, FTC No.II, Puri in
S.T. Case No.6/219 of 2002 are hereby set aside.
(D. Dash),
Judge.
Basu
Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA : CUTTACK
