Orissa High Court
Manguli Majhi vs State Of Odisha ... Opposite Party on 29 April, 2025
Author: G. Satapathy
Bench: G. Satapathy
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
CRLREV No.288 of 2024
(In the matter of application under Section 401 of Code
of Criminal Procedure, 1973).
Manguli Majhi ... Petitioner
-versus-
State of Odisha ... Opposite Party
For Petitioner : Mr. S.K. Nayak, Advocate
For Opposite Party : Mr.R.B. Mishra, Addl. PP
CORAM:
JUSTICE G. SATAPATHY
F DATE OF HEARING & JUDGMENT:29.04.2025(ORAL)
G. Satapathy, J.
1. This criminal revision is directed against the
impugned judgment dated 22.04.2024 passed by learned
Sessions Judge, Kendrapara in criminal appeal no. 10 of
2022 confirming the judgment of conviction of the
appellant (revision Petitioner) for commission of offences
punishable U/S. 323 of IPC, but modifying his sentence to
undergo Simple Imprisonment for three months and to pay
a fine of Rs. 5,000/- in default whereof, to undergo SI for
further period of seven days.
1.1. On conclusion of the trial, the learned Nyaya
Adhikari Grama Nyalaya-cum-Judicial Magistrate First
Class, Rajnagar by the impugned judgment dated
29.07.2022 passed in GR Case No. 152 of 2017 (TR No.
436 of 2017) convicted the revision-petitioner and five
other convicts for commission of offence U/Ss. 323/34 of
IPC and sentenced each of them to undergo SI for one
year and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- in default whereof, to
undergo SI for one month.
2. The short facts involved in this case are that due
to some dissension and land dispute regarding
construction of house by the present revision-Petitioner,
on 05.07.2017 at about 10:30 AM, the revision-Petitioner
and five others assaulted PW4-Sasmita Majhi. Accordingly,
PW4 lodged an FIR before the IIC, Rajnagar, who
registered Rajnagar PS case No. 118 of 2017 paving the
way for investigation in this case and accordingly, the
revision-Petitioner and five others have been charge
sheeted in the aforesaid case for commission offences
punishable U/Ss. 341/323/427/34 of IPC resulting in trial
in the present case, when the revision-Petitioner and other
accused persons denied to plead guilty to the charge.
Accordingly, the learned trial Court examined seven
witnesses and exhibited three documents under Exts. 1 to
3 and after hearing the the parties upon analysis of
evidence, the learned trial Court returned with a finding
that the revision-Petitioner and five others are guilty of the
offences U/Ss. 323/34 of IPC. Accordingly, the learned trial
Court had sentenced the revision-Petitioner and other
convicts to undergo Simple Imprisonment for one year and
to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- in default whereof, to undergo
Simple Imprisonment for one month.
2.1. Being aggrieved, the convict carried an appeal to
the Sessions Court, Kendrapara who after hearing the
convicts and the State has passed the impugned judgment
in the appeal confirming the conviction of the revision-
Petitioner for offence U/S. 323 of IPC by modifying his
sentence to the punishment indicated supra, while
acquitting the other convicts of the charges. Hence, this
revision by the present Petitioner.
3. In the course of hearing, Mr.Sukanta Kumar
Nayak, learned counsel for the revision-petitioner while
pressing the revision not on merit, but on the question
of sentence, submits that the revision-Petitioner is in
custody since 25.02.2025 and in the meanwhile, more
than two months has been elapsed and thereby, the
revision-Petitioner has already undergone substantial
period of his substantive sentence and the Petitioner
being an innocent Scheduled Caste Person, he may
kindly be released from the custody by reducing his
sentence to the period already undergone. Accordingly,
Mr. Nayak has made a limited prayer to reduce the
sentence of the revision-Petitioner to the period already
undergone.
3.1. On the other hand, Mr. R.B. Mishra, learned
Additional Public Prosecutor, however, does not dispute
with regard to conviction and sentence of the Petitioner,
but he, however, prays to dismiss the revision by
contending inter-alia that the revision-Petitioner does
not deserve any leniency.
4. After having considered the rival submissions
upon perusal of record, since the revision-Petitioner does
not challenge his conviction for offence U/S. 323 of IPC,
this Court only confines the adjudication to the limited
extent of quantum of sentence of the revision-Petitioner.
It is not disputed that the revision-Petitioner has been
taken into custody on 25.02.2025 which is forthcoming
from the copy of the order dated 25.02.2025 passed by
the learned Nyaya Adhikari Grama Nyalaya-cum-Judicial
Magistrate First Class (I/C) as attached to IA No. 207 of
2025 and, therefore, the revision-Petitioner has already
undergone more than two months of the sentence. The
theory of punishment as prevailed in India is deterrent in
nature, but not retributive and the philosophy of the
punishment is to finish the crime, but not the criminals
and in this case, the Petitioner has been convicted for
offence U/S. 323 of IPC, but no previous conviction of the
Petitioner has been proved. Further, there is no adverse
report against the Petitioner with regard to his conduct
during the post conviction period. It is also not in dispute
that the Petitioner is a Scheduled Caste person and temper
runs high in their community and people of such
community never hesitate to assault for petty matters. In
this case, there is only allegation of causing simple hurt to
the injured and that too, the occurrence had taken place in
the year 2017 and in the meanwhile, around 8 years has
elapsed.
5. In view of the aforesaid facts and after taking
into consideration the period undergone by the revision-
Petitioner vis-à-vis his conduct being not adverse in the
period after the occurrence, this Court considers that the
revision-Petitioner deserves some leniency in sentence.
This Court, accordingly, is of the considered opinion that
interest of justice would be best served, if the sentence
of the revision-Petitioner is reduced to the period
already undergone by him.
6. In the result, the criminal revision stands
dismissed on contest, but in the circumstance, there is
no order as to costs. Consequently, the sentence of the
revision-Petitioner is modified to the extent indicate
above.
Since the Petitioner is in jail custody, modified
warrant of sentence along with copy of this judgment be
immediately sent to the Officer-in-Charge of the concerned
jail through e-mail or any other faster mode of
communication for release of the petitioner from custody.
(G. Satapathy)
Judge
Orissa High Court, Cuttack,
Dated the 29th day of April, 2025/Priyajit
Location: High Court of Orissa
