Orissa High Court
Anil Pradhan And Others vs State Of Orissa on 19 August, 2025
THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
CRLA No.241 of 2010
(In the matter of an application under Section 374(2) of the Criminal
Procedure Code, 1973)
Anil Pradhan and others ....... Appellants
-Versus-
State of Orissa ....... Respondent
For the Appellants : Mr. D.P. Dhal, Senior Advocate
For the Respondent : Mr. Sarathi Jyoti Mohanty, ASC
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE SHRI JUSTICE SIBO SANKAR MISHRA
Date of Hearing: 07.08.2025 : Date of Judgment: 19.08.2025
S.S. Mishra, J. The present Criminal Appeal, filed by the appellants
under Section 374(2) of the Cr.P.C., is directed against the judgment and
order dated 10.05.2010 passed by the learned Special Judge -cum-
Addl. Sessions Judge, Sambalpur in S.T. No. 76/34 of 2009, whereby the
learned trial Court has convicted the accused-appellants for the offences
punishable under Section 323/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860
(hereinafter 'the Code' for brevity) additionally accused-appellant No.3
has also been convicted U/s 354 of the Code along with the
aforementioned provisions of law. Accordingly, all the appellants are
sentenced to undergo R.I. for two months, and accused appellant No.3 to
further undergo R.I. of four months for offence U/s.354 of the code.
2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 27.08.2007, the
informant, Umakanta Kalta, lodged a report at Rairakhol Police Station
alleging that on 26.08.2007, at about 4:00 PM, while he was grazing
cows near Shyamsundar Dhaba, forest officials seized some teak wood
from the spot. Thereafter, the accused persons arrived and assaulted the
informant, hurling filthy abuses with reference to his caste. On the
following day, the accused persons allegedly came near the informant's
house, assaulted his wife, threatened to kill him, and further outraged the
modesty of his wife. Based on the report, Rairakhol P.S. Case No. 80
dated 27.08.2007 was registered, and after investigation, a charge-sheet
was filed against all the accused persons. All the three accused persons
were charged under Sections 341/323/294/354/506/34 of the IPC and
Sections 3(1)(x)/3(1)(xi) read with Section 6 of the S.C. & S.T. (P.A.)
Act. They pleaded not guilty to the charges, denied the allegations, so,
were accordingly put to trial.
3. To prove the charges, the prosecution examined 11 (eleven)
witnesses and exhibited 4 (four) documents. P.W.1 was the informant,
P.W.2 is his wife, P.W.3, Sara Kalta, was a co-villager of the informant,
P.W.4 was the Grama Rakshi, P.W.5 is the husband of P.W.3, P.W.6
was another co-villager of the informant, P.W.7 was the Medical Officer,
P.W.8 was a forest personnel, P.W.10 was the Grama Rakshi and a
seizure witness, and P.W.11 was the Investigating Officer. Among the
exhibits, Ext.1 is the F.I.R., Ext.2 is the seizure list, and Ext.4 is the letter
of the R.I. regarding the caste particulars of the victim and the accused
persons.
4. From the impugned Judgement of the learned Trial Court it is
clear that the court below gone deep into the case, and dealt with each
and every evidence on record in detail, relevant part of which is
reproduced herein for ready reference:-
"10. From the prosecution case it appears that the
occurrence took place in two phases. First, at Shyamsundar
Dhaba on 26-08-2007 where the accused persons have
allegedly assaulted P.W.1 and secondly, on 27-08-2007 at 2
PM near the cow-shed of P.W.3 where the accused persons
have abused P.W.2 and outraged her modesty. From the
evidence of P.Ws.1 arid 2 who are the respective victims of
the said two occurrences, it is admitted that during the
occurrence on 26-08-2007 P.W.2 was not present at the spot
whereas during the second occurrence on 27-08-2007 P.W.1
was not present at the spot.
11. In respect of the first occurrence which took place on
26-08-2007 at about 4 PM near Shyamsundar Dhaba at
Kutasingha, P.W.1 has said that after the forest personnels
seized some teak and Sal woods, the accused persons came
there and assaulted him by means of a stick and abused him
in filthy languages. This evidence is not supported by any
other independent witnesses and except P.W.1 no body has
said to have seen the said occurrence. P.W.6 has said that
he has a betel shop near that spot and he has heard hullah
and crying of P.W.I at that time. P.W.6 has further said that
he saw P.W.1 went to his house crying.
12. P.W.7 is the medical officer. P.W.7 in his evidence has
said that on 26-08-2007 on police requisition he examined
P.W.1 and found following injuries on his body:-
i) Swelling of size 2½ inch X 2 inch on the back (left side).
ii) Bruise of size 2½ inch X 1 inch on the thigh laterally.
iii) Abrasion of size 2/3rd inch X 1 inch on the leftear.
13. P.W.7 has opined that the said injuries are simple in
nature and could be caused by hard and blunt object and
also can be possible by fist blows or by means of stick. The
age of the said injuries is within, six hours from his
examination. Admittedly, the original injury-report has not
been filed in this case. In this regard P.W.11 has said that
the original injury-report was missing and the same has
been reflected in the case diary. The contention of FIR
under Ext.1 also supports this part of evidence of P.W.1 that
he was assaulted by means of stick and fist blows. P.W.1 has
further said that due to the assault by the accused persons
he was feeling pain in his body and he could not able to
walk properly."
Further, while categorically dealing mainly with the second incident the
learned Court below held thus:-
"18. Now coming to the second occurrence which is
allegedly took place on the next day i.e. 27-08-2007 near the
cow-shed of Sara Kalta (P.W.3) of village Kutasingha, it is
seen from the evidence of P.W.1 that he has admitted in his
cross-examination that he has not seen the said occurrence.
P.W.2 is the victim of the same. P.W.2 has said that when she
was standing with P.W.3 near the cow-shed, accused Anil
and Khitish came there and abused her saying, GHUDANEI,
SAALI BEDHEI BAZARI PALUNI, etc. Thereafter accused
Sahadeb Kalta came there and assaulted her pulling her hair
and dealt fist blows. Accused Sahadeb Kalta also tore her
Saree and blouse and outraged her modesty. P.W.3 in her
evidence has said that accused Sahadeb Kalta came there,
abused P.W.2 in filthy languages as GHUDANEI SAALI, etc.
and pounced upon her. Seeing this she intervened and
rescued P.W.2. From the cross-examination of P.W.3 nothing
could be elicited from her mouth to disbelieve her evidence.
Rather she admitted that both P.W.1 and accused Sahadeb
Kalta are her brothers-in-law (DIARA). So there is no reason
as to why P.W.3 shall depose falsehood against accused
Sahadeb Kalta. P.W.4 is another independent witness and
said that at the time of said occurrence he was present at the
spot as he had been there to call the accused persons as per
the instruction of the O.I.C. P.W.4 has said that he saw that
accused Sahadeb Kalta came there and assaulted P.W.2 by
pulling her hair and giving fist blows. Similarly P.W.5, who
is the husband of P.W.3, has said that when P.Ws.2 and 3
were talking, all the accused persons came there and then
accused Sahadeb dragged P.W.2, assaulted her by giving fist
blows and also tore her Saree and blouse. So it appears that
P.Ws.4 and 5 have supported the version of P.Ws.2 and 3 in
relation to the assault made on P.W.2 and outraging her
modesty."
5. By appreciating and analyzing the evidence brought on record by
the prosecution and taking into consideration the defense plea eventually
the learned trial Court recorded the guilt of the appellants by concluding
as under:
"26. From the discussions made above, it is clear that the
prosecution has not established the Charge
U/Ss.341/294/506/34, IPC and Secs.3 (1) (x) and 3 (1) (xi)
read with Sec.6 of the S.C. & S.T. (P.A.) Act against any of
the accused persons and all the accused persons are
acquitted from the charges thereof accordingly. Further the
prosecution has not established the Charge u/s 354, IPC
against accused Anil Pradhan and Khitish Chandra
Pradhan and they are acquitted from the said charge. But,
all the accused persons namely, Anil Pradhan, Khitish
Chandra Pradhan and Sahadeb Kalta are found guilty for
the offence u/s 323/34, IPC and accordingly, they are
convicted there under. In addition to that, accused Sahadeb
Kalta is also found guilty for the offence u/s 354, IPC and is
convicted thereunder."
6. Heard Mr. D.P. Dhal, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the
appellants and Mr. Sarathi Jyoti Mohanty, the learned Additional
Standing Counsel for the State.
7. Although the appellants stood charged for the offence punishable
under Sections 341/323/294/354/506/34 of the Code and Sections
3(1)(x)/3(1)(xi) read with Section 6 of the S.C. & S.T. (P.A.) Act but the
learned trial Court relying upon the evidence of the prosecution, arrived
at a conclusion that the appellants are guilty of offences punishable
under Sections 323/34 of the Code, additionally appellant no. 3 is also
guilty of offence U/s.354 of the Code In lieu of the conviction under
Section 323/34 of I.P.C., the appellants were sentenced to undergo R.I.
for two months, further only appellant no.3 was sentenced to undergo
R.I. of additional four months for offence U/s. 354 of the Code. The
appellants have now preferred the present appeal under Section 374(2) of
Cr.P.C. assailing the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated
10.05.2010 passed by the learned Special Judge -cum- Addl. Sessions
Judge, Sambalpur in S.T. No. 76/34 of 2009. For ready reference,
Section 374(2) of Cr.P.C. reads as under:-
"(2) Any person convicted on a trial held by a Sessions
Judge or an Additional Sessions Judge or on a trial held by
any other court in which a sentence of imprisonment for
more than seven years [has been passed against him or
against any other person convicted at the same trial], may
appeal to the High Court"
Reading of the above provision makes it clear that the present
appeal on the set of available facts is not maintainable.
8. This Court is alive to the aforementioned statutory position of law.
However, taking into consideration the facts that the incident relates
back to the year 2007 and the trial went on for about three years to only
end up on 10.05.2010 and the appeal had been pending since 2010
onwards, this Court is not inclined to knock out the appeal on the
technical ground as mentioned above particularly for the reasons that the
learned trial Court by a deep analysis of the evidence brought on record
has found the appellants guilty of the offences as mentioned above.
9. While analyzing the evidence on record, I find no reason to
disagree with the findings written by the learned trial court, hence, I
affirm the conviction recorded against the appellants for the offence
under Section 323/34 of the Code additionally U/s.354 of the Code
against Appellant No.3.
10. At this stage, Mr. Dhal, learned Senior Counsel for the appellants
submitted that the appellants have already faced the ordeal of trial for
three years and the appeal has been pending for the last fifteen years.
Therefore, they may not be sent to custody to serve out the short
sentence at this belated stage. The incident relates back to the year 2007.
He submitted that, over the years, they have led a dignified life,
integrated well into society, and is presently leading a settled family life.
Incarcerating them after such a long delay, it is argued, would serve little
penological purpose and may in fact be counter-productive, casting a
needless stigma not only upon them but also upon their family members,
especially when there is no suggestion of any repeat violation or ongoing
non-compliance with regulatory norms. Therefore, in the fitness of
situation, the appellants may be extended the benefit of the Probation of
Offenders Act read with Section 360 Cr. P.C. I am inclined to accede to
the prayer made by Mr. Dhal, learned senior Counsel for the appellants
on the facts scenario of the case.
11. Regard being had to the societal position of the appellants, clean
antecedents and the fact that the incident had taken place in the year
2007, I am of the considered view that the appellants are entitled to the
benefit of the Probation of Offenders Act and Section 360 of Cr.P.C.
Additionally, the case of the appellants is also covered by ratio of the
judgment of this Court in the case of Pathani Parida & another vs.
Abhaya Kumar Jagdevmohapatra1.
2012 (Supp-II) OLR 469
12. In such view of the matter, the present Criminal Appeal in so far
as the conviction is concerned is turned down. But instead of sentencing
the appellants to suffer imprisonment, this Court directs the appellants to
be released under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act for a
period of six months on their executing bond of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five
Thousand) each within one month with one surety each for the like
amount to appear and receive the sentence when called upon during such
period and in the meantime, the appellants shall keep peace and good
behavior and they shall remain under the supervision of the concerned
Probation Officer during the aforementioned period of six months.
13. With the above observation, the CRLA is accordingly disposed of.
(S.S. Mishra)
Judge
The High Court of Orissa, Cuttack.
Dated the 19th August 2025/ Ashok
Signed by: ASHOK KUMAR JAGADEB MOHAPATRA
Location: High Court of Orissa
