Madhusudan Pradhan And Another vs State Of Orissa
2025 Latest Caselaw 10808 Ori

Orissa High Court

Madhusudan Pradhan And Another vs State Of Orissa on 9 December, 2025

         THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

                        CRA No.284 of 1994

(In the matter of an application under Section 374(2) read with Section
386 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973)


Madhusudan Pradhan and another         .......               Appellants

                                -Versus-

State of Orissa                       .......              Respondent

For the Appellant : 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: 04.12.2025 :: Date of Judgment: 09.12.2025

S.S. Mishra, J. The present Criminal Appeal, filed by the appellants

are directed against the judgment and order dated 12.08.1994 passed by

the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Balangir in Sessions Case

No.40/20 of 1994, whereby the appellants have been convicted for the

offence under Section 307/34 of I.P.C. and on that count, they are sentenced to undergo R.I. for five years and to pay a fine of Rs.100/-

each, in default, to undergo R.I. for one month each.

2. Heard Mr. D.P. Dhal, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the

appellants and Mr. Sarathi Jyoti Mohanty, learned Additional Standing

Counsel for the State.

3. During pendency of the present appeal, the Appellant no.2-

Raghaba Pradhan expired. Therefore, vide order dated 24.04.2023, the

appeal qua the deceased-appellant No.2 stood abated in absence of any

application under Section 394 Cr.P.C. moved by his legal heirs or next

friend. Accordingly, consideration of the present appeal is confined to

the appellant No.1 only.

4. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 14.04.1993 at about 10.45

p.m., an F.I.R. was lodged by one Biswanath Swain (P.W.1), the

Manager of Ramai Talkies, Balangir. The report was recorded at the spot

at about 11.05 p.m. It was alleged that at about 10.45 p.m. in the night,

while the informant was busy in keeping the cash in the almirah of up-

stair of Ramai Talkies, he heard hulla „Polai Chalo, Polai Chalo‟ of the

visitors in the cinema hall premises. On hearing the commotion, he came

down to his office room and, through the window, saw two persons

assaulting a man lying near the left-side main gate with bhujalis,

delivering blows on his head, face, legs, and other parts of the body. He

attempted to inform the Police Station over telephone but received no

response. At that moment, someone shouted "Police, Police." The

informant then came down to the ground floor and found the injured

person with multiple bleeding injuries.

Upon inquiry at the spot, the injured disclosed his name and

identified the accused persons as his assailants. He further stated that

they had assaulted him on various parts of his body with the intention to

kill him due to prior enmity. The informant thereafter sent one staff

member, Netrananda, to the Police Station for assistance. Upon the

arrival of the police, he handed over the written report (Ext.1) to them.

P.W.5, the Sub-Inspector of Town P.S., Balangir, treated the

report as the F.I.R. and, since it disclosed a cognizable offence, took up

the investigation. He inspected the spot, examined witnesses, sent the

injured for medical examination, and seized various incriminating

articles including a bhujali cover recovered from the spot and the blood-

stained clothes of the injured from the hospital. Observing the

deteriorating condition of the injured, he also requested the Medical

Officer to record his dying declaration. He further seized the wearing

apparels of accused Madhusudan Padhan (Appellant No.1). Upon his

transfer, the charge of investigation was handed over to S.I. B. Badi on

19.05.1993.

Subsequently, P.W.6 took charge of the investigation on

11.07.1993, sent the seized materials for chemical examination, and

seized the bed-head ticket of the injured. After completing the

investigation, charge-sheet was submitted against the accused persons

under Section 307/34 IPC. On the basis of the police report under

Section 173 Cr.P.C., the learned trial Court framed charges under

Section 307/34 of I.P.C., to which the accused persons pleaded not guilty

and faced trial.

5. The prosecution in order to prove its case examined seven

witnesses. P.W.1 is the informant. P.W.2, the brother of the victim, is an

eye-witness to the occurrence and was accompanying the victim at the

relevant time. P.W.3 is the victim of the assault. P.W.4 is a seizure

witness to the recovery of the bhujali and the blood-stained clothes.

P.Ws.5 and 6 were the Investigating Officers, who conducted different

stages of the investigation. P.W.7 was the Medical Officer, who

examined the injured and provided medical evidence.

6. The learned trial Court by analyzing and appreciating the entire

evidence brought on record by the prosecution, particularly the evidence

of the victim (P.W.3) and informant (P.W.1), recorded the following

findings:-

"10.P.W.3 is the victim of assault. He has stated that while they were coming out of the cinema hall premises, both the accused persons attempted to assault him, but he managed to escape from the place and ran towards the daily market. The accused persons chased him and at a distance of 100 to 150 cubits from cinema hall they caught hold of him. Accused Raghaba caught hold of him and the other accused gave 2 to 3 blows. He tried to extricate himself from their clutches and managed to escape and entered inside the premises of cinema hall. He has further stated that he fell down on the ground and in that state he was assaulted further. As a result of assault, he sustained several injuries on his body and treated in the hospital for 20 days. His treatment for further period of 3 to 4 months continued in the

house. He also stated that he disclosed the names of the assailants and his name to the staff of cinema hall. In cross examination, he stated that all the shops, nearby the cinema hall were closed by the time of Incident. He also stated that he shouted for help, but none could dare to come to his rescue as the accused persons were armed with bhujali and threatened to assault. The witness denied the suggestion that he entered inside a cabin to commit theft of articles when the accused persons shouted, he tried to ran away, but fell down in broken glass pieces and sustained injuries. The suggestion of the accused persons was that he had not recorded in his police statement that both the accused person assaulted him inside the premises of cinema hall with bhujall, that he wanted to marry Saudamini, the sister of the accused persons and for that there was a quarrel. Such suggestions were denied by him. The statement that both the accused persons assaulted him inside the premises of cinema hall with bhujali was not confronted to the witness. P.W.3 in plain words admits that he did not state in his police statement that he was chased up to 100 to 150 cubits. His explanation was that police did not ask him. On further cross examination he has stated that he could able to identify the M.O.I as he had seen it at the time of assault. The witness stated that there was a puch in the village for boundary dispute and that was settled then and there. It is in evidence of this witness that he does not remember if he has stated in his case diary statement that cinema hall staff supplied water to him. According to P.W.5 he did not record that cinema hall staff supplied water to him only because he did not tell him. The learned Counsel for the accused persons

has pointed out few discrepancies in the evidence of P.W.3 relating to causing of assault on him, but those appears to be minor discrepancies which cannot in any way destroy the material particulars of the evidence. He was cross examined at length, but nothing of substance has been brought to discredit his testimony that on the relevant sight he was assaulted by the accused persons with bhujall on different parts of his body and sustained several bleeding injuries.

11. It is in the evidence of P.W.1 that the injured was removed to hospital in a rickshaw. The evidence of the doctor, P.W.7 shows that on 14.4.93 at 11.15 P.M. he examined P.W.3 and found the following injuries: (1) 3 Incised injuries 2" above the right ankle of 5" x 1" x 3" x 1" and 2"

x 1" Depth was exposing and cutting the bone (2) incised injury 4" x 2" about 2" below the right knee joint (3) incised wound 3" x 1" about 4" above right knee (4) abrasion of 1" x 1" above the right knee (5) incised injury 3" x 1" over the right side of the mandible (6) incised wound over the left little finger 3" x 2" (7) 3 incised wounds each ½"size over the little finger (8) incised wound over the front of scalp 4" x 2" explsing and cutting periosula (9) one semi circle incised injury over the left temporal region extending to occipital region of 4" x 2" (10) incised wound over gith elbow of 3"

x 2" cutting the humorous bone (11) Incised wound of 4" x 2" about 2" about the left elbow (12) 2 incised wounds of 1"x 1/2" and 2"x 1/2" over the left 5th metansal bone (13) incised wound 4" x 1"

over the lateral side of the left wrist (14) incised wound 3" x 2" over left shoulder. He opined that all

the above injuries except injury Nos. 1, 8 and 10 were simple in nature. Injuries 1, 8 and 10 were grievous. All the injuries are possible by M.O.I and the age of the injuries was within two hours. He proves the injury report, Ext. 8. It is in the evidence of P.W.7 that the injured was admitted in the surgical ward as indoor patient vide bed head ticket, Ext.9. There is nothing in his evidence which creates any doubt regarding the truth of his above evidence. The evidence of P.W.7 lands corroboration to the evidence of P.W.3 that he was assaulted in the night and sustained multiple injuries. He did not find any injury on the middle of head."

7. Being aggrieved by the findings as recorded above leading to the

judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the learned

Additional Sessions Judge, Balangir, the present appeal has been

preferred by the appellants.

8. Mr. Dhal, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellants, at

the outset, submitted that he would limit his argument to the nature of

offence and quantum of sentence. He submitted that even if the evidence

of the prosecution brought on record is left unchallenged, it would not

satisfy the ingredient of the offence under Section 307/34 of I.P.C. and at

best the prosecution can pitch its case to justify the guilt of the appellant

of the offence under Section 325 I.P.C. Hence, he submitted that

sentence of five years imposed in lieu of the conviction of the appellant

under Section 307/34 of I.P.C. is shockingly disproportionate.

9. Per contra, Mr. Mohanty, learned Additional Standing Counsel for

the State has taken me to the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 3 and submitted

that the evidence of these two witnesses are directly stood corroborated

with the evidence of the doctor (P.W.7). Therefore, no fault could be

found from the appreciation of the evidence made by the learned trial

Court leading to recording of conviction against the appellant for the

offence under Section 307/34 of I.P.C.

10. In the present case, P.W.3 is the injured/victim. He in his

examination-in-chief has stated as under:-

"1. I know the accused persons. This incident took place on 14.4.93 at about 11 p.m. in Ramai Talkies premises. After witnessing the 2nd. show-Police and Mujirim, when myself and my brother were coming out of the premises of cinema hall, the accused persons attempted to assault me, but I managed to escape from that place towards daily market. They chased me and caught hold of me at a distance of 100 to 150 cubits from the cinema hall. The accd.

Raghaba caught hold of me and the other accused dealt 2 to 3 bhujali blows on my body. However, I tried to extricate myself from the clutches of the accused person and managed to come away and entered inside the cinema hall premises. When the assault was made by bhujali inside the cinema hall premises, I fell down on the ground. They also assaulted me further even after 1 fell on the ground. I sustained several injuries on different parts of my body (show the marks of healed injuries). I was treated in the hospital for 20 days, but continued the treatment for 3 to 4 months. I was unable to move even during those periods. With the assistance of others I was performing my routine duties. Still I am feeling uneasy while walking. My right hand is not working properly. I disclosed the name of the assailants and also my name to the staff of the cinema hall. I was removed to the hospital and lost my senses, on the way while taking to the hospital.

2. M.O.I is the bhujali (Kukri) with which I was assaulted. There was profuse bleeding from the wounds. M.O.II is the pant M.O. III is the tea-shirt stained with blood. While assaulting me they were shouting to kill me. Thinking me to be dead, the accused persons left the place."

The said witness (P.W.3) was subjected to extensive cross-

examination by the defence. The defence sought to project an alternative

version of the incident, attempting to show that the victim and his

companions were the aggressors. It was suggested to the witness that at

the time of assault, the said witness had entered into a cabin so as to

commit theft of articles and the accused persons shouted at him.

According to the defence suggestion, while the victim was trying to run

away, he fell down on the broken glass pieces and sustained the injuries.

However, P.W.3 denied the suggestion in its entirety.

P.Ws.1 and 2 were the eye witnesses to the occurrence. Both of

them in similar fashion, deposed that on the date of occurrence at about

11 p.m., when P.W.2 along with the victim (P.W.3) and P.W.1 were

coming out of the Ramai Talkies after watching the second show, he saw

the accused persons at the front gate of the cinema hall. The accused

persons chased his elder brother (P.W.3). Accused Raghab (the appellant

No.2) caught hold of his brother and accused-Madhu (appellant No.1)

assaulted him by means of a Bhujali. He deposed that his brother

managed to escape from their clutches and entered inside the cinema hall

premises but the accused persons followed him and again assaulted him

inside the premises, causing him to fell down. Even thereafter, the

accused persons continued to assault him with the bhujali. The said

witness further deposed that when he attempted to rescue his brother, the

accused persons have chased him to assault but somehow he managed to

escape. As a result of the assault, P.W.3 sustained multiple injuries. This

witness was also subjected to vivid cross-examination. The defence

attempted to portray a different story, suggesting that a marriage

proposal between the sister of the accused persons and P.W.3 had been

cancelled, which led to an altercation, and that it was P.W.3 and P.W.1

who attacked the accused persons. The suggestion was denied by the

witness.

P.W.4 was the seizure witness, who has supported the prosecution

case and deposed that M.O.I (bhujali) M.O.IV (pant) and M.O.V (shirt)

were seized in his presence.

P.W.5 was the Investigating Officer, who had narrated regarding

the manner in which the investigation was carried out.

P.W.7 is the most important witness of the prosecution, who was

posted as a doctor in the District Headquarter Hospital, Balangir. He

deposed that on 14.04.1993, he examined the victim (P.W.3) and found

the following injuries:-

"1) 3 incised injuries 2" above the right ankle of 5" x 1" x 3" x 1"; and 2" x 1". Depth was exposing and cutting the bone;

2)incised injury 4"x2" about 2" below the right knee joint;

3) incised wound 3" x 1" about 4" above right knee

4) abrasion of 1" x 1" above the right knee

5) incised injury 3" x 1" over the right side of the mandible;

6) Incised wound over the left little finger 3" x 2"

7)3 incised wounds each ½" size over the little finger

8) incised wound over the front of scalp 4" x 2"

exposing and cutting periostrum.

9)one semi-circle incised injury over the left temporal region extending to occipital region of 4" x 2"

10)incised wound over right elbow of 3" x 2" cutting the humorous bone;

11) incised wound of 4"x 2" about 2" above the left elbow;

12) two incised wounds of 1"x" ½' and 2"x"over the left 5th metatarsal bone;

13)incised wound 4" x1" over the lateral side of the left wrist;

14) incised wound 3" x 2" over left shoulder."

In the cross-examination, the said witness (P.W.7) has stated as

under:-

"2. Individually none of the injuries were fatal in nature. I instructed to give the wearing apparels of the injured to the police. O.I.C. town P.S. brought the injured to the hospital and identified to me. It is not correct to say that the injuries are not possible by M.O.I. All these injuries can be possible by fall on broken glass but not by single fall. I did not notice any injury on the middle of the head. The injuries are not on vital parts. X-ray was done as per my advice and I referred to the X-ray plates at the time of treatment. Dr. Tripathy has scribed the observations with regard to X-ray plate as per radiologist opinion. There was no bony injury on the skull as per radiologist. It is not a fact that I have not examined the injured on that day, that I have not instructed the police to take the wearing apparels of the injured."

11. Mr. Dhal, learned Senior Counsel pointed out that in the present

case neither the X-ray plate were exhibited are brought on record nor Dr.

Tripathy was examined.

12. Reading of the evidence of the doctor (P.W.7) would lead to the

following conclusion:-

(a) P.W.3 sustained fourteen injuries.

(b) All injuries are simple except injury Nos.1, 8 and 10.

(c) Injuries are possible by M.O.I, (the weapon of offence)

(d) The injuries are not fatal in nature.

(e) Injuries are not aimed at the vital part of the body.

(f) X-ray was done on advised of the doctor but the same was not exhibited.

(g) One Dr. Tripathy gave some observation and suggested for X-ray. The said witness was not examined by the prosecution.

(h) There is no opinion given by the doctor that in the ordinary couse of nature, such injury may cause death.

In the light of the aforementioned nature of evidence adduced by

the prosecution in the name of medical evidence, it is apparent that the

prosecution could not prove that the injuries cumulatively could cause

danger to the life of the victim (P.W.3).

13. Mr. Dhal, learned Senior Counsel for the appellant has relied upon

the judgment of this Court in the case of Bijoy Dandasena Others vrs.

State of Orissa reported in (2008) 39 OCR - 93 and submitted that

irrespective of number of injures, if there is no evidence of intention

brought on record by the prosecution, the offence under Section 307 of

I.P.C. cannot be attracted. By relying upon paragraph-9 of the judgment

of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of Ghulam Mustafa v. State

of Uttaranchal, reported in (2016) 15 SCC 752, which reads thus:-

"9. Just before the occurrence PW 1 Munnu Lal came to the Fire Station for surprise check and recorded the absence of the accused in the general diary and returned home. Within a few minutes the appellant-accused armed with lathis went to his house and indiscriminately beat him with lathis causing injuries in neck, chest, hands, buttocks and thighs. PW 3 Dr N.D. Punetha mentioned in her report that Injuries 11, 17 and 18 are grievous in nature. In fact the grievous injuries are the fractures of wrist bones in both the hands. Though the injuries caused were 18 in number, they were not on vital parts of the body. It is true that the appellants had acted in a state of fury but it cannot be said that they caused those injuries with the intention to cause death. The appellants are not liable to be convicted for the offence under Section 307 IPC and at the same time for having voluntarily caused grievous hurt they are liable to be punished under Section 325 of the Penal Code."

Mr. Dhal, learned Senior Counsel pointed out that in the case

under reference, the victim had sustained eighteen injuries, out of which

three were grievous in nature. Still, the Hon‟ble Supreme Court held that

unless the prosecution proves its case on the basis of evidence that there

was knowledge and intention on the part of the accused that the injury

inflicted may cause the death in the ordinary course, no offence under

Section 307 of I.P.C. could sustain. To buttress his argument, he has

relied upon paragraph-11 of the judgment of this Court in the case of

Ananda Nath -Versus- State of Odisha, reported in (2021) 82 OCR-264,

wherein it has been held as under:-

"11. It is settled principles of law that to justify a conviction under section 307 of the Indian Penal Code, it is not essential that bodily injury capable of causing death should be inflicted. The nature of injury actually caused very often gives considerable assistance in coming to a finding relating to the intention of the accused. However, such intention can also be deduced from other circumstances without even any reference to the actual wounds. It is not necessary that the injury actually caused to the victim of the assault should be sufficient under ordinary circumstances to cause the death of the person assaulted. The Court has to see is whether the act, irrespective of its result, was done with the intention or knowledge and under circumstances mentioned in the section. (Ref: A.I.R. 1983 S.C. 305, State of Maharashtra -Vrs.- Balaram Bama Patil). In case of Rekha Mandal -Vrs.- State of Bihar reported in 1968 (Vol.8) Supreme Court Decisions 208 wherein seventeen injuries consisting of incised and punctured wounds were caused on the injured by different weapons such as farsa, spear and lathi and none of the injuries was

grievous in nature and only two of them were located on the head and neck, it was held as follows:-

"2. ...... Medical evidence did not disclose that any of the injuries was cumulatively dangerous to life and the question therefore is whether in these circumstances, it could be held that the offence disclosed was one under section 307 of the Indian Penal Code. That section requires that the act must be done with such intention or knowledge or under such circumstances that if death be caused by that act, the offence of murder will emerge."

The Hon'ble Supreme Court in that case altered the conviction from one under section 307 of the Indian Penal Code to section 324 of the Indian Penal Code.

In view of the nature of evidence available on record, the nature of injuries sustained by P.W.1, which were opined by the two doctors to be simple in nature and absence of any other medial document from any hospital or any material to show the after effects of such injuries, I am of the considered opinion that the conviction of the appellant under section 307 of the Indian Penal Code is not sustainable in the eye of law and in my humble opinion, the case squarely falls within the ambit of section 324 of the Indian Penal Code. Accordingly, the conviction of the appellant is altered from section 307 of the Indian Penal Code to one under section 324 of the Indian Penal Code. It seems that the appellant surrendered in the Court below at the time of investigation of the case on 28.11.1989 and he was released on bail on 22.12.1989 and after the learned trial Court passed the impugned judgment, he was taken into custody on 01.08.1990 and he was granted bail by this Court on 08.08.1990 but after furnishing bail bond, he was released from custody on 14.08.1990 and therefore, he has remained in custody for more than a month. Since the

appellant was a young boy at the time of occurrence and in the meantime more than thirty one years have elapsed, while altering the conviction to one under section 324 of the Indian Penal Code, I direct that the sentence be reduced to the period already undergone."

14. In nutshell, Mr. Dhal, learned Senior Counsel for the appellant

submitted that from the evidence of the doctor (P.W.7), it is eminently

clear that the injuries sustained by P.W.3 were not fatal in nature. The

blows were not aimed at the vital part of the victim. Therefore, even

there were fourteen injuries, in absence of an opinion by the doctor that

in the ordinary course of nature, all the injuries cumulatively caused

danger to the life of P.W.3; the ingredient of Section 307 of I.P.C. is not

satisfied.

15. To counter the argument advanced by Mr. Dhal, learned Senior

Counsel for the appellant, Mr. Mohanty, learned Additional Standing

Counsel for the State has also relied upon the judgment of the Hon‟ble

Supreme Court in the case of R. Prakash v. State of Karnataka, reported

in (2004) 9 SCC 27, wherein it has been held as under:-

"9. It is sufficient to justify a conviction under Section 307 if there is present an intent coupled with some overt act in execution thereof. It is not essential that bodily injury

capable of causing death should have been inflicted. Although the nature of injury actually caused may often give considerable assistance in coming to a finding as to the intention of the accused, such intention may also be deduced from other circumstances, and may even, in some cases, be ascertained without any reference at all to actual wounds. The section makes a distinction between the act of the accused and its result, if any. The court has to see whether the act, irrespective of its result, was done with the intention or knowledge and under circumstances mentioned in the section. Therefore, it is not correct to acquit an accused of the charge under Section 307 IPC merely because the injuries inflicted on the victim were in the nature of a simple hurt."

Similarly, Mr. Mohanty, learned counsel for the State has also

relied upon another judgment of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case

of State of Madhya Pradesh vrs. Mohan and others, reported in (2013)

14 SCC 116, wherein it has been held as under:-

"14. The High Court was of the opinion that the injuries have not been caused on the vital parts of the body. In order to attract Section 307, the injury need not be on the vital parts of the body. In order to attract Section 307, causing of hurt is sufficient. If anybody does any act with intention or knowledge that by his act he might cause death and hurt is caused, that is sufficient to attract life imprisonment. Section 307 uses the word "hurt" which has been explained in Section 319 IPC and not "grievous hurt" within the meaning of Section 320 IPC. Therefore, in order to attract Section 307, the injury need not be on the vital part of the body. A gunshot, as in the present case,

may miss the vital part of the body, may result in a lacerated wound, that itself is sufficient to attract Section

307. The High Court is, therefore, in error in reducing the sentence, holding that the injury was not on the vital part of the body. Period undergone by way of sentence also in our view is not commensurate with the guilt established."

16. I have carefully gone through the judgments cited at the Bar and

analysed the evidence available on record. I am of the view that the

grounds and contentions urged by Mr. Dhal, learned Senior Counsel for

the appellant deserves merit particularly because of the nature of

evidence of the doctor (P.W.7). The sole ingredient required to sustain

the conviction under Section 307 of I.P.C. is that the accused had

knowledge and intention that the blow caused by him is likely to

endanger the life of the victim is lacking in the present case as the

injuries are not fatal and even not aimed at the vital part of the body.

Hence, I modify the conviction and sentence recorded by the learned

trial Court from that of the conviction under Section 307 of I.P.C. to

Section 325 of I.P.C.

17. Mr. Dhal, learned Senior Counsel for the appellant submitted that

that the incident relates back to the year 1994, at that point the appellant

No.1 was about 23 years of age. At present, he is aged at about 54 years.

He also submitted that during trial, the appellant No.1 has already

incarcerated for about forty-seven days. Over the years, he has led a

dignified life, integrated well into society, and is presently leading a

settled family life. Incarcerating him 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, a lenient view should be taken and

the sentence of the appellant be reduced to that of the period he has

already undergone.

18. Regard being had to the submission made at the Bar and the

incident had taken place in the year 1994, age of the appellant No.1, the

appellant No.1 is sentenced to undergo R.I. for a period of six months

and to pay a fine of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees twenty-five thousand), in

default of payment of the fine amount, to undergo R.I. for a further

period of one month. The period the appellant has already undergone

shall be set off from the substantive sentence.

19. Mr. Dhal, learned Senior Counsel for the appellant further prayed

for treating the appellant No.1 under the provisions of the Probation of

Offenders Act because of the advanced stage of accused.

20. Taking into consideration the entire conspectus of the matter and

the fact that the incident relates back to the year 1994, the age of the

appellant and his societal position, I am of the considered view that the

appellant No.1 is entitled to the benefit of the Probation of Offenders

Act. Therefore, this Court directs the appellant No.1 to be released under

Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act for a period of six months on

his executing bond of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand) within one

month with one surety for the like amount to appear and receive the

sentence when called upon during such period and in the meantime, the

appellant No.1 shall keep peace and good behavior and he shall remain

under the supervision of the concerned Probation Officer during the

aforementioned period of six months.

21. It is made clear that although the appellant No.1 is extended the

benefit of the Probation of Offenders Act but he should deposit the fine

amount of Rs.25,000/- (rupees twenty-five thousand) within a period of

one month. The amount to be deposited shall be disbursed to the victim

(P.W.3) or his L.Rs. in case P.W.3 is not surviving. If the fine amount is

not deposited within the stipulated time framed, the treatment given to

the appellant No.1 under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act

shall be withdrawn and he will be taken into custody to serve out the

awarded sentence.

22. Accordingly, the CRA is partly allowed.

(S.S. Mishra) Judge

The High Court of Orissa, Cuttack.

Dated the 9th December, 2025/ Swarna

Designation: Senior Stenographer

Location: High Court of Orissa