Lakshyapati Kumar @ Lakshapati Kumar vs State Of Odisha
2025 Latest Caselaw 11254 Ori

Orissa High Court

Lakshyapati Kumar @ Lakshapati Kumar vs State Of Odisha on 16 December, 2025

        THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

                     CRLA No. 127 of 2009

(In the matter of an application under Section 374(2) read with
Section 382 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973)

Lakshyapati Kumar @ Lakshapati Kumar       .......           Appellants

                                -Versus-

State of Odisha                     .......               Respondent

For the Appellant : Mr. Gopal Chandra Das, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Dhanjaya Mund, Advocate

For the Respondent : Ms. Subhalaxmi Devi, Additional Standing Counsel

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE SHRI JUSTICE SIBO SANKAR MISHRA

Date of Hearings: 09.12.2025 :: Date of Judgment: 16.12.2025

S.S. Mishra, J. The present Criminal Appeal is directed against

the judgment and order dated 28th February 2009 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Bhawanipatna,

Kalahandi in Sessions Case No.78/64 of 2008 arising out of G.R.

Case No.750 of 2007. By the said judgment, the learned trial Court

found the appellant guilty of the offences punishable under Sections

323/506 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to undergo

rigorous imprisonment for three months for offence under Section

323 of IPC, further R.I. of six months for offence under Section 506

of I.P.C. All the substantive sentences were directed to run

concurrently with the benefit of set-off.

2. Heard Mr. Gopal Chandra Das, learned counsel appearing on

behalf of Mr. Dhanjaya Mund, learned counsel for the appellant and

Ms. Subhalaxmi Devi, learned Additional Standing Counsel for the

State.

3. The case of the prosecution, as narrated in the First Information

Report, is that on 28.12.2007 the complainant was serving as an

A.S.I. of Police at Borda Outpost under Kegaon Police Station. On

that day at about 2:45 P.M., while returning from village Matia along

with Constable No. 646, Seshibhusan Mangraj, after conducting

investigation in P.S. Case No. 89 of 2007, the complainant received

credible information near Sapsilet Chhak that accused persons

Lakhapati Kumar, Ranga Jued and their associates were making

preparation to unlawfully dispose of foreign liquor. Acting upon such

information, they kept a watch at Sapsilet Chhak.

While they were so guarding, accused Lakhapati Kumar,

Taranisen Jani and Ranga Jued allegedly emerged from Pankaj Hotel

and abused the complainant and the accompanying constable in

obscene language and further threatened them with dire

consequences. It is alleged that accused Lakhapati Kumar forcibly

snatched the police badge from the complainant's uniform and

thereafter pressed his neck with the intention of causing his death,

resulting in nail marks on his neck. The public present at the spot are

stated to have intervened and rescued the complainant from the

assault.

Thereafter, the complainant returned to Borda Outpost and

subsequently proceeded to Kegaon Police Station, where at about

8:00 P.M., on the same day, he lodged a written report. The said

report was registered as Kegaon P.S. Case No. 90 of 2007. The

complainant was medically examined at Chapria C.H.C. In the course

of investigation, on 30.12.2007 the accused persons, namely

Lakhapati Kumar, Taranisen Jani and Harihara Naik, were arrested

and forwarded to court, while accused Ranga Jued surrendered before

the court. Upon receipt of the injury report from the Medical Officer,

C.H.C. Chapria, the Investigating Officer submitted charge-sheet

against the accused persons under Sections

341/323/294/332/356/307/34 of the Indian Penal Code.

4. Consequent upon committal, the case was made over to the

learned trial Court, where the accused persons stood their trial on

denial of charges. The plea of the defence is one of complete denial

and false implication. The accused persons were charged for the

offence under Sections 341/332/294/355/506/307/34 of the Indian

Penal Code.

5. In order to establish its case, the prosecution examined seven

witnesses. P.W.5 is the informant of the case, P.W.1 was the police

constable, who had accompanied the complainant to the place of

occurrence. P.Ws. 2, 3 and 4 were the independent witnesses to the

incident, P.W.7 was the Medical Officer who examined the injured

complainant, and P.W.6 was the Investigating Officer.

No witness was examined on behalf of the defence.

6. The learned trial court after meticulously examining the

evidence on record and dealing with each offence, convicted the

present appellant for the offence under Section 323/506 of I.P.C. The

relevant portion of the judgement which deals with the conviction of

the appellant is extracted hereunder for the convenience of ready

reference:

"In the net result, the accused persons namely Taranisen Jani, Harihara Naik and Ranga Juad are found not guilty for any of the offences under sections 341/294/332/355/307/506/34 of I.P.C. charged against them and they are acquitted from all the above charges. Accused Lakhapati Kumar is not found guilty for the offence Under sections 294/332/341/355/307/34 of I.P.C. However, he is found guilty for the offence under sections 323/506 of I.P.C and he is convicted thereunder. The accused persons namely Taranisen Jani, Harihara Naik and Ranga Juad be discharged from their bail bonds."

Aggrieved by the aforementioned judgement of conviction and

order of sentence, the present appeal is preferred by the appellant.

7. At this stage, Mr. Das, learned counsel for the appellant has

strenuously argued the case on merit and taken me to the evidence on

record. After arguing for some time, he submitted that keeping in

view the procrastinated judicial process undergone by the appellant in

this case and the ordeal of trial faced by the appellant; he would rather

confine his argument to the quantum of sentence. He submitted that

the incident pertains to the year 2007. The appellant has undergone

the rigors of trial for about two years. Thereafter, the appeal was

preferred in the year 2009. The appeal has been prolonging to be

heard for about 15 years. The appellant who was in his early thirties

then, now is aged in his late forties and therefore, sending him to

custody for fulfilling his remaining sentence at this belated stage

would serve no purpose. The learned counsel further submitted that

the appellant has no criminal antecedents and no other case of a

similar nature or otherwise is stated to be pending against him. 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 him but also upon his 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 appellant

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. Das, learned counsel for the appellant on the facts scenario of

the case.

8. Regard being had to the societal position of the appellant, clean

antecedents and the fact that the incident had taken place in the year

2007, I am of the considered view that the appellant is entitled to the

benefit of the Probation of Offenders Act and Section 360 of Cr.P.C.

Additionally, the case of the appellant is also covered by ratio of the

judgments of this Court in the case of Pathani Parida & another vs.

Abhaya Kumar Jagdevmohapatra1 and Dhani @ Dhaneswar Sahu

vs. State of Orissa2.

9. 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 appellant to suffer imprisonment, this Court directs the

appellant to be released under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders

Act for a period of three months on his executing bond of Rs.5,000/-

(Rupees Five Thousand) within one month with one surety for the

2012 (Supp-II) OLR 469

2007 (Supp.II) OLR 250

like amount to appear and receive the sentence when called upon

during such period and in the meantime, the appellant shall keep

peace and good behavior and he shall remain under the supervision of

the concerned Probation Officer during the aforementioned period of

three months.

10. Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal is partly allowed.

(S.S. Mishra) Judge

The High Court of Orissa, Cuttack.

Dated the 16th December, 2025/Swarna

Designation: Senior Stenographer

Location: High Court of Orissa