Orissa High Court
(An Application U/S. 397 R/W. Section ... vs The State Of Odisha ... Opposite Party on 21 February, 2025
Author: G. Satapathy
Bench: G. Satapathy
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
CRLREV NO.728 of 2024
(An application U/S. 397 r/w. Section 401 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973)
Krushna Chandra Raula ... Petitioner
-versus-
The State of Odisha ... Opposite Party
For Petitioner : Mr. B. Sarangi, Advocate
For Opposite Party : Mr. A.K. Apat, Addl. PP
CORAM:
JUSTICE G. SATAPATHY
F DATE OF HEARING & JUDGMENT:21.02.2025(ORAL)
G. Satapathy, J.
1. This criminal revision is directed against the
confirming the judgment dated 14.03.2024 passed by
learned 1st Addl. Sessions Judge, Ganjam, Berhampur,
in Criminal Appeal No. 67 of 2022, confirming the
Judgment dated 27.08.2022 passed by learned
Assistant Sessions Judge, Ganjam, Berhampur in ST
Case No. 25 of 2017, convicting the revision-petitioner
and one Kuna Panda for commission of offence
punishable under Section 341/324/34 of IPC and
sentencing each of them to undergo simple
imprisonment (SI) for one month with payment fine of
Rs.500/- in default whereof, to undergo SI for further
seven days for offence under Sections 341/34 of IPC;
to undergo SI for one year with payment fine of
Rs.10,000/- in default whereof, to undergo SI for
further six months for offence under Sections 324/34
of IPC with benefit of set off of the pretrial detention
against the substantive sentence.
By the impugned judgment passed in Appeal,
the learned Appellate Court has also confirmed the
sentenced of the revision-petitioner, but out of the two
convicts, only the present petitioner has preferred this
revision on various ground inter alia on the question of
sentence.
2. Heard, Mr. Bhagaban Sarangi, learned counsel
appearing for the petitioner virtually and Mr. A.K.
Apat, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor in the matter and
perused the record.
3. At the threshold, Mr. Sarangi, learned counsel
for the revision petitioner does not press the revision
on merit, but he confines his submission only to the
quantum of sentence. Accordingly, Mr. Sarangi
submits that since the occurrence took place in the
year 2013 and that too, for a petty matter relating to
repayment of hand loan of Rs.1,500/-, but the
revision- petitioner having detained in custody for
more than eight months, some leniency in sentence
may kindly be extended to the convict-petitioner.
3.1. On the other hand, Mr. A.K. Apat, learned
Addl. Public Prosecutor by producing the custody
certificate of the two convicts submits that the
revision-petitioner as well as the other convict namely
Kuna Panda has already suffered incarceration for a
period of 268 days, but no adverse report has been
received against any of the convicts from the jail
authority.
4. Since the conviction of the revision-petitioner
has not been under challenge, this Court, therefore,
only recapitulate the necessary part of the facts in
precise to address the contention of the revision-
petitioner. The relevant facts as it appears are that on
16.01.2013 at about 08.30 AM in the morning while
the injured was returning home after taking tiffin, on
the way, the revision-petitioner and one Kuna Panda
met him and demanded Rs.1,500/- from him which he
had taken as hand loan from the revision-petitioner
about two days before, but when he later expressed
his inability to pay the same immediately, the convict-
Kuna Panda caught him tightly and the revision-
petitioner assaulted him by one kati and as the injured
tried to ward off the blow by showing his hands, he
sustained cut injury on his both hands and the injured
was accordingly shifted to hospital.
On this incident, FIR was lodged, investigation
ensured and charge sheet was submitted. Accordingly,
the convict faced the trial before the learned Asst.
Sessions Judge for commission of offence under
Sections 341/323/324/307/34 of IPC, but the convicts
were found guilty of the offences punishable under
Sections 341/324/34 of IPC. However, both the
convicts were sentenced to the punishment indicated
in the previous paragraph.
4.1 Being aggrieved with the conviction, both
the convicts preferred an appeal which was registered
vide Criminal Appeal No. 67 of 2022 and the same was
heard and disposed of by the learned Addl. Sessions
Judge, Ganjam at-Berhampur confirming the judgment
and sentence. Accordingly, one of the convict namely
Krushna Chandra Raula has preferred this revision.
5. Judged the case on the above backdrop of
facts vis-à-vis the conviction of the revision-petitioner
being not challenged, this Court only confines itself to
examine the quantum of sentence of the revision-
petitioner as well as that of co-convict, despite the co-
convict Kuna Panda has not preferred any revision.
The object of punishment is never retributive, but it is
deterrent and reformative, however, the custody
certificate produced by the learned Addl. Public
Prosecutor in the case reveals custody period of
around 8 & ½ months of the revision-petitioner and
the co-convict without any adverse report being
submitted against them. Further, the co-convict-Kuna
Panda, who has not preferred the revision has not
assaulted the injured, rather his role is only confined
to holding the injured, but on the other hand, the
revision-petitioner has been alleged to have assaulted
to the hand of the injured. Further, the incident has
occurred around 12 years back and at this stage,
keeping the convict in confinement would not serve
any fruitful purpose, rather the parties should be
encouraged to remain in main stream. Moreover, the
convicts are right now in their mid of forties and they
must have dependent family members, but keeping
them in custody for further period would not only be
counterproductive, but would also affect their family
members.
6. In the aforesaid facts and circumstance,
especially when there is no adverse report with regard
to conduct of the revision-petitioner so also the co-
convict while remaining in jail, this court considers it
appropriate to reduce/modify the sentence of the
revision-petitioner as well as that of co-convict Kuna
Panda to undergo SI for eight months with payment of
fine of Rs.1,000/- in default whereof, to undergo SI for
seven days for offence under Sections 324/34 of IPC;
and to undergo SI for one month with payment fine of
Rs.500/- in default whereof, to undergo SI for seven
days for offence under Sections 341/34 of IPC. Since
the co-convict Kuna Panda has neither challenged his
conviction nor his sentence as confirmed in the appeal,
but he having convicted for the same offences as the
revision-petitioner, it would be travesty of justice, if
the benefit of modification of sentence is not extended
to the co-convict Kuna Panda merely because he has
not challenged his conviction and sentence by way of
any criminal revision and this Court, therefore,
considers in the interest of justice to extend the
benefit of modification of sentence to convict Kuna
Panda without prejudice to his right and contention in
the matter. This Court, however, made it clear that in
case, the convict Kuna Panda prefers any revision, the
same shall be considered on merit without being
influenced by this order. However, in absence of
challenge of conviction and sentence by co-convict
Kuna Panda, but by taking into consideration of
demand of justice, the convict Kuna Panda is also
directed to undergo the modified punishment till he
prefers any revision subject to limitation or in case he
does not wish to prefer any revision, the aforesaid
modification of sentence against him is made absolute.
It is, however, ordered that both the convicts shall not
be detained in custody after they undergo the modified
sentence.
7. In the result, the criminal revision by the
petitioner stands dismissed on contest, but in the
circumstance, there is no order as to costs.
Consequently, the conviction of the revision-petitioner
stands maintained, but his sentence stands modified
to the extent indicated above.
(G. Satapathy)
Judge
Orissa High Court, Cuttack,
Dated the 21st day of February, 2025/Jina
Location: High Court of Orissa
Date: 24-Feb-2025 16:18:06
