Orissa High Court
Jyoti Prakash Mishra vs State Of Odisha ... Opposite Party on 24 January, 2025
Author: G. Satapathy
Bench: G. Satapathy
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
CRLREV No.743 of 2024
(In the matter of application under Section 397 and
401 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973).
Jyoti Prakash Mishra ... Petitioner
-versus-
State of Odisha ... Opposite Party
For Petitioner : Mr. J.K.Panda, Advocate
For Opposite Party : Mr.A.K.Apat, Addl. PP
CORAM:
JUSTICE G. SATAPATHY
F DATE OF HEARING & JUDGMENT:24.01.2025(ORAL)
G. Satapathy, J.
1. This revision is directed against the impugned
judgment dated 31.07.2024 passed by learned Addl.
Sessions Judge, Sonepur in Criminal Appeal No. 48/96 of
2007-17 altering the conviction of the petitioner to one
U/S. 324 of IPC from offence U/S. 307 of the IPC and
modifying his sentence to pay a fine of Rs.25,000/- within
two months from the date of judgment/order and in
default of payment of such fine, to undergo Rigorous
Imprisonment for a period of two years.
2. This revision is heard and disposed of at the stage
of admission on consent of the learned counsel for the
parties. Heard Mr.Jugal Kishore Panda, learned counsel
for the petitioner and Mr.A.K.Apat, learned Addl. Public
Prosecutor and perused the record.
3. In the course of hearing, without disputing the
conviction of the petitioner for commission of offence
U/S. 324 of the IPC, Mr.Panda, learned counsel for the
petitioner challenges the sentence of the petitioner by
submitting interalia that the fine amount may be
reduced to Rs.20,000/- and the petitioner would pay the
same within one month of passing this order. On the
other hand, Mr.Apat, learned Asst. Public Prosecutor,
however does not raise any objection for modification of
the sentence.
4. After having considered the rival submissions
upon perusal of record, it appears that the petitioner
was earlier convicted by the learned Asst. Sessions
Judge, Sonepur in Sessions Case No. 38/20 of 2006 for
commission of offence U/S. 307 of IPC and he was
accordingly sentenced to undergo Rigorous
Imprisonment for five years and to pay a fine of
Rs.6,000/-, in default whereof to undergo Rigorous
Imprisonment for a further period of six months. The
petitioner, however, carried an appeal to the Court of
Sessions in Criminal Appeal No. 48 of 2007 which was
transferred to the file of learned Addl. Sessions Judge,
Sonepur who after hearing the parties passed the
impugned judgment by altering the conviction of the
appellant-petitioner to one U/S. 324 of IPC and
accordingly modified his sentence to pay fine of
Rs.25,000/-, in default whereof to undergo
imprisonment for two years. Admittedly, there is no
dispute/challenge to the conviction of the petitioner for
offence U/S. 324 of the IPC, but only the sentence of the
petitioner is under challenge in this revision, which is
prayed to be modified. On perusal of record, this Court
does not find anything to evidence any previous
conviction of the petitioner for any offence, but the
occurrence was taken place way back on 14.12.2005,
and in the meanwhile, around 19 years have elapsed,
however, the petitioner had suffered incarceration for a
period of 24 days during pendency of trial/appeal.
Further, not only the petitioner, but also his elder
brother had faced the trial, however, the learned trial
Court finding no evidence against the elder brother had
acquitted him in Sessions Case No. 38/20 of 2006.
5. In adverting to the prayer for modification of
sentence of the petitioner, the background of fact is also
relevant for deciding quantum of punishment and in this
case, according to the prosecution story, the dispute was
between the acquitted accused and the injured, but the
present petitioner being the younger brother of the
acquitted co-accused had suddenly intervened and
assaulted the injured in a spur of moment with pre-
meditation and thereby, prior mensria cannot be
attributed to the petitioner. Further, the occurrence
might have taken place on a spur of moment without
pre-meditation and in a fight between two persons
involving the elder brother of the petitioner. In this
situation, this Court considers it just and proper to
reduce the sentence of the petitioner to pay a fine of
Rs.20,000/-. Accordingly, the sentence of the petitioner
is modified to pay a fine of Rs.20,000/- in default
whereof, to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment (RI) for
three months. The fine be paid in terms of the order
passed by the learned Appellate Court within one month
hence. In case of payment of fine, the entire amount be
paid to the injured.
6. In the result, the CRLREV stands dismissed on
contest, but in the circumstance, there is no order as to
costs. However, the conviction of the petitioner for
offence U/S. 324 of the IPC is maintained, but the
sentence is modified to the extent indicated in the
preceding paragraph.
(G. Satapathy)
Judge
Signed by: KISHORE KUMAR SAHOO
Reason: Authentication Orissa High Court, Cuttack,
Location: High Court of Orissa
Date: 30-Jan-2025 14:22:35 Dated the 24th day of January, 2025/kishore
