Balaram Pradhan And Another vs State Of Orissa
2025 Latest Caselaw 1934 Ori

Orissa High Court

Balaram Pradhan And Another vs State Of Orissa on 31 July, 2025

          THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

                           CRA No.239 of 1998

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


Balaram Pradhan and another            .......                   Appellants

                                 -Versus-

State of Orissa                        .......                 Respondent


      For the Appellants    : Mr. Dharanidhar Nayak, Senior Advocate

      For the Respondent : Ms. Sarathi Jyoti Mohanty, ASC
CORAM:

    THE HONOURABLE SHRI JUSTICE SIBO SANKAR MISHRA

 Date of Hearing: 22.07.2025      ::   Date of Judgment: 31.07.2025

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

under Sections 374 of the Cr. P.C., assailing the judgment and order

dated 09.09.1998 passed by the learned Special Judge, Balasore in Spl.

Case No. 14 of 1995, whereby the learned trial Court has convicted the

accused-appellants U/s.323 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 sentencing

him to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- each in default to undergo R.I. three

months.
 Facts of the Case

2. The case of the prosecution, briefly stated, is that on the evening

of 13.02.1995, the co-accused of the present appellants, namely Pratap

(since acquitted), called P.W.3 (the informant) to attend a village

meeting, pursuant to which P.W.3 proceeded there along with his son

Santosh (P.W.4). When both of them reached near the house of Pratap,

the present appellants, Ghanshyam and Balram, took P.W.4 to their

house and assaulted him with kicks and blows, causing him injuries. The

accused persons also abused the informant on a public road on account

of his belonging to a Scheduled Caste community. Consequently, the

criminal law was set in motion against the accused persons for their

unlawful acts and were put to trial on the charges under sections 341,

323, 34 Indian Penal Code r/e Section 3(1)(x) of SC & ST (POA) Act.

Analysis of evidence by the Trial Court

3. To substantiate the case put against the accused-appellants and

Pratap Pradhan as many as six witnesses were examined, inclusive of the

investigating officer as P.W.6 and the doctor(P.W.2) who treated the

injured P.W.4 and P.W.3 is the father of the victim and the informant in

this case. P.W.5 is an independent witness. However, the statement of

P.W.1 neither benefits the prosecution nor defence hence, is irrelevant.

4. The learned trial Court analysed the evidence on record in detail

and returned the following findings:-

"6. P.W.4 is the son of P.W.3. Both of them make consistent and emphatic statements that accused Pratap went to their house, asked P.W.3 to come with him to attend a village meeting. So, P.Ws.3 and 4 went with him. While they were near the house of accused Pratap, accused Ghanashyam and Balaram lifted P.W. 4 Santosh Kumar Sethi and dealt fist blows and kicks on him. Such statements of these two witnesses remain absolutely unassailed. P.W.5 partly corroborates the statements of these witnesses and states that he found P.W.4 was lying senseless and he was shifted to hospital.

7. The doctor (P.W.2) had examined P.W.4 and found abrasions on his right knee joint, left thigh, bruise on left thigh, swelling on left ring finger, so also some scratches on his body. He opined that the injuries were caused by hard and blunt weapon. Thus, the statements of P.Ws. 3 and 4 that accused Balaram and Ghanashyam dealt fist blows and kicks on P.W.4 consequently he sustained injuries, find ample corroboration from the statement of the doctor (P.W.2), so also from that of the other witness (P.W.5)."

Judgement of Conviction by the Trial Court

5. By appreciating and analyzing the evidence brought on record by

the prosecution and taking into consideration the defence plea eventually

the learned trial Court recorded the guilt of the appellants by concluding

as under:

"18. As discussed above, the prosecution has amply proved its case under section 323 IPC against accused Balaram and Ghanashyam. So accused Balaram and Ghanashyam are found guilty under section 323 IPC and are convicted thereunder".

6. Having convicted for the offence as mentioned above the accused

appellants prayed to extend the benefit under the Probation of Offenders

Act which was turned down by the Learned Trial Court observing thus:

"20. The act of accused Balaram and Ghanashyam reveals their act of lawlessness. The mode of commission of offence does not warrant to deal them under the provisions of the Probation of Offenders Act. Hence they be heard on the question of sentence."

7. Aggrieved by the aforementioned judgment of conviction and

order of sentence passed by the learned Special Judge, Balasore, the

present Appeal has been preferred by the appellants.

8. Heard Mr. Dharanidhar Nayak, learned Senior Counsel appearing

for the appellants and Mr. Sarathi Jyoti Mohanty, learned Additional

Standing Counsel for the state.

Submissions on behalf of the Appellant

9. Mr. Nayak, the learned Senior Counsel for the appellants has

brought to the notice of the court that the parties have entered into a

compromise. He further submits that the person who had been victim to

the offence i.e. P.W.4 has filed an Affidavit to that effect. The contents

of which are mentioned herein under for ready reference:

"I Sri Santosh Kumar Sethi, aged about 53 years, S/o-lt. Gayadhar Sethi, village-Pratappur, Po/P.S-Oupada, Dist-Balasore do hereby solemnly affirm & state as follows:-

1. That, I am the informant of Oupada P.S. case No-8/1995 corresponding to special case. No-14/1995.

2. That, this case has been pending vide CRA No-239/1998 before the Hon'ble High Court filed by the accused Balaram Pradhan and others (Vrs. State of Odisha)

3. That, now the matter has been compromised between us and we are leaving happily in our village. So I do not want to proceed further in the case.

As such I swear this affidavit."

10. It is further submitted by the learned Senior Counsel that the

appellants, who were in their twenties and thirties at the time of the

incident, are now in the evening of their lives. Nearly three decades have

passed since the alleged occurrence, during which the circumstances

have significantly changed. The parties have amicably resolved their

differences and are now living peacefully in the same village. In light of

this long passage of time, the advanced age of the appellants, and the

amicable settlement between the parties, it is humbly prayed that this

Court may be pleased to allow the present appeal in the interest of

justice.

Precedent Analysis

11. On the entire conspectus of the case it will be apt to rely on the

Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme court Vadluri Anjaiah vs. State of

A.P.1, where it was held as under:

"1. Appellant stands convicted Under Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code and has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years as per the impugned order before us. It is now reported that Appellant has come to terms with the prosecutrix-victim. An application has been filed seeking permission to compound the offence. Learned Counsel appearing for the prosecutrix submitted that it is a fact that she also had come to terms with the convicted person. Accordingly, we grant permission for compounding the offence.

2. We, therefore, acquit the Appellant Under Section 320(8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure."

The principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the

above judgement thus provide valuable guidance on the permissibility of

compounding certain offences in appropriate circumstances even after

conviction and at the stage of appeal, particularly where the victim has

voluntarily expressed no objection and a genuine settlement has been

reached. Drawing strength from the said precedent, the present case too

MANU/SC/2057/2001

merits similar consideration, as it involves analogous facts wherein the

victim and the accused have amicably resolved their differences and

have been living peacefully for a considerable duration.

Observations

12. In view of the precedent cited and the affidavit filed by the

informant, who was the victim of the offence, stating unequivocally that

the matter has been amicably settled and that both parties are now living

peacefully in the same village, it is evident that the passage of time has

considerably altered the circumstances surrounding the dispute. The

appellants, who were young at the time of the incident, are now in the

later stages of their lives, and nearly three decades have passed since the

occurrence of the offence. During this prolonged period, the parties have

chosen to reconcile and maintain cordial relations, demonstrating that the

underlying objective of criminal justice, social harmony and

rehabilitation has been effectively achieved in the present case.

Continuing with the criminal proceedings would serve no fruitful

purpose and may only bring back the past hostilities, thereby disturbing

the present peaceful coexistence. Considering the overall facts and

circumstances, including the considerable lapse of time, the compromise

between the parties, the express unwillingness of the victim to proceed

further, and the age of the appellants, this Court deems it just, equitable,

and in the interest of justice to bring quietus to the litigation.

Conclusion

13. Accordingly, in light of the compromise between the parties and

taking into account the affidavit filed by the informant, as well as the

elapsed time of approximately 30 years, this Court is of the considered

view that the judgment of conviction and sentence passed against the

appellants is liable to be set aside. The Criminal Appeal is, therefore,

allowed. The appellants are acquitted of the charges framed against

them. Their bail bonds, if any, shall stand discharged.

(S.S. Mishra) Judge The High Court of Orissa, Cuttack.

Dated the 31st of July 2025/ Subhasis Mohanty

Designation: Personal Assistant Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack.

Date: 01-Aug-2025 10:55:49