Orissa High Court
Sushanta Jena vs State Of Orissa on 31 July, 2025
THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
CRLA No. 300 of 2005
(In the matter of an application under Section 374 of Criminal Procedure
Code)
Sushanta Jena ....... Appellant
-Versus-
State of Orissa ....... Respondent
For the Appellant : Mr. Debashish Samal, Advocate
For the Respondent : Mr. Sarathi Jyoti Mohanty, A.S.C
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE SHRI JUSTICE SIBO SANKAR MISHRA
Date of Hearing: 15.07.2025 : Date of Judgment: 31.07.2025
S.S. Mishra, J. The present appeal is directed against the judgment
and order of dated 24.05.2005 passed by the learned Additional District
and Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Bhadrak in S.T. No.8/11 of 2003
arising out of G.R. Case No. 340/2002 , whereby the present appellant
has been convicted U/s. 324 of the Indian Penal Code and was sentenced
to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years.
2. The prosecution story tersely stated is that, during the dusk hours
of 9.4.2002, P.W.3 Laxmidhar Jena (victim) while he was on his way to
Ranital Bazar (a nearby place) on his bicycle, the accused-appellant
Sushanta Jena suddenly appeared when the victim was midway and
started assaulting him with a Bhujali (Knife). The appellant's brother co-
accused (acquitted) Prashanta was also present nearby. In the meantime
victim fell from the bicycle and the appellant attacked to the hands and
left leg of the victim causing bleeding injuries following this the victim
raised an alarm for help, hearing him P.Ws.4 and 5 rushed in,
subsequently after the arrival of P.W.2, father of the victim at the spot,
he was taken to the hospital for treatment. Consequently, P.W.2
presented a written report about the same at the Bhadrak Rural Police
Station, following which the criminal law was set into action and the
accused persons were arrested during the night hours of the incident and
forwarded to the court on the subsequent day and were charge-sheeted
accordingly. At this point it will also be apt to mention that the accused
persons and the victims were in litigating terms.
3. On the basis of the aforementioned prosecution version, the
appellant stood charged for the offence under Sections 307/34 and 324 of
I.P.C. In order to bring home charges, the prosecution examined 7
witnesses including the informant. P.W.1 was the treating doctor of the
victim, P.W.2 is the father of the victim, P.W.3 was the victim himself,
P.Ws. 4 and 5 were the witnesses to the occurrence P.W. 6 was the
witness to the seizure of the cycle and P.W.7 was the Investigating
Officer. Besides oral evidences, certain documentary evidences vide
Exts. 1 to 4 are also relied upon by the prosecution. Apart from this, the
defence also examined two witnesses vide D.Ws. 1 and 2.
4. The learned court below after dealing with the evidences on record
in details, have categorically held the accused no. 2 found guilty of
offences punishable U/s.324 of the IPC and have sentenced him
accordingly. Aggrieved by the same, this appeal is preferred.
5. Heard Mr. Debashis Samal, learned Counsel on behalf of the
appellant and Mr. Sarathi Jyoti Mohanty on behalf of the Respondant.
6. Mr. Samal, learned counsel for the appellant, instead of
challenging the conviction by assailing the judgment of the court below
has limited his arguments to the quantum of sentence. He submitted that
the accused at the stage of arguing in sentence also prayed for the grant
of the benefits under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, which
was turned down by the learned Trial Court. The Trial Court while
denying the benefit under the P.O. Act held thus:
"Heard the convict Sushanta Jena, the learned
counsel for the defence and the learned Addl. P.P. on the
question of sentence. The learned Counsel for the defence
submits that the convict is a first offender and no previous
conviction at his credit and he may be released under the
Probation of Offenders Act. However, keeping in view the
facts and circumstances of this case and pre-planned
manner in which the offence was committed, I do not feel it
expedient in the interest of justice to extend the benefit of
Probation of Offenders Act to the convict...."
7. Learned Counsel for the appellant further submitted that the
incident pertains to the year 2002 (09.04.2002). The appellant has
already undergone the rigors of trial for about two years. Thereafter, the
appeal was preferred in the year 2005 (22.07.2005). The appeal has been
prolonging to be heard for about 20 years. At the time of incident, the
appellant was very young in his twenties. At present he is in mid-forties,
leading a respectful life along with his family. The learned Counsel
additionally submits 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. It is also stated that the appellant has also
undergone one month in custody. 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.
8. Regard being had to the procastinated judicial process undergone,
his societal position, clean antecedents and the fact that the incident had
taken place in the year 2002, 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
squarely covered by ratio of the judgment of this Court in the case of
Pathani Parida & another vs. Abhaya Kumar Jagdevmohapatra1.
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 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 shall keep peace and good behavior
and he shall remain under the supervision of the concerned Probation
2012 (Supp-II) OLR 469
Officer during the aforementioned period of six months. Additionally a
fine of Rs.5000/- shall be paid by the appellant which shall be disbursed
to the victim in accordance with Section 357 of Cr.P.C, in default of
which the appellant is sentenced to undergo R.I for 3 months.
10. With the above observation, the Criminal Appeal is accordingly
disposed of.
(S.S. Mishra)
Judge
The High Court of Orissa, Cuttack
Dated the 31st July, 2025/Subhasis Mohanty
Designation: Personal Assistant
Reason: Authentication
Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack.
Date: 01-Aug-2025 19:59:10
