Orissa High Court

Kalia @ Mrutunjaya Harichandan vs State Of Orissa on 18 November, 2025

        THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

                       CRLA No. 126 of 2002

(In the matter of an application under Section 374(2) of Criminal
Procedure Code)

Kalia @ Mrutunjaya Harichandan
@ Dala Behera               .........                        Appellant
                               -Versus-

State of Orissa                  .......                     Respondent

For the Appellant : Mr. Karunakar Gaya, Advocate Appearing on behalf of Mr. Sarada Prasad Dash, Advocate

For the Respondent : Mr. Ashok Kumar Apat, AGA

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE SHRI JUSTICE SIBO SANKAR MISHRA Date of Hearing: 11.11.2025 :: Date of Judgment: 18.11.2025

S.S. Mishra, J. The present Criminal Appeal has been preferred

by the appellant assailing the judgment and order dated 10.12.2002

passed by the learned 1st Addl. Sessions Judge, Puri in S.T. Case No.

20/92 of 2001. By the said judgment, the learned trial court convicted

the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 354 of the

Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to undergo rigorous

imprisonment for three months.

2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 27.02.1998 at about

5:00 P.M., the informant's father, Bhima Das, and her brother, Kalia

Das, were working in their land. As it suddenly started raining, the

informant, Bisika Das, proceeded to the spot to provide them with an

umbrella and pakhia. While returning to the village, the accused

allegedly obstructed her in the land locally known as "Naapa Chak",

expressed his desire to have sexual intercourse with her, caught hold

of her and attempted to drag her. Since the place was secluded, the

informant, out of fear, raised an alarm. Hearing her cries, her uncle,

Nakula Das, arrived at the spot, upon which the accused fled away.

The informant belongs to the 'Harijan' community, whereas the

accused is from the 'Sabarna' category.

On the same day, the informant orally reported the incident

before the O.I.C., Kanas Police Station, who reduced the information

into writing, registered the case and directed the A.S.I. Ananda Swain

(P.W.6) to take up investigation. In course of investigation, P.W.6

visited the spot, examined the witnesses, arrested the accused and

forwarded him to Court. Upon completion of the investigation,

charge-sheet was submitted on 15.10.1998.

3. On the basis of the materials available on record, charges were

framed against the accused-appellant. Upon his plea of complete

denial and claim for trial, he was accordingly put to trial. The accused

was charged under Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code for assault or

criminal force to a woman with intent to outrage her modesty, read

with Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes

(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, alleging commission of the offence on

a member of the Scheduled Caste community on account of her caste

identity.

4. To prove the case against the accused-appellant, the

prosecution has examined six witnesses, while none has been adduced

on behalf of the defence. Among the prosecution witnesses, P.W.3 is

the informant and victim, whereas P.Ws.1, 2 and 4 are her father,

brother and uncle respectively. P.W.5 was an independent witness,

and P.W.6 was the A.S.I. of Police who undertook and completed the

investigation in the case.

5. The learned trial court after analysing the entire evidence on

record individually accorded the finding of guilt of the accused

persons and passed a very detailed and extensive judgment.

Paragraphs-7 and 8, of the impugned judgment will give a clear idea

as to how the learned trial court has appreciated the evidence to nail

the guilt of the accused-appellant, which is reproduced herein below

for the convenience of ready reference:-

"7. Now coming to the evidence so far offence - u/s.354 of the I.P.C. is concerned, the informant Bisika Das(P.W.3) has categorically stated that she had gone to provide umbrella (Pakhia) to her father and brother, who were working in their land, as it was raining and while she was returning to the village the accused caught hold of her at 'Naapa' chak and started dragging her expressing his desire for sexual intercourse for which she shouted, and hearing the same, his uncle Nakula Das rushed to the spot and seeing him the accused fled away. She has further stated that her father and brother also soon thereafter came to the spot and she narrated this incident to her father, brother and uncle after which they returned to the village. She has also stated that due to the aforesaid act of the accused she got ashamed since it was touching her chastity. On the same day she orally reported the matter before the police, who reduced the same to writing and read over and explained the contents after which she signed on the FIR/Ext.1. P.W.-4 is the uncle of the informant. He has stated that he had gone to his land and was returning to the village since it started raining and hearing the shout of PW-3 from the spot, he went there and heard from her that the accused forcibly caught hold of her and expressed his desire for sexual intercourse. He has further stated that soon after P.Ws.1 and 2, who are the father and brother of the informant also came to the spot and they all returned to the village. P.Ws.1 and 2 have also stated that they were stacking the uprooted ground-nut in their land and as it started raning, P.W.3 had come to provide umbrella (Pakhia) to them and was returning to the village. They have further stated that soon thereafter they heard the shout of P.W.3 from the spot for which they rushed there and found P.W.3 crying. On their querry, P.W.3 informed that the accused caught hold of her and dragged and also attempted to rape her. P.W.5 is an

independent witness, who has stated that he had gone to attend call of nature to 'Naapa' chak land and hearing the shout of P.W.3 went there and found her crying. He has also stated that on his querry, P.W.3 informed him that the accused caught hold of her expressing his desire for sexual intercourse. The evidence of P.Ws.1 and 5 is virtually not shakened in material particulars from their cross- examination. Thus, the F.I.R. version that while the informant Bisika Das was returning to the village the accused caught hold of her and dragged expressing his desire for sexual intercourse, is fully corroborated by the informant (P.W.3) herself, her father, brother and uncle (P.Ws.1,2 and 4) and the independent witness (P.W.5). The act of the accused in dragging the informant by force expressing his desire for sexual intercourse clearly amounts to the out-raging of modesty of P.W.3, attracting the offence u/s.354 of the I.P.C.

8. Prosecution thus has fully established its case u/s.354 of the Indian Penal Code against the accused. Hence the accused is held guilty of the offence u/s.354 of the I.P.C. and is convicted thereunder."

6. Basing upon the above findings, the learned 1st Additional

Sessions Judge, Puri, in S.T. Case No. 20/92 of 2001, after an

elaborate and meticulous appreciation of the evidence on record,

recorded a clear finding of guilt against the accused. Though the

appellant had been charged under Section 354 of the Indian Penal

Code and Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST (P.A.) Act, the learned trial

court did not find the ingredients of the offence under the SC/ST Act

to be established and, accordingly, did not convict him under that

provision. Instead, the learned trial court held the appellant guilty

solely for the offence punishable under Section 354 of the Indian

Penal Code and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for

a period of three months. The present Criminal Appeal has been

preferred challenging the aforesaid judgment of conviction and order

of sentence dated 10.12.2002.

7. Heard Mr. Karunakar Gaya, learned Counsel appearing on

behalf of Mr. Sarada Prasad Dash, Advocate for the appellant and Mr.

Ashok Kumar Apat, learned AGA for the State.

8. Albeit, Mr. Gaya, learned Counsel for the appellant, has

strenuously argued the case on merits and taken this Court through

the evidence available on record. However, after addressing the Court

at some length, he fairly submitted that, having regard to the

protracted judicial process that the appellant has undergone and the

ordeal of trial faced by him, he confined his submissions to the

quantum of sentence instead of further challenging the conviction.

It is submitted that the incident in question took place in the

year 1998, and since then the appellant has been facing the ordeal of

criminal prosecution for more than twenty-five years, including the

period of trial and pendency of the present appeal. It is further

submitted that the accused-appellant who was 24 years then is now in

his mid-fifties and therefore, much has changed on the ground within

this two and half decades.

The learned Counsel further submitted that, considering his

age, the long lapse of time since the occurrence, and the prolonged

pendency of the matter, sending the appellant to serve out the

remaining custody period at this belated stage would serve no useful

purpose. It is further submitted that the appellant has clean

antecedents, with no other criminal case, similar or otherwise,

pending or reported against him. Over the years, he has lived

peacefully, well integrated into society, and is presently leading stable

family life. Incarcerating him at this distant point of time, it was

urged, would not advance the purpose of justice but rather cause

unnecessary hardship to aged individuals and their families. It is also

submitted that he has undergone 3 days in custody.

In view of these circumstances, learned Counsel prayed that the

appellant be extended the benefit of Section 360 of the Code of

Criminal Procedure and/or the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958,

considering the nature of the offences, the long passage of time, and

his personal circumstances.

9. Upon thoughtful consideration of the submissions made and

after perusal of the record, it is apparent that the occurrence took

place over two and half decades ago. The appellant has already faced

the strain and stigma of criminal proceedings for a considerable

length of time and has also been in custody for 3 days. He has no

previous criminal antecedents and is reported to have maintained

peaceful conduct ever since. Having regard to his advanced age, clean

background, and the long lapse of time since the incident, I am of the

considered view that this is a fit case for extending the benefit of

probation to the appellant.

Reliance is placed on the Judgement of Rattan Lal v. State of

Punjab1, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the object of

the Probation of Offenders Act is to reform the individual offender

and to prevent the conversion of a youthful or first-time offender into

a habitual criminal by subjecting him to prison life. It was held thus: -

"The Act is a milestone in the progress of the modern liberal trend of reform in the field of penology. It is the result of the recognition of the doctrine that the object of criminal law is more to reform the individual offender than to punish him. Broadly stated, the Act distinguishes offenders below 21 years of age and those above that age,

AIR 1965 SC 444

and offenders who are guilty of having committed an offence punishable with death or imprisonment for life and those who are guilty of a lesser offence. While in the case of offenders who are above the age of 21 years absolute discretion is given to the court to release them after admonition or on probation of good conduct, subject to the conditions laid down in the appropriate provisions of the Act, in the case of offenders below the age of 21 years an injunction is issued to the court not to sentence them to imprisonment unless it is satisfied that having regard to the circumstances of the case; including the nature of the offence and the character of the offenders, it is not desirable to deal with them under Sections 3 and 4 of the Act."

Support for this view may be drawn from the decisions of this

Court in Pathani Parida & another vs. Abhaya Kumar

Jagdevmohapatra2 and Dhani @ Dhaneswar Sahu vs. State of

Orissa3 wherein leniency was shown in similar factual circumstance.

10. In light of the foregoing discussion, while the conviction of the

appellant under Sections 354 of the Indian Penal Code is affirmed,

instead of sentencing him to imprisonment, this Court directs that he

be released under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958,

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

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

like amount, to appear and receive sentence when called upon during

the said period and, in the meantime, to maintain peace and good