Prasanta Sahu And Another vs State Of Orissa
2025 Latest Caselaw 10155 Ori

Orissa High Court

Prasanta Sahu And Another vs State Of Orissa on 18 November, 2025

         THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

                        CRLA No. 495 of 2010

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


Prasanta Sahu and another       .......                      Appellants
                               -Versus-

State of Orissa                 .......                       Respondent

For the Appellants : Mrs. Sujata Jena, Advocate

For the Respondent : Mr. R.B. Dash, ASC

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE SHRI JUSTICE SIBO SANKAR MISHRA

Date of Hearing: 13.11.2025 : Date of Judgment: 18.11.2025

S.S. Mishra, J. The present Criminal Appeal is jointly preferred by

two appellants challenging the judgment and order dated 04.09.2010

passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Balangir in Sessions

Case No. 53/34 of 2009 (arising out of G.R. Case No. 147 of 2007)

convicting them for offence under Section 323/34 of IPC and sentenced

them to undergo R.I. for a period of six months, further directing to set

off the period of detention already undergone as Under Trial Prisoner.

2. The prosecution story in the present case narrates that there was

enmity between the accused persons and the informant-Banamali

Chhatria, who was returning to his house from the village at 6.00 P.M.

on 26.09.2007. On the date of occurrence, the accused persons had

concealed themselves in the cowshed of one Nimai Sahu. While the

informant was passing the Harijanpada, the accused persons came out

from the cowshed and uttered obscene languages as "Magiha Ganda

Bandha Thika Hoichhu Machha Chasa Karichhu". They restrained the

informant and assaulted him by wooden riba, which were being held by

them. It is alleged that the accused persons so assaulted in order to

commit murder of the informant. The informant sustained injuries on

his head, legs and chest and sustained bleeding injury on his head. He

was given some water by one Dhanurjaya Bhitiria who also removed

the informant to the police station. It was further alleged that the

accused persons had intentionally insulted and intimidated the

informant, who is a member of scheduled caste community to humiliate

him within public view.

3. On the basis of the aforementioned allegations, Loisingha P.S.

Case No.147 dated 26.09.2007 was registered and investigation was

conducted. Charge sheet was filed against the appellants and on their

stance of complete denial and claim for trial, they were put to trial after

the charges were framed.

4. To establish the charges, the prosecution examined nine

witnesses. P.W.3 was the informant and victim, whereas P.Ws.2 and 4

were the eye witnesses. P.W.1 was a witness, who reached the spot

immediately after the occurrence. P.W.5 was the Medical Officer, who

examined P.W.3 and submitted injury report. P.Ws.6 and 8 were the

Investigating Officers. P.W.7 was a witness, who has been examined to

prove that the informant had taken a pond for pisciculture purpose for

which the accused persons had disputed with him (P.W.3) and P.W.9

was the Tahasildar, who had issued the caste certificate in respect of the

parties.

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

record accorded the finding regarding the guilt of the accused persons

and passed a very detailed and extensive judgment. Paragraph-11 of the

judgment will give a clear idea as to how the learned trial court has

appreciated the evidence to the following effect:-

"11. The prosecution heavily relies upon the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 4 to prove assaults to P.W.3 by the accused persons with riba/wodden planks. It also relies on the expert testimony of P.W.5 who had examined P.W.3 and submitted the injury report Ext.2. The evidence of P.W.5 show detection

of one cut injury on the left side of head, one abrasion each on the left leg, middle of the chest and another abrasion on the left side chest of P.W.3. The medical officer has opined that all those injuries were simple in nature and can be caused by hard and blunt object and those age was within 24 hours of examination. All those evidence of P.W.5 have not been effectively challenged and so I find nothing to disbelieve this version of P.W.5. Now it is to be seen if the accused persons were the author of those injuries.

P.Ws.2 and 3 have clearly stated about assault to P.W.3 by the accused persons. According to P.W.3 the accused Makunda Sahu dealt a blow on his head by a wooden split whereas the accused Prasanta Sahu dealt a blow on his chest and his left leg by wooden planks. P.W.2 has stated in his chief examination about the assault to P.W.3 by the accused persons without specifying the portion of the body where the blow fell. However, in his cross-examination dt.16.12.2009 it has been elicited from him that the accused Makunda Sahu assaulted P.W.3 on his head by means of a bamboo stick. Of course it is true the theory of bamboo stick is a discrepancy in the evidence of P.W.2. But then P.W.2 is a rustic villager and in his earlier cross examination on 08.10.2009 he has clearly stated that the accused persons were holding wooden split. Thus it can be said that he has erred to speak on 16.12.2009 that the accused Makunda Sahu assaulted by a bamboo stick. This minor discrepancy can safely be ignored in view of the status of P.W.2 and the aforesaid evidence given at two occasions. Much criticism has been levelled against P.W.2 as because he could not have crossed that spot while returning from his field. However, I find from his cross examination that he was returning to his house after working in the field. But he has admitted that by that time he was proceeding on the road leading to the pond and there is no road after the pond. Thus the defence says that the presence of P.W.2 at the spot then is most suspicious. But this taken the defence case nowhere. P.W.2 is a cultivator and he was returning to his house from the agricultural land. So it is not strange if he thought it proper in proceeding to the pond to wash himself before returning to his house. Therefore, I am not able to agree with the defence that P.W.2 could not have been present at the spot then. Even if it is held that P.W.4 is the brother-in-law of the informant and had not seen the occurrence as he had reached spot when P.W.2 was applying

water to P.W.3, it does not effect the present case in any way. P.Ws.2 and 3 have corroborated each other regarding assault to P.W.3 by the accused persons by wooden split. Those two witnesses have corroborated each other in material particulars and I find no infirmities in their evidence to disbelieve them. Their evidence is also supported by P.W.1 who reached the spot immediately hearing the hullah. This witness has also heard from P.W.3 that it was the accused persons who had assaulted the latter by means of lathi. The evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3 appears to be straight forward reliable and trustworthy. It has to be kept in mind that it is in the evidence of P.W.1 about presence of a civil dispute between the P.W.3 and the accused persons. P.W.3 has also stated that he had taken a reservoir on lease lower to which the lands of the accused persons is situated. Of course nothing has been seized by the I.O. regarding taking of the reservoir on lease. But the fact remains that there was prior dispute between P.W.3 and the accused persons. Therefore, it is clear that for that dispute only this incident took place. As stated above the ocular evidence adduced by the prosecution though P.Ws.1 to 3 has been supported by detection of injuries on the person of P.W.3 by the Medical Officer (P.W.5). The oral testimony regarding the place of body where the blows fall finds corroboration from the detection of injuries by P.W.5. Therefore I find no reason to entertain a suspicion over the version of the prosecution regarding causing of simple hurt to P.W.3 by the accused persons. At this stage it has been argued by the learned defence counsel that no blood stained clothes or blood stained cloth or earth at the spot have been seized by the I.Os. P.Ws.6 and 8. He has relied upon the case of State of Rajsthan Vrs. Tarani Singh and another, reported in (2004) 27 OCR (SC) at page 471 to raise such a contention. It is no doubt true that in the present case the I.Os have failed in their duty by not effecting seizure of any blood stained clothes or earth. However, this latches or inability of the I.Os. in that respect not necessarily leads to the conclusion that the trustworthy ocular testimony of P.Ws.1 to 3 and the expert testimony of P.W.5 cannot be accepted. In the above said reported case there was seizure of clothes where any blood stains were absent. In that case the deceased was profusely bleeding. In those circumstances it was held by the Hon'ble Apex Court that absence of blood stains makes the prosecution case is doubtful. But facts of the present case are different inasmuch as the I.O. had failed to

effect such seizure. Therefore, the aforesaid reported case relied upon by the defence are clearly distinguishable from the fact of the present case. On the other hand as I find and observed above the prosecution has clearly made out by adducing cogent evidence to the effect that simple hurt was caused to P.W.3 at the hands of the accused persons and therefore, I am inclined to hold that the accused persons are liable for the offence U/s.323/34 of I.P.C."

6. The appellants are aggrieved by the aforesaid findings recorded

by the learned trial court, which led to their conviction and sentence,

they have preferred the present appeal.

7. Heard Mrs. Sujata Jena, learned counsel for the appellants and

Mr. R.B. Dash, learned Additional Standing Counsel for the State.

8. At the outset, Mrs. Jena, learned counsel appearing for the

appellants submitted that the offence relates back to an incident

happened in the year 2007 and at that point of time all the appellants are

in their early thirties and forties. About one and half decades have

passed by in between and all the appellants are in their early forties and

fifties and the sentence imposed on them by the learned trial court is

only six months R.I. She has submitted that the appellants have already

undergone one month sentence. Therefore, she confines her argument

only to the quantum of sentence.

9. The appellants have already incarcerated for one month. Apart

from that, while analyzing the evidence on record, I find no reason to

disagree with the findings recorded by the learned trial court. Hence, I

affirm the conviction recorded against the appellants of the charges for

the offence under Sections 323/34 of IPC.

10. At this stage, Mrs. Jena, submitted that keeping in view the

procrastinated judicial process undergone by the appellants in this case

and the ordeal of trial faced by the appellants, this Court may dispose of

the appeal by giving lenient consideration to the sentence. She

submitted that the incident relates back to the year 2007. The appellants

have undergone the rigors of trial for about two years. Thereafter, the

appeal was preferred in the year 2007. The appeal has been prolonging

to be heard for about 18 years. The appellants are now in their early

forties and fifties. The learned counsel further submitted that the

appellants have no criminal antecedents and no other case of a similar

nature or otherwise is stated to be pending against them. Over the years,

they have led a dignified life, integrated well into society, and is

presently leading a settled family life.

11. Regard being had to the societal position of the appellants, their

clean antecedents, and the fact that the incident had taken place in the

year 2007, I am of the considered view that the appellants are not

required to undergo any further imprisonment at this stage of their life,

considering the fact that they have already suffered the ordeal of trial

and appeal for more than one and half decades and have undergone

custody for about one month during the trial period. Hence, the sentence

imposed by the learned trial court is reduced to the period already

undergone by the accused appellants. However, in order to meet the

ends of justice, each of the appellants is directed to pay a fine of

Rs.3,000/- (Rupees Three Thousand) within a period of two months,

and in default of payment of such fine, they shall undergo Simple

Imprisonment for a further period of two months. The amount to be

deposited shall be disbursed to the victims/L.Rs. of the victim, if the

victim is not survived, as per the provisions of Section 357 Cr.P.C.

12. Accordingly the Criminal Appeal is partly allowed and disposed

of.

(S.S. Mishra) Judge

The High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Dated the 18th of November, 2025/Ashok

Signed by: ASHOK KUMAR JAGADEB MOHAPATRA

Location: High Court of Orissa Date: 25-Nov-2025 16:53:27