Orissa High Court
Bipin Bihari Padhy And Others vs State Of Orissa on 28 October, 2025
THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
CRLA No.116 of 2007
(In the matter of an application under Section 374 of the Criminal
Procedure Code, 1973)
Bipin Bihari Padhy and others ....... Appellants
-Versus-
State of Orissa ....... Respondent
For the Appellants : Mr. Birendra Kumar Nayak, Advocate
For the Respondent : Mr. Sarathi Jyoti Mohanty, ASC
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE SHRI JUSTICE SIBO SANKAR MISHRA
Date of Hearing: 28.10.2025 :: Date of Judgment: 28.10.2025
S.S. Mishra, J. The six appellants conjointly filed the present
criminal appeal assailing the judgment and order dated 22.02.2007
passed by the learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge,
Berhampur in Sessions Case No.26/2003 (S.C. No.390/02 GDC),
whereby the learned trial Court while acquitting all the appellants of the
charges under Sections 147/148/294/149/324 of I.P.C. read with Section
3(1)(x) of SC & ST (PoA) Act except appellant No.3. All the appellants
were found guilty of the offence under Section 323 of the I.P.C. and
were convicted thereunder. In addition, appellant No.3, Khirasindhu
Pradhan, was further convicted under Section 324 of the I.P.C.
Accordingly, all the accused persons were sentenced to pay a fine of
Rs.300/-, in default, to undergo R.I. for seven days for offence U/s.323
of I.P.C. and additionally, appellant No.3, Khirasindhu Pradhan was
further sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.500/-, in default, to undergo R.I. for
ten days for offence U/s 324 of I.P.C.
2. Heard Mr. Birendra Kumar Nayak, learned counsel for the
appellants and Mr. Sarathi Jyoti Mohanty, learned Additional Standing
Counsel for the State.
3. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 13.01.2002 at about 9:00
P.M., a political meeting was being held at village Kharapanka,
organized by Nilanchal Pradhan (P.W.5). At that time, Narsinga Sethi
(P.W.2), while riding on a motorcycle driven by his co-villager
Jagabandhu Sahu (P.W.4), happened to pass near the said meeting. It is
alleged that the appellant No.3-Khirasindhu Pradhan abused them in
filthy language, uttering the words "Magia Ochhua Jati Dhoba Sole,"
and questioned how they dared to pass by the meeting on a motorcycle
making such noise. Thereafter, accused Khirasindhu Pradhan allegedly
came down from the meeting pendal, slapped P.W.2, and threatened to
kill him. Out of fear, P.W.2 ran away from the spot. It is further alleged
that at that time, one Prafulla Barik, having spat on Magata Barik,
assaulted him with fists and blows. When Bijay Patro (P.W.3)
intervened, he too was assaulted and thrown to the ground.
Subsequently, when the accused persons rushed towards P.W.2, armed
with khanda-kati, P.W.2 raised his hand in defence, whereupon the
weapon struck his hand, causing injury. Thereafter, the accused persons,
namely, Juria Pradhan (appellant No.4), Bigni Misra (appellant No.2),
Bikas Mandal (appellant No.6), Bipin Padhy (appellant No.1), and
Biswanath Pradhan (appellant No.5) jointly assaulted P.W.2. Hearing the
commotion, the mother of P.W.2, arrived at the spot crying for help. It is
alleged that accused Khirasindhu Pradhan and Biswanath Pradhan, in
furtherance of their common intention, outraged her modesty by forcibly
disrobing her in public on the village danda. Thereafter, Jagabandhu
Sahu (P.W.4) and Bijay Patro (P.W.3), with the assistance of P.W.2, got
a written report scribed and submitted the same before the Officer-in-
Charge, Nuagam Police Station, at the Nuapada Outpost. Upon perusal,
the report disclosed commission of cognizable offences punishable under
Sections 147, 148, 149, 294, 323, 324, 354, and 506 of I.P.C. and
Section 3 of the SC & ST (PoA) Act. Accordingly, the Officer-in-Charge
took up preliminary investigation and forwarded the report to Nuagam
Police Station, whereupon P.S. Case No. 7 of 2002 was registered under
the aforesaid sections.
During investigation, the statements of the complainant and other
witnesses were recorded; the spot was visited, and a spot map (Ext. 6/1)
was prepared. The injured witnesses namely Narsinga Sethi (P.W.2),
Bijay Patro (P.W.3), Jagabandhu Sahu (P.W.4), and Nilanchal Pradhan
(P.W.5) were sent to Nuapada P.H.C. under police requisition for
medical examination. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet
was submitted against the accused persons for the offence under Sections
147, 148, 294, 323, 506 and 149 of I.P.C. read with Section 3(1)(x) of
the SC & ST (PoA) Act. On their stance of denial and claim of trial, they
were put to trial.
4. The prosecution in order to bring home charges examined eight
witnesses. Out of whom, P.Ws.3 and 4 were the complainants. P.Ws. 2,
5 and 6 were the villagers, out of whom P.W.2 and P.W.5 were the
victims of assault. P.W.1 was the doctor, who examined the injured
persons. P.W.7 was the I.O. of the case and P.W.8 was the another I.O.,
who submitted the charge-sheet.
5. Although initially the appellants were charged under Section
147/148/324/323/294/149 of I.P.C. read with Section 3(1)(x) of the SC
& ST (PoA) Act, however, the learned trial Court after analyzing the
evidence of the P.Ws.2, 3, 4 and 5 have arrived at a conclusion that the
accused persons are not guilty of the offences under Sections
147/148/294/149 of I.P.C. read with Section 3(1)(x) of the SC & ST
(PoA) Act rather they have been held guilty of the offences under
Sections 323 of I.P.C. and on that count, sentence has been awarded,
apart from it appellant No.3 Khirasindhu has also been convicted under
Section 324 of I.P.C. Relevant part of the impugned judgment is
reproduced hereunder:-
"13. On careful and close consideration of the evidence of
pws. 2, 3, 4 and 5 it is seen from the same that accused
Khirasindhu assaulted Narasinga Sethi,pw.2 by a katua-
badi which is an iron pipe fitted with triangle shape iron
in one end on his right elbow and Bijay Patro pw. 3 by a
khanda-kati on his belly which struck on both his fore-
arms as he warded of the blow by the same. Accused
persons Juria Pradhan, Bigneswar Misra, Biswanath
Pradhan, Bipin Padhy and Bikas Mandal assaulted
Narasinga pw. 2 and Nilanchal Pradhan pw. 5 by katua-
badi. As accused Khirasindhu stated to have assaulted
Narasinga Sethi pw. 2 by a katua badi, which is an iron
pipe fitted with triangle shape iron in one end it suggests
that the same is a sharp pointed instrument. But as the
medical examination report of Narasinga Sethi marked
ext: 4' does not show that he sustained any sharp cutting
or punctured injury on his person, assault to him by the
weapon as has been stated cannot be accepted, but as
Khirasindhu attempted to dealt a khanda kati blow on the
belly of Bijay Patro-pw. 3 to which as he warded of his
hands, the same struck on both of his fore-arms causing
injury and the medical examination report of said Bijay
Patro marked ext. 2 shows that he sustained lenier incised
wounds on both of his fore arms which were caused by
sharp cutting weapon, the prosecution allegation and
evidence that accused Khirasindhu assaulted Bijay Patro
pw.3 by a sharp cutting weapon is believed and accepted.
The injury reports of Narsinga Sethi pw. 2, Jagabandhu
Sahu pw. 4, Nilanchal Pradhan pw. 5, marked ext. 4, ext. 1
and ext. 3 respectively shows that they sustained abrasion
and bruise on their person by blunt object and the doctor
pw.1 testifies the same, it is concluded on the basis of the
available materials that simple hurt was caused to the said
injured by the accused persons.
14. The above being the totality of the prosecution
evidence on record on the analysis/discussion made
thereof it is seen the prosecution has not been able to
prove/establish the charges/offences u/s. 147, 148, 294
and Sec. 3(1)(x) S. C. and S. T. (PA) Act all read-with Sec.
149 I.P.C. But the prosecution has been able to
prove/establish the charge/offence u/s.323 1.P.С. against
all the accused persons and the charge/offence u/s.324
1.2. C. against accused Khirasindhu Pradhan, but failed
to prove the said charge/offence against the other accused
persons.
15. In the result, therefore, the accused persons are found
not guilty of the charges/offences u/s. 147, 148, 294 and
sec. 3(1)(x) S.C. and S. T. (PA) Act all read with Sec. 149
I.P.C. and acquitted of the said charges/offences
u/s.235(1) Cr.P.C. Further the accused persons except
Khirasindhu Pradhan are found not guilty of the
charge/offence u/s. 324 I.P.C. and acquitted of the said
charge/offence u/s.235(1) Cr.P.C. But all the accused
persons are found guilty of the charge/offence u/s.323
I.P.C. and convicted thereunder and further accused
Khirasindhu Pradhan is found guilty of the charge/offence
u/s. 324 I.P.C. and convicted thereunder. Hence, the
accused persons are called upon for hearing on the
question of sentence."
6. Being aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and order of
sentence passed by the learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge-cum-
Special Judge, Berhampur, the present appeal has been preferred by the
appellants.
7. At the outset, learned counsel for the appellants submitted that in
so far as the conviction recorded against the appellants is concerned, he
would not press the appeal and would confine his arguments only to the
quantum of sentence imposed. It is submitted that the incident relates
back to the year 2002, and at that time, the appellant No.1 was fifty years
of age, appellant No.2 was 45 years of age, appellant No.3 was 52 years
of age, appellant No.4 was 49 years of age, appellant no.5 was 55 years
of age and the appellant No.6 was 35 years of age. At present, they are in
their late seventies and have been leading a respectable and dignified life
along with their family. The appellants have no criminal antecedents,
and no other case of a similar or any other nature is pending against him.
Over the years, they have remained well integrated into society and have
maintained a settled family life. It is urged that sending them back to
custody after such a long passage of time would serve no useful
penological purpose and would instead be counter-productive, casting an
unnecessary stigma not only upon them but also upon their family
members, particularly when there is no allegation of any repeat offence
or non-compliance with law thereafter.
8. Learned counsel for the appellants further submits that all the
appellants were arrested on 19.01.2002 and they were released on bail on
23.01.2002. Therefore, the appellants have already undergone about five
days custody. The learned trial Court has not sentenced the appellants to
undergo custody rather imposed fine.
9. Considering the fact that the incident occurred almost two decades
ago, and the appellants are now in their late seventies, have no other
criminal involvement, and have lived a reformed and socially respectable
life since then, I am inclined to take a lenient view. Accordingly, while
affirming the conviction, the substantive sentences imposed by the
learned trial Court are reduced to the period the appellants already
undergone. Additionally, the fines as imposed by the learned court below
stands waived.
10. Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal is partly allowed.
(S.S. Mishra)
Judge
The High Court of Orissa, Cuttack.
Dated the 28th October, 2025/ Swarna
Designation: Senior Stenographer
Location: High Court of Orissa
