Orissa High Court
Mohan Bag @ Tulu Bag vs State Of Orissa on 9 September, 2025
THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
CRA No.146 of 1997
(In the matter of an application under Section 374(2) of the Criminal
Procedure Code, 1973)
Mohan Bag @ Tulu Bag ....... Appellant
-Versus-
State of Orissa ....... Respondent
For the Appellant : Mr. Debi Prasad Dhal, Senior Advocate
along with Mr. Anshuman Roy, Advocate
For the Respondent : Mr. Raj Bhusan Dash, ASC
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE SHRI JUSTICE SIBO SANKAR MISHRA
Date of Hearing: 19.08.2025 :: Date of Judgment: 09.09.2025
S.S. Mishra, J. The present Criminal Appeal, filed by the appellant-
Mohan Bag @ Tulu Bag under Sections 374(2) of the Cr.P.C., is directed
against the judgment and order dated 21.06.1997 passed by the learned
Additional Sessions Judge, Titilagarh in Sessions Case No.106/29 of
1996, whereby the present appellant has been convicted for the offence
under Section 324 of the I.P.C. and on that count, he was sentenced to
undergo R.I. for two years.
2. Heard Mr. Debi Prasad Dhal, learned Senior Advocate along with
Mr. Anshuman Roy, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Raj
Bhusan Dash, learned Additional Standing Counsel for the State.
3. The prosecution case in terse and brief is that on 24.06.1996, at
about 8.25 A.M., while the informant-Hrudanand Bag (P.W.1) was going
towards Basti, the accused on the way met him and asked about his
destination, to which, he replied that he was going to report against him
to the police as he did not listen to the Bhadraloks in the meeting held on
the previous day. So, saying this, while the informant was in the Basti to
collect document of the Panchayat, his mother informed him that the
accused-appellant stabbed his wife with knife at five to six places with
an intention to kill her. After reaching the spot, he found that there were
multiple injuries sustained by his wife, the injured (P.W.3) over different
parts of her body and she was lying senseless in a pool of blood near the
house of one Ratan Bag. Thereafter, he along with his brother (P.W.4)
caught hold the accused by chasing him.
4. The matter was reported at the police station and on the basis of
the aforesaid allegations; the police investigated the case and filed the
charge-sheet for the offence punishable under Section 307 of I.P.C. on
05.08.1996. On the stance of appellant's denial of involvement in the
crime, he was put to trial after the charges were framed.
5. The prosecution in order to prove its case examined as many as
seven witnesses. Out of whom, P.W.1 was the informant and the
husband of the injured/victim. P.W.2 is the mother-in-law of the injured
and an eye witness to the occurrence. P.W.3 is the injured/victim. P.W.4
was a post-occurrence witness and was the brother of the informant.
P.W.5 was the doctor, who examined the injured. P.Ws.6 and 7 were the
two Investigating Officer of this case.
6. The learned trial Court by taking into consideration the entire
evidence brought on record arrived at the following conclusion:-
"In the premises it is deduced that the prosecution
has succeeded well in establishing its case against
the accused beyond all reasonable doubts to the
extent indicate above. Accordingly, the accused is
found guilty U/S/ 324 of the I.P.C. and convicted
thereunder."
7. Being aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and order of
sentence passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Titilagarh, the
present appeal has been preferred by the appellant.
8. Mr. Roy, learned counsel for the appellant, at the outset, submitted
that he would confine his argument limited to the question of sentence
instead of challenging the conviction recorded against the appellant.
Therefore, I need not venture into the merits of the case by
re-appreciating the entire evidence. Suffice it to say that initially the
appellant was charged under Section 307 of I.P.C., however, the learned
trial Court found the appellant not guilty of the said charges, to which
the State has not questioned. The appellant has assailed the conviction
recorded against him of the offence under Section 324 of I.P.C. and on
that count, the sentence has been awarded. Since the appellant has
chosen not to question the conviction and rather confined his case to the
quantum of sentence, I prefer to consider all the attending circumstances
to modify the sentence.
9. Mr. Roy, learned counsel for the appellant brought to the notice
of this Court that during trial, the appellant was arrested on 24.06.1996
and was enlarged on bail on 11.09.1996. The impugned judgment was
passed on 21.06.1997 and the appellant was taken into custody.
Thereafter, the appellant has been released on bail by this Court vide
order dated 16.07.1997. Therefore, Mr. Roy submitted that the appellant
has already undergone custody for about three months from the total
awarded sentence. Mr. Roy, also submitted that the appellant was 22
years of age at the time of incident i.e. in the year 1996. At present, he is
about 51 years of age. Therefore, he prays that the appellant may be
treated under the Probation of Offenders' Act.
10. Taking into consideration the submission made by the learned
Counsel at bar, although as mentioned in the above paragraphs, I hold
the accused guilty of offence under Section 324 of I.P.C., but deem it
appropriate to modify the sentence. Considering the entire features of the
case, I could have dealt with the appellant under Section 4 of the
Probation of the Offenders' Act. However, when the appellant has
already suffered imprisonment for three months, injustice would be
compounded if I now grant him the treatment under the Probation of
Offender's Act. I would, therefore, while affirming the conviction,
reduce the sentence to the period the appellant has already undergone.
However, in the fitness of the circumstances and to meet ends of justice,
I feel it appropriate, to impose a fine of Rs.10,000/- (rupees ten
thousand), in default of which the appellant shall undergo Rigorous
Imprisonment for one month. The fine amount shall be realized to the
victim (if alive) or to his husband as per the procedure established under
Section 357 Cr.P.C.
11. Accordingly, the CRA is partly allowed.
(S.S. Mishra)
Judge
The High Court of Orissa, Cuttack.
Dated the 9th September, 2025/ Swarna
Designation: Senior Stenographer
Location: High Court of Orissa
