Ganeshwar Behera vs State Of Odisha .... Opposite Party
2026 Latest Caselaw 3618 Ori

Orissa High Court

Ganeshwar Behera vs State Of Odisha .... Opposite Party on 20 April, 2026

Author: V. Narasingh

Bench: V. Narasingh

     IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

                  CRLREV No.704 of 2003

   (In the matter of an application under Section 401
   of read with Section 397 of Cr.P.C.)

Ganeshwar behera              ....                       Petitioner

                         -versus-

State of Odisha               ....               Opposite Party


 For Petitioner           :    Ms. B. Nayak, Amicus Curiae
 For Opposite Party       :    Mr. S.Panigrahi, ASC


               CORAM: JUSTICE V. NARASINGH


        DATE OF FINAL HEARING :               05.02.2026

        DATE OF JUDGMENT                :     20.04.2026

V. Narasingh,J.          Heard learned Amicus Curie
   for the petitioner and learned counsel for state.
   1.

This Criminal Revision has been filed assailing the judgment dated 26.07.2003 passed by the learned Adhoc Addl. Sessions Judge (II), Dhenkanal in Criminal Appeal No.31/99 of 2002, affirming the order of conviction qua the petitioner dated 29.07.2002 passed by the learned S.D.J.M., Hindol in G.R.

Case No.94/95 (Trial No.11 of 1996) under Sections 498(A) of the IPC and sentencing him to undergo rigorous Imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- in default to undergo rigorous Imprisonment for three months more.

2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that the victim, Sarojini Behera, married the Petitioner in 1970 as per Hindu rites and lived with him happily for some time, but he later, allegedly instigated by his elder brothers, began to ill- treat and neglect her, leading to intervention by the Sub-Collector and local elders and a temporary reunion, however, after about five years, the Petitioner, despite her protest, contracted a second marriage and, though it was decided in a meeting that he would transfer half of his landed property to her, he instead sold the property, continued to ill-treat her, and left the village to reside at Talamula with his second wife, whereafter the informant lodged a report before the Superintendent of Police, Dhenkanal, resulting in registration of the case and submission of charge-sheet against the Petitioner under Sections 498-A and

494 IPC, and he faced trial before the court below.

3. To drive home the charge, the prosecution examined five witnesses and three witnesses were examined on behalf of the accused Petitioner. Several documents were also marked as Exhibits 1 to 3 on behalf of the prosecution.

4. Considering the evidence on record, the learned Trial Court convicted the Petitioner under Sections 498(A) of the IPC and sentenced him to undergo rigorous Imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- and in default to undergo rigorous Imprisonment for three months more.

On appeal being preferred, the Appellate Court affirmed the order of conviction and sentence imposed, which is the subject matter of the present revision.

5. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the Petitioner that, even if the entire prosecution case is accepted at its face value, the offence under Section 498-A I.P.C. is not made out. It is further submitted that, even assuming the conviction under Section 498-A

I.P.C. and the sentence of rigorous imprisonment for one year with a fine of Rs. 1000/- can be sustained, there was no reason for the learned Trial Court not to extend the benefit of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as the P.O. Act). It is also contended that the reason assigned for non-extension of the P.O. Act is untenable, as reflected from the observation made in this regard, which is extracted hereunder;

" If the benefit of P.O. Act will be extended to the offenders of such nature, this sort of disease will spread in the society like wild fire"

6. It is further submitted that, without properly appreciating the evidence on record, the learned Appellate Court affirmed the order of conviction and sentence. Exception is also taken to the fact that the Appellate Court did not consider the non-extension of the benefit of the P.O. Act by the learned Trial Court. Hence, it is prayed that this Court may exercise its revisional jurisdiction.

7. Learned counsel for the State opposes such prayer.

8. It is apt to note that though the Petitioner was charged under Sections 498-A and 494 I.P.C., the learned Trial Court acquitted him of the charge under Section 494 I.P.C. which is evident from the evidence on record of P.W.1 (the Informant), P.W.2 (mother of the Informant), P.W.3 (brother of the Informant), and P.W.4 (the I.O.).

9. The evidence of P.W.1 is of seminal importance. On going through her evidence in the light of the ingredients of Section 498-A I.P.C., this Court is of the considered view that the offence under Section 498-A is clearly made out. There is no infirmity in the appreciation of evidence by the learned Trial Court as well as the learned Appellate Court in convicting the Petitioner and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months.

10. Alternatively, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the Petitioner that, so far as

sentence is concerned, taking into account that the same does not fall under the embargo under Section 4 of the Probaation of Offenders Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as 'P.O. Act'), the benefit of the said Act may be extended to the Petitioner, since the occurrence is of the year 1995 and, over these years, there is no allegation against the Petitioner that he has indulged himself in any other offence. It is also stated that at present he is aged around 77 years, and it is submitted that after such lapse of time, directing him to undergo the punishment as prescribed would not serve any purpose.

11. Considering the nature of the offence and conviction in the light of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Chellammal and anr. V. State represented by the Inspector of Police, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 870, this Court is of the considered view that instead of directing the Petitioner to serve the sentence, extending the benefit of the P.O. Act would subserve the ends of justice.

12. Hence, in the given factual matrix of the case at hand and in view of the evidence on

record, while maintaining the conviction recorded against the Petitioner, and having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is inclined to direct the release of the Petitioners on probation under Section 4 of the P.O. Act, on conditions to be settled by the Trial Court.

13. The Criminal Revision is accordingly disposed of.

14. It is further directed that the Petitioner shall pay compensation of Rs.1000/- to the victim, and failing which, the same shall entail action in accordance with procedure laid down under Section 5 of the P.O. Act.

15. In this context, it is apt to note that, so far as Section 5(2) of the P.O. Act is concerned, in the event of default in payment of the amount ordered under Section 5(1) of the said Act, the amount shall be recovered as a fine in accordance with the provisions of Sections 386/387 of the Code.

16. It is further clarified that the "Code" herein refers to the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, which corresponds to Sections 461/462

of BNSS 2023 (Sections 421 and 422 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973).

17. The Criminal Revision, along with I.As, if any, accordingly stand disposed of.

18. The bail bond(s) stand cancelled and the sureties are discharged.

(V. NARASINGH) Judge Orissa High Court, Cuttack Dated the 20th April , 2026/ Soumya

Signed by: SOUMYA RANJAN SAMAL

Location: High Court of Orissa Date: 01-May-2026 17:59:00