Chaiyan Naik vs State Of Odisha on 20 April, 2026

Author: V. Narasingh

Bench: V. Narasingh

        IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

                         CRLREV No.722 of 2003

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

 1.

 Chaiyan Naik      ....                        Petitioners
 2. Padma @ Padmabati
 Naik


                               -versus-

 State of Odisha
                                     ....     Opposite Party



          For Petitioners    : Ms. S. Sukla, Amicus Curiae

For Opposite Party : Mr. C.R. Swain, AGA

CORAM: JUSTICE V. NARASINGH

DATE OF FINAL HEARING : 05.02.2026

DATE OF JUDGMENT : 20.04.2026

V. Narasingh,J. Heard learned amicus curiae for the petitioner and learned counsel for state.

1. This Criminal Revision has been filed assailing the judgment dated 22.01.2003 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge

(F.T.), Keonjhar in Criminal Appeal No. 6/186 of 1999/2002, by which the appeal was partly allowed and the order of conviction dated 10.02.1999 passed by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Champua in S.T. Case No. 10/23 of 1998 under Sections 323/307/34 IPC, sentencing the Petitioners to undergo R.I. for 6 months with a fine of Rs. 5,000/- each, in default to undergo R.I. for 6 months, and further to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- each under Section 323 IPC, in default to undergo S.I. for 2 months and 15 days, was modified by setting aside the conviction under Section 307 IPC and altering the conviction to one under Section 324 IPC, sentencing them to undergo R.I. for 6 months with a fine of Rs. 3,000/-(Rupees Three Thousand only) each, in default to undergo R.I. for 3 months.

2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that the informant Laxmi Naik and the injured are close relations, and on 12.06.1997 at about 11 A.M., accused Padma Naik- Petitioner No.2 sprinkled cow-dung water in front of her house and threw

the remaining along with rubbish in front of the informant's house, and on protest abused her and threw brick-bats causing injury to her leg, thereafter co-accused Chaiyan Naik, husband of accused Petitioner No.2, brought a lathi, abused and threatened to commit murder and dealt blows on the hand and head of the informant causing pain and breaking to her bangles, when Ramani Naik, mother of the informant, rushed to the spot, accused Petitioner No.2 caught hold of her while accused Petitioner No.1 dealt lathi blows on her hand and head causing bleeding injuries, and when Lalita Naik, P.W.4 intervened, accused Petitioner No.2 assaulted her by fists and kicks while accused Petitioner No.1 dealt lathi blows causing injuries, and Filinga Naik, P.W.3, who also intervened, was assaulted accused Petitioner No.1 with a lathi causing head injury, the condition of Ramani Naik became serious and she was taken to the hospital, and on the following day, i.e., 13.06.1997, the F.I.R. was lodged at Champua P.S., which has been marked as Exhibit-1.

3. The Petitioners were charged with the commission of offence under Sections 307/34, 323/34 and 506/34 of IPC for causing injury to one Ramani Naik (P.W.2).

4. To drive home the charge, the prosecution examined eight witnesses, of whom P.W.1, the informant, P.W.2, the injured, and P.W.4, who also tried to intervene, are of significance, along with the I.O., P.W.7 and the Doctor, P.W.8. Several documents were also exhibited at the behest of the prosecution as Ext Nos.1 to 6, of which Exhibit-6, the injury report, is material.

Defense evidence was adduced D.W.1 on behalf of the accused Petitioners.

5. The learned Trial Court, on consideration of the evidence on record, found the Petitioners guilty under Sections 323/307/34 IPC and sentenced them as noted above.

On appeal being preferred by the accused Petitioners, considering the evidence on record, the learned Appellate Court, by judgment dated 22.01.2003 in Criminal Appeal No. 6/186 of

1999/2002 while negating the submissions of the Petitioners that the prosecution case suffers from innate contradictions for which the Petitioners are liable to be acquitted of all the charges, acquitted the Petitioners of the charge under Section 307 IPC and altered their conviction to one under Section 324 IPC and directed them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 3,000/- each, in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three months, challenging which the present revision has been filed.

6. Learned Public Prosecutor submits that, in fact, the learned Appellate Court has taken a very liberal view and as such the matter does not merit consideration by this Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction.

7. This Court is not oblivious to the scope of interference while exercising revisional jurisdiction and since the allegation of perverse appreciation cannot be adjudicated without analyzing the evidence on record, for such

limited purpose this Court considers it appropriate to scan the evidence.

8. On careful scrutiny of the evidence on record, considering the rival submissions and on perusal of the evidence on record, this Court does not find any infirmity in the appreciation of evidence by the learned Appellate Court in altering the conviction to one under Section 324 IPC so as to warrant interference in this Criminal Revision, and accordingly, the conviction and sentence as passed by the learned Appellate Court is hereby affirmed.

9. On the question of sentence, taking into account that the incident took place in the year 1997 and that in the meanwhile both the Petitioners, being husband and wife, are aged about 79 and 74 years respectively, and taking a cue from 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 persuaded to hold that the benefit of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 (hereinafter

referred to as the P.O. Act) can be extended to the Petitioner, since ex facie the offence does not suffer from the disqualification as envisaged under Section 4(1) of the Act, 1958.

10. Accordingly, the benefit of the P.O. Act is extended, and this Court directs that Petitioner be released on probation under Section 4 of the P.O. Act, on conditions to be settled by the learned Trial Court.

11. It is further directed that the Petitioners shall pay compensation of Rs.5000/- to the injured and failing which, the same shall entail action in accordance with procedure laid down under Section 5 of the P.O. Act.

12. 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.

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).

13. The Criminal Revision is accordingly disposed of.

14. Bail bond(s) stand cancelled and sureties are discharged.

15. The fees of the learned Amicus Curiae shall be fixed as per the schedule adopted by the Legal Services Authority, High Court of Orissa, for conducting criminal cases in this Court. Such fees shall be disbursed on being moved.

(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