Gopinath Mahakur vs State Of Odisha .... Opposite Party
2026 Latest Caselaw 1276 Ori

Orissa High Court

Gopinath Mahakur vs State Of Odisha .... Opposite Party on 11 February, 2026

Author: V. Narasingh

Bench: V. Narasingh

        IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
                        CRREV No.123 of 2000

     In the matter of an application under Section 397 read
     with Section 401 of Cr.P.C., 1973.
                               ------------------

      Gopinath Mahakur                      ....           Petitioner
                                 -versus-

     State of Odisha                        ....   Opposite Party

     For Petitioner              :          Mr. Arun Kumar Acharya
                                                     Amicus Curiae



     For Opposite Party          :                Mr. A.K. Pati, ASC

                         CORAM:
                         JUSTICE V. NARASINGH


         DATE OF HEARING & JUDGMENT :            11.02.2026

     V. Narasingh, J.

1. Heard Mr. A.K. Acharya, learned Amicus Curiae for the Petitioner and learned counsel for the State.

2. Assailing the judgment dated 09.02.2000 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Sonepur in Criminal Appeal No.55/32 of 1995-99 confirming the judgment and the order of conviction under Section 394 of the IPC and

sentence to undergo R.I. for five years and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- in default to undergo R.I. for one month passed by the learned Asst. Sessions Judge, Sonepur in Sessions Case No.90/5 of 1994, this Criminal Revision has been preferred.

3. To fortify its case, the prosecution had examined ten witnesses, out of which the evidence of P.W.1-the informant is of significance.

Several documents were also exhibited and marked as Exts. 1 to 8.

Neither documentary nor oral evidence was adduced on behalf of the accused Petitioner.

                The     plea   of   the   defence   was   one     of
       complete denial.

4. It is apt to note that one of the co-accused, namely Prabhash Chandra Bebarta, who faced trial along with the present Petitioner, had assailed the order of conviction as affirmed by the learned Appellate Court in Criminal Revision No. 122 of 2000. By order dated 19.02.2019, taking into account that he had already undergone more than four years and three months of incarceration and considering that the Petitioner therein was not assailing the conviction on merits, this Court held that ends of justice would be sub-served if the

substantive sentence were reduced to the period already undergone.

5. It may not be out of place to note that on perusal of the record, it is stated at the Bar that the observation of this Court to the effect that the Petitioner therein, Prabhash Chandra Bebarta, had undergone incarceration for four years and three months is an error apparent on the face of the record and in fact the period of custody was one year and four months.

However, since the order was passed in the year 2019 and keeping in view the attending circumstances, including the young age of the Petitioner therein (20 years) at the time of occurrence, this Court is persuaded to give the matter a quietus.

6. During the course of hearing, the learned Amicus Curiae submits that there are gaping holes in the prosecution case, which do not inspire confidence. Hence, notwithstanding the limitation imposed on this Court while exercising revisional jurisdiction, the matter merits consideration.

7. Alternatively, it is submitted that taking into account that the Petitioner is a first offender, was aged about 21 years at the relevant time and had suffered incarceration of one year and four months

and has no criminal antecedent and has not misused the trust reposed in him, which is not seriously opposed by the learned counsel for the State, the substantive sentence may be reduced to the period already undergone, as was done in the case of the co-accused.

8. Considering such submissions and taking into account that the occurrence took place on 20.12.1993 and that the Petitioner was aged about 21 years at the time and that there is no adverse report against him, as stated at the Bar, this Court feels that the ends of justice would be sub-served, if the substantive sentence is reduced to the period already undergone and in the peculiar factual matrix the fine amount is set aside.

9. Before parting with this case, this Court places on record its deep sense of appreciation for the efforts made by the learned Amicus Curiae, Mr. Acharya, in assisting this Court in arriving at a just conclusion.

10. The fees of the learned Amicus Curiae is assessed at Rs.7,500/-. The Legal Services Authority, High Court of Orissa, is requested to disburse the same to the learned Amicus Curiae on being moved.

11. Bail bond(s) stand cancelled and sureties discharged.

12. The Criminal Revision along with pending I.As, if any, is accordingly disposed of.

(V. Narasingh) Judge Orissa High Court, Cuttack, Dated the 11th February, 2026/Ayesha

Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack