[Cites 13, Cited by 0]
Orissa High Court
Shasikanta Jena vs State Of Orissa .... Opposite Party on 11 February, 2026
Author: V. Narasingh
Bench: V. Narasingh
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
CRLREV No.17 of 2005
In the matter of an application under Section 401 of
Cr.P.C..
------------------
1. Shasikanta Jena .... Petitioners
2. Sudarsan Jena
3. Prasanna Jena
4. Chhabindra Jena
5. Dharanidhar Jena
6. Krushna Ch. Jena
7. Sarat Chandra Jena
8. Madhusudan Jena
9. Kartik Jena
10. Markanda Jena
-versus-
State of Orissa .... Opposite Party
For Petitioners : Mr. L. Bhuyan, Advocate
For Opposite Party : Mr. S. Panigrahi, ASC
CORAM:
JUSTICE V. NARASINGH
DATE OF HEARING & JUDGMENT : 11.02.2026
V. Narasingh, J.
1. This Criminal Revision has been filed assailing
the judgment dated 15.12.2004 passed by the learned
CRLREV No.17 of 2005
Adhoc Additional Sessions Judge (F.T.), Keonjhar, in
Criminal Appeal No. 8/44 of 2003/04, whereby the
conviction of the Petitioners under Sections
345/147/149 of the IPC was affirmed, along with the
order of sentence imposing rigorous imprisonment for
two months for the offences under Sections 147/149
IPC and further rigorous imprisonment for six months
each for the offences under Sections 345/149 IPC,
along with a fine of Rs. 500/- (Rupees Five Hundred
only), in default of payment of fine to undergo
rigorous imprisonment for six months, with a direction
that the sentences shall run concurrently, as imposed
by the learned SDJM, Anandapur, vide judgment dated
07.01.2003 passed in G.R. Case No. 281/96 (Trial
Case No. 1152/96).
2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on
19.08.1996 at about 7:00 A.M., the petitioners formed
an unlawful assembly, armed with deadly weapons,
and criminally trespassed onto the recorded land of
the informant, Kanak Jena of Village Kaniari. They
uprooted the fence and attempted to forcibly plough
the land. When the informant protested, she was
abused in filthy language, and the accused Petitioner
No.1 allegedly caught hold of her and outraged her
modesty by pulling her blouse and saree making her
naked. On intervention by local people, the accused
forcibly took away the uprooted fence materials. An
FIR was subsequently lodged, and after investigation,
a charge sheet was submitted against the petitioners
under Sections 247/ 148/ 447/ 427/ 3279/ 294/
354/149 I.P.C.
3. To drive home the charge, the prosecution
examined 9 witnesses of whom P.W.1, the
victim(informant) and P.W.9, the I.O., are the material
witnesses. Several documents were exhibited and
marked as Exts.1 to 5/3, of which Ext.2, the sizure list
is of significance.
Though no documentary evidence was adduced
on behalf of the accused Petitioners, one Gunanath
Jena was examined as D.W.1 in their defence.
4. The plea of the Petitioners was one of complete
denial. On a conspectus of the materials and evidence
on record, the learned Trial Court recorded a finding of
conviction against the accused under Sections
345/147/149 of IPC and sentenced each of them to
undergo rigorous imprisonment for two months for the
offences under Sections 147/149 IPC and further to
undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months each
for the offences under Sections 345/149 IPC, along
with a fine of Rs. 500/- (Rupees Five Hundred only), in
default of payment of fine to undergo rigorous
imprisonment for six months, with a direction that the
sentences shall run concurrently.
The learned Appellate Court on analysis of the
evidence of P.Ws. 1 to 4 as well as P.W.9 and the
seizure as effected, dismissed the appeal by the
accused Petitioners and affirmed the judgment passed
by the Trial Court, and assailing the same, the present
revision has been preferred, as noted.
5. It is apt to note that during trial, learned trial
Court negatived the prayer of the Petitioners to be
released under the Probation of Offenders Act,, 1958.
6. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioners and
learned counsel for the State.
7. At the outset, learned counsel for the
Petitioners submits that Petitioner Nos.5, 6 and 10
have passed away in the meanwhile, and since there is
no motion on their behalf for continuance of the
revision, the revision stands abated qua the Petitioner
Nos.5, 6 and 10 and is confined to Petitioner Nos.1 to
4 and 7 to 9. Memo to the said effect is taken on
record.
8. As an alternative submission, Mr. Gaya, learned
counsel for the Petitioners submits that the occurrence
is of the year 1996, which is almost three decades ago
and that the Petitioners have aged in the meanwhile
and it is his further submission that during all these
years they have not indulged themselves in any other
offence and there is nothing on record to indicate that
they have misused the trust which was imposed on
them and seeks the extension of the provisions as
contained under the Probation of Offenders Act,
1958(hereinafter referred to as the 'P.O. Act') in the
light of the sentence imposed. Such submission is not
seriously opposed by the learned counsel for the
State.
9. So far as the applicability of the P.O. Act is
concerned, this Court respectfully refers to the recent
dictum of the Apex Court in the case of Chellammal
and Another vs. State represented by the
Inspector of Police reported in 2025 SCC OnLine
SC 870.
10. Considering the rival submissions and relying
on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of
Chellammal(supra), this Court finds substance and
force in the submissions of the learned counsel for the
Petitioners and holds that this is a fit case where the
provisions of the P.O. Act are to be invoked.
11. Hence, in the given factual matrix of the case
at hand and in view of the evidence on record, while
not interfering with the judgment and order passed by
the learned Trial Court, as affirmed by the Appellate
Court but, having regard to the facts and
circumstances, this Court is inclined to direct the
release of the Petitioner on probation under Section 4
of the P.O. Act on conditions to be settled by the Trial
Court.
12. The Criminal Revision is accordingly disposed
of.
13. In view of the disposal of the CRLREV, pending
I.As, if any, stand disposed of.
(V. Narasingh)
Judge
Orissa High Court, Cuttack,
Dated the 11th February, 2026/Jina
Location: High Court of Orissa
