Nilakanatha Mali vs State Of Odisha on 11 February, 2026

Author: V. Narasingh

Bench: V. Narasingh

      IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

                 CRREV No.674 of 2001

 (In the matter of an application under Section 397 read with
 Sections 401 and 482 of Cr.P.C)


1. Nilakanatha Mali         ....                Petitioners
2. Rama Chandra
Begal


                         -versus-

State of Odisha
                            ....            Opposite Party



       For Petitioners           :   Mr. B. Mishra, Advocate
                                         Mr. A. Ankur Mishra,
                                              Amicus Curiae
       For Opposite Party        :      Mr. C.R. Swain, AGA



               CORAM: JUSTICE V. NARASINGH

      DATE OF HEARING & JUDGMENT : 11.02.2026

V. Narasingh,J.

1. The judgment dated 10.10.2001 passed by the learned Ad hoc Addl. Sessions Judge, Jeypore in Criminal Appeal No.277 of 2001 thereby affirming the order of conviction dated 09.03.1995 of the Petitioners passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate-Cum-Assistant Sessions Judge, Jeypore

in Sessions Case No.45 of 1994 under Sections 307/34 I.P.C. and sentencing each of them to undergo rigorous imprisonment of three years and to pay fine of Rs.1000/-, in default to undergo further rigorous imprisonment of two months.

2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 06.06.1994 at about 7 A.M., the informant got information from one Harihar Gadaba that the brother of the informant, who had been to Bansula market on the previous day evening, was lying in an injured condition near Ambabali Das Railway Bridge. The informant moved his brother to the hospital, where he was informed that the accused persons had assaulted his brother and, on the basis of the written report, the accused persons were put to trial under Sections 307/34 of the I.P.C., 1860.

3. To drive home the charge, the prosecution examined 14 witnesses of whom P.W.10, the injured, P.W.13, the Medical Officer and P.W.11, the I.O., are the material witnesses. Several documents were exhibited and marked as Exts.1 to 7/2, of which the Exhibit-5/1- the injury report is of the significance.

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

The broken cycle, as M.O.I, was admitted as material evidence on behalf of the prosecution.

4. On consideration of the evidence of the injured, P.W.10 and the Medical Officer, P.W.11, the learned Trial Court recorded a finding of conviction under Sections 307/34 of I.P.C. and sentencing each of them to undergo rigorous imprisonment of three years and to pay fine of Rs.1000/-, in default to undergo further rigorous imprisonment of two months.

5. Being aggrieved, the Petitioners preferred an appeal. The Appellate Court, by the judgment dated 10.10.2001, on analysis of the evidence on record, altered the conviction to one under Section 326 read with Section 34 of IPC, and reduced the sentence to one year while enhancing the fine from Rs.1,000/- to Rs.2,000/-, in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for four months.

6. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioners and learned counsel for the State.

7. Learned counsel for the Petitioners submits that, on a bare perusal of the statement of the injured witness coupled with the Medical Report, the alteration of conviction to Section 326 I.P.C. merits interference by this Court in exercising of its revisional jurisdiction.

8. It is further submitted that it is borne out from the record that the alleged weapon of offence was a stone, and the grievous injury to the mandible cannot be attributed to a stone. Being oblivious of

the same, the learned Appellate Court altered the conviction to one under Section 326 I.P.C.

9. Per contra, learned counsel for the State opposes such submission and referring to the very statement of the injured- P.W.10 coupled with the statement of doctor- P.W.13 submits that the injured has suffered multiple injuries.

It is clearly stated by the injured that one of the accused, namely, Rama Chandra Begal, assaulted him with a knife, and so far as the injury caused by the stone is concerned, it is submitted that the same resulted in fracture of the mandible and, therefore, the conviction under Section 326 I.P.C. does not warrant interference.

10. On close scrutiny of the evidence on record, it is seen that, so far as the injury attributable to the stone is concerned, there is no mention of any accused causing such injury, it is the admitted case of the injured that the attack came from behind.

11. Considering such aspect in the light of the evidence on record, this Court is persuaded to hold that altering the conviction from Section 326 I.P.C.to Section 325 I.P.C. would meet the ends of justice.

12. Since there was no appearance on behalf of the Petitioners when the matter was listed day before yesterday, this Court had requested learned counsel, Mr. A. Ankur Mishra, to assist this Court as Amicus Curiae.

13. Learned Amicus Curiae submits that, in the given facts of the present case, the Petitioners may be extended the benefit of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958(hereinafter referred to as 'P.O. Act'), keeping in view their age and the fact that, there is no adverse report against the Petitioners that they have misused the trust reposed in them while being on bail and have indulged themselves in any other offence.

Learned counsel for the Petitioners reiterates such submission stating that the incident took place on 06.06.1994 and that both the Petitioners are now in their seventies.

14. Taking note of such submissions, the materials on record and 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 persuaded to extend the benefit of the P.O. Act to the Petitioners, directing that they shall be liable to pay compensation of Rs.2,000/- each, 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.

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.

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).

16. The fees of the learned Amicus Curiae shall be 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.

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

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

(V. NARASINGH) Judge Orissa High Court, Cuttack Dated the 11th Feb, 2026/ Soumya

Signed by: SOUMYA RANJAN SAMAL

Location: High Court of Orissa Date: 20-Feb-2026 15:32:16