[Cites 11, Cited by 0]
Orissa High Court
Jayanta Pradhan vs State Of Orissa on 12 February, 2026
THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
CRLA No. 264 of 2009
(In the matter of an application under Section 374 of Criminal Procedure
Code)
Jayanta Pradhan ....... Appellant
-Versus-
State of Orissa ....... Respondent
For the Appellant : Mr. Prasanta Kumar Das,
Advocate
For the Respondent : Mr. S. Panigrahi, ASC
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE SHRI JUSTICE SIBO SANKAR MISHRA
Date of Hearing: 03.02.2026 : Date of Judgment: 12.02.2026
S.S. Mishra, J. The present Criminal Appeal is preferred by the
appellant assailing the judgment of conviction and order of sentence
dated 16.05.2009 passed by the learned Ad hoc Additional Sessions
Judge, Fast Track Court, Padampur in Criminal Trial No. 193/5 of
2008-09 convicting him under Section 323 IPC and sentenced to
undergo R.I. for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default to
undergo S.I. for two months.
2. Heard Mr. Prasanta Kumar Das, learned counsel for the appellant
and Mr. S. Panigrahi, learned Additional Standing Counsel for the State.
3. The narrative of prosecution report in the present case is that one
Bhismadev Poch of village Sareikela under Jharbandh Police Station
lodged written report on 09.12.2007 alleging therein that on the same
day at about 11.30 Α.Μ. the accused person Jayanta Padhan quarrelled
with him on the issue of purchase of paddy. The accused raised the price
of paddy scheduled to be purchased by the informant and rate was fixed
by him. As the accused raised the price, the informant confronted him as
to why he raised the price of paddy negotiated by him for purchase.
Thereafter, the accused enraged and assaulted the informant by means of
"Kerengela", a lathi like wooden stick fixed in the bullock cart. The
accused also abused him with obscene languages. On being assaulted,
the informant sustained head injury and blood oozed from his head and
his pant and shirt were stained with blood. On the basis of the written
report, the police registered the case as Jharbandh P.S. Case No.49 dated
10.12.2007, corresponding to G.R. Case No.363 of 2007 and after
completion of the investigation, charge sheet has been filed in the
present case.
4. To establish the charges, the prosecution examined nine witnesses
and exhibited as many as six documents. The accused-appellant, having
taken a stance of complete denial, claimed trial and accordingly he was
put to trial.
5. After analysing the evidence on record, the learned trial court
arrived at the following conclusion:-
"............ On conjoint reading of evidence of P.Ws.1, 2, 3, 4,
6, 7 and 8, who proved respective plank of prosecution case a
ring of truth is surfaced that there was assault on the injured
person and there was injuries on the person of the injured
person. The other part about hurling with obscene languages
by the accused person to the injured person and restraining
him however not surfaced. To further strengthen the
prosecution narratives the evidence of doctor P.W.5
Dr.Jadumani Sahu is adduced by the prosecution who proved
the injury report in respect of injured person Bhismadev Podh
and deposed in the Court and he also proved the query report
filed by him. P.W.5-Dr. Jadumani Sahu deposed that, on
9.12.2007 he had examined injured person Bhismadev Podh
on police requisition and found following injury:-
(i) Laceration of size 4cm x 3cm x 2cm situated horizontally
on the scalp of head 7cm above left year.
The injury is simple in nature caused by hard and blunt
object. Duration of injury 24 hrs. at the time of examination.
Time of examination 4.45 P.M. on 9.12.2007.
He proved the Medical Report marked Exhibit-3 and Exhibit-
3/1 is his signature therein. He also deposed that police made
query on producing one wooden stick on 11.05.2008 and
resorted opinion from him. He opined that the injury in
Exhibit-3 can be possible by weapon of offence produced
before him. Also he opined that the weapon shown to him can
cause death if assaulted forcefully on vital part of the body
like head on the person. Exhibit-4 is the Query Report and
Exhibit-4/1 is his signature therein.
6. Although the appellant stood charged for the offence punishable
under Sections 323/341/307/294 of IPC, but the learned trial Court
relying upon the evidence of the prosecution, arrived at a conclusion that
the appellant is not guilty of offence punishable under Sections
341/307/294 of IPC. However, the appellant has been convicted under
Section 323 of IPC and was sentenced to undergo R.I. for one year and
to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default to undergo S.I. for two months.
7. The incident relates back to the year 2007 and the trial went on for
about two years, which only ended on 16.05.2009 and the appeal had
been pending since 2009. However, the learned trial Court by a deep
analysis of the evidence brought on record has found the appellant guilty
of the offence, as mentioned above.
8. While analyzing the evidence on record, I find no reason to
disagree with the findings recorded by the learned trial court. The
learned trial court has heavily relied upon the evidence of the informant,
who was the injured person. He has deposed that the accused persons on
09.12.2007 at about 11.00 A.M. picked up quarrel with him on the issue
of purchase of paddy. When he questioned about raising of the price of
the paddy, he was assaulted on his head, as a result of which he sustained
bleeding injury. He has lodged the FIR, which was marked as Ext.1. He
also proved the seizure list Ext.2. The said witness was subjected to
extensive cross examination, but the defence could not yield anything to
their advantage. On the contrary, the evidence of P.W.5, the doctor
directly corroborated with the evidence of injured witness. P.W.5, the
doctor has found a lacerated wound of size 4cm x 3cm x 2 cm situated
horizontally on the scalp of head 7 cm above the left year. The doctor
has opined that the injury was simple in nature. Leaving apart the
testimony of other witnesses even if the evidence of P.Ws.4 and 5 are
taken into consideration, the findings returned by the learned trial court
cannot be questioned. Hence, this Court is reluctant to give indulgence to
the convict-appellant in so far as recording of conviction of the appellant
on the charges under Section 323 of IPC is concerned.
9. Mr. Das, learned counsel for the appellant has strenuously argued
the case on merit and taken me to the evidence on record. After arguing
for some time, he submitted that keeping in view the procrastinated
judicial process undergone by the appellant in this case and the ordeal of
trial faced by the appellant, he would rather confine his argument to the
quantum of sentence rather than arguing the appeal questioning the
conviction. He submitted that the incident pertains to the year 2007. The
appellant has undergone the rigors of trial for about two years.
Thereafter, the appeal was preferred in the year 2009. The appeal has
been prolonging to be heard for more than 16 years. The appellant, who
was in his early thirties then, is now is aged about forty-nine years and
therefore, sending him to custody for fulfilling his remaining sentence at
this belated stage would serve no purpose. The learned counsel further
submitted that the appellant has no criminal antecedents and no other
case of a similar nature or otherwise is stated to be pending against him.
Over the years, he has led a dignified life, integrated well into society,
and is presently leading a settled family life. Incarcerating him after such
a long delay, it is argued, would serve little penological purpose and may
in fact be counter-productive, casting a needless stigma not only upon
him but also upon his family members, especially when there is no
suggestion of any repeat violation or ongoing non-compliance with
regulatory norms. Therefore, in the fitness of situation, the appellant may
be extended the benefit of the Probation of Offenders Act read with
Section 360 of Cr.P.C. I am inclined to accede to the prayer made by Mr.
Das, learned counsel for the appellant on the facts scenario of the case.
10. Regard being had to the societal position of the appellant, clean
antecedents and the fact that the incident had taken place in the year
2007, I am of the considered view that the appellant is entitled to the
benefit of the Probation of Offenders Act read with Section 360 of
Cr.P.C. Additionally, the case of the appellant is also covered by ratio of
the judgment of this Court in the case of Pathani Parida & another vs.
Abhaya Kumar Jagdevmohapatra1 and Dhani @ Dhaneswar Sahu vs.
State of Orissa2.
Additionally, the present case is also squarely covered by the
judgment of this Court in Sk. Wahed Ali Vs. State of Orissa3, wherein,
while dealing with an offence of a similar nature, the Court had extended
the benefit of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 to the appellant, who
had been convicted under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code.
Similar view has also been taken by this Court in Maheswar Sahu
and another vrs. State of Orissa4.
The ratio of the aforesaid decision, emphasizing the reformative
approach of criminal jurisprudence in cases involving personal disputes
and absence of criminal antecedents, is fully applicable to the facts and
circumstances of the present case.
2012 (Supp-II) OLR 469
2007 (Supp.II) OLR 250
AIR OnLine 2025 ORI 280
CRA No.302 of 1996 disposed of on 11.11.2025
11. In such view of the matter, the present Criminal Appeal in so far
as the conviction is concerned, the same is turned down. But instead of
sentencing the appellant to suffer imprisonment, this Court directs the
appellant to be released under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders
Act for a period of six months on his executing bond of Rs.5,000/-
(Rupees Five Thousand) within one month with one surety for the like
amount to appear and receive the sentence when called upon during such
period and in the meantime, the appellant shall keep peace and good
behavior and he shall remain under the supervision of the concerned
Probation Officer during the aforementioned period of six months.
12. Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal is partly allowed.
(S.S. Mishra)
Judge
The High Court of Orissa, Cuttack
Dated the 12th of February, 2026/Ashok
Signed by: ASHOK KUMAR JAGADEB MOHAPATRA
Location: High Court of Orissa
