Pravakar Das vs State Of Orissa
2026 Latest Caselaw 1303 Ori

Orissa High Court

Pravakar Das vs State Of Orissa on 12 February, 2026

        THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

                          CRA No. 96 of 2001

(In the matter of an application under Section 374 of Criminal
Procedure Code)


1. Pravakar Das
2. Baidyalochan Mahakud
3. Himansu Mahakud
4. Anta @ Antu Majhi
5. Tamrai Mahali
6. Prasanta Kumar Naik           .......                      Appellants


                               -Versus-

State of Orissa                  .......                      Respondent

For the Appellant : Mr. Satyabrata Mohapatra, Advocate

For the Respondent : Mr. Ashok Kumar Apat, AGA

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

appellants assailing the judgment of conviction and order of sentence

dated 05.04.2001 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge,

Rairangpur, Mayurbhanj in S.T. Case No. 31/151 of 2000 arising out of G.R. Case No.173 of 1999 (T.C. No.1190 of 1999) convicting

them under Sections 148/452/332/324/149 IPC and sentenced to

undergo R.I. for three months and to pay a fine of Rs.500/-, in default

to undergo R.I. for a further period of fifteen days on each count. The

sentences were directed to run consecutively.

2. Heard Mr. Satyabrata Mohapatra, learned counsel for the

appellants and Mr. Ashok Kumar Apat, learned Additional

Government Advocate for the State.

3. The narrative of prosecution report in the present case is that

the informant Prasanta Kumar Sahoo lodged a written report alleging

therein that on 26.5.99 he was the B.D.O. of Bahalda Block. On that

day at about 8.10 A.M. when he was discharging his official duties in

his office chamber, at that time all the accused persons forcibly and

without his permission entered into his office chamber and questioned

him as to why the Gramika Pratinidhi was selected at village

Jharadihi. Before giving any answer, all the accused persons dealt fist

blows, slaps on his body and by means of one sharp edged stone

assaulted on his head. By this, he sustained severe bleeding injuries

on his head and the accused persons were also attempted to kill him.

When the Block Officials came to the spot, at that time, the accused

persons went away by a jeep. Soon-after the occurrence, the

informant lodged the report at Bahalda Police Station and thereafter

the O.I.C., Bahalda P.S. registered the P.S. Case No.33/99 under

Sections 147/148/452/332/307/149 IPC.

4. On the basis of the aforementioned allegations, investigation

was conducted and charge sheet was filed against the appellants and

on their stance of complete denial and claim for trial, they were put to

trial on the charges, as mentioned above.

5. In order to establish the charges, the prosecution has examined

six witnesses and exhibited as many as seven documents along with

M.Os. I to IV.

Out of six witnesses, P.W.1 was the informant, P.W.2 was a

post occurrence witness. P.W.3 and P.W.4 were the independent

witnesses. P.W.5 was the doctor, who examined the informant on

police requisition. P.W.6 was the Investigating Officer, who

conducted investigation and submitted charge sheet in the present

case.

6. The learned trial court, upon a thorough and meticulous

appreciation of the entire oral and documentary evidence adduced by

the prosecution, arrived at the following conclusion:-

"9. Now coming to the discussion of Section 148/452/332/149 I.P.C. I should seen the evidence of P.W.1. Already, I have discussed in my preceding paragraphs that the accused persons being a member of an unlawful assembly holding the deadly weapons i.e. metals (M.O.II and III) attempted to commit the death of P.W.1 by entering into the chamber of P.W.1. So when the accused persons had assaulted the B.D.O. (P.W.1) for that reason I am clear that the accused persons had forming an unlawful assembly with their common object holding deadly weapons entered into the Office chamber of P.W.1 and had assaulted him. In the F.I.R., P.W.1 has mentioned that on 26.5.99 at about 8.10A.M. while he was discharging his official duties in the office chamber, at that time the accused persons had forcibly entered and had assaulted him. He has clearly stated by the assault he did not perform his official duties. Section 332 I.P.C. says that:

"Voluntarily causing hurt to deter public servant from his duty-whoever voluntarily caused hut to any person being a public servant in the discharge of his duty as such public servant, or with intent to prevent or deter that person or any other public servant from discharging his duty as such public servant, or in consequence of anything done or attempted to be done by that person in the lawful discharge of his duty as such that public servant, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both."

However, due to assault P.W.1 did not perform his Official duties at the time of the occurrence. So also it is clear that P.W.1 was a public servant at the time of occurrence and

he was prevented to perform his official duties by the accused persons.

10. P.W.6 has stated that on 26.5.99 he registered the case on receipt of the F.I.R. from P.W.1 and in course of investigation he visited the spot, and prepared the spot map vide Ext-.4. He seized 2 stones and one spectacle vide Ext 2. He also seized one blood stained tarkish towel and one blood stained banion of the informant in the hospital on the production of P.W1 vide Ext.5. He also seized the commander jeep bearing No. OR-11-9715 with its documents. He has sent the injured for medical examination. The Learned Defence Counsel has simply, suggested him that with connivances of the B.D.O. he foisted this case against the accused persons. However, P.W.6 has perfectly and correctly investigated into the case and his investigation has proved the occurrence and the injuries of P.W.1.

11. U/S-313 Cr.P.C. the accused persons have stated that when they made allegations against the B.D.O. (P.W.1) before the Collector, Mayurbhanj, Baripada and they made hunger strike in front of the Block Office at Bahalda for that reason P.W.1 has falsely implicated them in this case. D.W.1 who is the Ex-M.L.A. of Bahalda Constituency has stated that in the year 1999 the B.D.O., Bahalda (P.W.1) was there and on that period he was the M.L.A. He has reported to the Collector, Mayurbhanj, Baripada about the irregularity of Bahalda Block. There was hunger strike in that period. In that hunger strike all the accused persons had participated. The Collector, Mayurbhanj had enquired about law grade work of the Block. D.W.1 has not proved any piece of document that P.W.1 had made irregularity in the Block Office. So also he has not proved on which date Collector, Mayurbhanj had enquired about the law grade work of the Block. Already I have discussed that the accused persons are the Political persons. So naturally D.W.1 will speak in favour of the accused persons with a view to get political gain from them. So the D.W.1 has deposed against P.W.1 at the instance of the accused persons."

7. P.W.1, the informant in his cross-examination stated that many

other official staff were present in the office at the time of the

incident, but the names mentioned in the depositions have not been

examined by the police. Mr. Mohapatra, learned counsel appearing

for the appellant submitted that P.Ws.1 and 2, who were the peons of

the Block office of Bahalda were turned hostile, whereas P.W.4, who

was also a peon in his examination-in-chief stated that "he do not

know anything about the case". Therefore, the prosecution declined

his version. He further submitted that P.W.5, the doctor who

examined the informant in his cross examination stated that the blood

pressure of P.W.1 was 150/118, which is considered as high blood

pressure and for such high blood pressure, the patient may also fall

down. He further submitted that the nature and the injuries are

lacerated wounds and the medical report also suggested that the

informant had high blood pressure. But in absence of any supportive

evidence, only on the basis of the sole uncorroborated testimony of

the informant (P.W.1), who was inimical to the appellants, his

testimony should be scrutinized with caution and care. The learned

trial court convicted the appellants without taking into consideration

of the deposition of D.W.1 and sentenced all of them to undergo R.I.

for three months and to pay a fine of Rs.500/-, in default to undergo

further R.I. for fifteen days.

8. The learned trial Court by a deep analysis of the evidence

brought on record has found the appellants guilty of the offence, as

mentioned above. The incident relates back to the year 1999 and the

trial went on for about two years only to end up on 05.04.2001 and

the appeal has been pending since 2001.

9. While analyzing the evidence on record, I find no reason to

disagree with the findings recorded by the learned trial court, hence, I

affirm the conviction recorded against the appellants.

10. At this stage, Mr. Mohapatra, learned counsel appearing for the

appellants has limited his submissions to the question of sentence

without venturing into the merits. He submitted that keeping in view

the procrastinated judicial process undergone by the appellants in this

case and the ordeal of trial faced by the appellants, he would rather

confine his argument to the quantum of sentence. He submitted that

the incident pertains to the year 1999. The appellants have undergone

the rigors of trial for about two years. Thereafter, the appeal was

preferred in the year 2001. The appeal has been prolonging to be

heard for more than 24 years. Some of the appellants are now above

fifties and some of them also above sixties. Therefore, sending them

to custody for fulfilling their remaining sentence at this belated stage

would serve no purpose. The learned counsel further submitted that

the appellants have no criminal antecedents and no other case of a

similar nature or otherwise is stated to be pending against them. Over

the years, they have led a dignified life, integrated well into society,

and are presently leading a settled family life. Incarcerating them 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 them but also upon their 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 appellants may be extended the benefit of the Probation

of Offenders Act read with Section 360 Cr.P.C. To substantive his

contention, he has relied upon the judgment of this Court in Sk.

Wahed Ali Vs, State of Orissa1, and another judgment of this Court in

Maheswar Sahu and another vrs. State of Orissa2, wherein similar

view has also been taken by this Court.

AIROnline 2025 ORI 280

CRA No.302 of 1996 disposed of on 11.11.2025

I am inclined to accede to the prayer made by Mr. Mohapatra, learned

counsel for the appellants on the facts scenario of the case.

11. Regard being had to the societal position of the appellants,

clean antecedents and the fact that the incident had taken place in the

year 1999, I am of the considered view that the appellants are entitled

to the benefit of the Probation of Offenders Act read with Section 360

of Cr.P.C. The case of the appellants is also covered by the ratio of

the judgment of this Court in the case of Pathani Parida & another

vs. Abhaya Kumar Jagdevmohapatra3 and Dhani @ Dhaneswar

Sahu vs. State of Orissa4.

Additionally, the present case is also squarely covered by the

judgment of this Court in Sk. Wahed Ali (supra), 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.

On similar footings, this court in Maheswar Sahoo (supra)

wherein the accused persons were convicted U/s.326/34 of I.P.C, has

extended the benefit of Probation of the Offenders Act,1958.

2012 (Supp-II) OLR 469

2007 (Supp.II) OLR 250

The ratio of the aforesaid decisions, emphasizes 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.

12. In such view of the matter, the present Criminal Appeal in so

far as the conviction is concerned, is turned down. But instead of

sentencing the appellants to suffer imprisonment, this Court directs

the appellants to be released under Section 4 of the Probation of

Offenders Act for a period of six months on their executing bond of

Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand) each within one month with one

surety each for the like amount to appear and receive the sentence

when called upon during such period and in the meantime, the

appellants shall keep peace and good behavior and they shall remain

under the supervision of the concerned Probation Officer during the

aforementioned period of six months.

13. 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