[Cites 5, Cited by 0]
Orissa High Court
Prahallad Behera vs State Of Odisha .... Opposite Party on 23 February, 2026
Author: V. Narasingh
Bench: V. Narasingh
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
CRREV No.657 of 2001
(In the matter of an application under Section 401 of the
Criminal Procedure Code)
Prahallad Behera
.... Petitioner
-versus-
State of Odisha .... Opposite Party
For Petitioner : Mr. B.S. Dasparida, Advocate
On behalf of
Mr. D.P. Dhal, Sr. Advocate
For Opposite Parties : Mr. C.R. Swain, AGA
CORAM:
JUSTICE V. NARASINGH
DATE OF HEARING : 10.02.2026
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 23.02.2026
V. Narasingh, J.
1. The judgment dated 12.09.2001 passed by the
learned Ad hoc Addl. Sessions Judge (Fast Track
Court), Balasore, in Criminal Appeal No. 84 of 1990,
thereby affirming the judgment dated 22.09.1990
passed by the learned Asst. Sessions Judge-cum-
C.J.M., Balasore in S.T. Case No.13/73 of 1990 under
Section 366 IPC and imposing a sentence of R.I. for
three years, is assailed in this criminal revision.
2. The case of the prosecution is that the victim,
a student of Class 10th of Sakuntala Girls' High
School, Sunhat, on 25.10.1989 at about 10 A.M.,
while proceeding to school from her house at Dasi,
met Tarulata Das (P.W.3) and Jyotirmayee Parida,
daughter of one of the accused, Achhuta Parida of
village Isani. At Mulanagar crossing, she found a jeep
parked facing towards Balasore with the accused
persons nearby and 3 to 4 persons inside. When she
was about to cross the jeep, the accused Petitioner
and the said Achhuta Parida came from behind and,
the accused Petitioner gagged her mouth by putting
his hand over it and Achhuta Parida dragged her
towards the jeep. Though she cried, no sound was
heard due to pressure on her mouth. The jeep
proceeded towards Balasore, one person alighted on
the way and it later stopped near a tank as the driver
expressed his unwillingness to proceed further,
thereafter, the accused persons took her to the
verandah of Achhuta Parida and the present
Petitioner allegedly threatened the victim with a knife
and asked her to marry him, and two women,
subsequently identified as the mother and sister of
Achhuta Parida, also threatened her. On 25.10.1989,
Prabir Kumar Das, the cousin brother of the victim,
lodged a report at the Police Station, which was
registered as the F.I.R., on the basis of which the
case was instituted.
3. The defence case is one of complete denial. To
drive home the charge, prosecution examined 10
witnesses, of whom P.W.1, the informant, P.W.5, the
doctor, P.W.6, the victim are the material witnesses.
Several documents were exhibited and marked as
Exts.1 to 11/1, out of which Ext.4 and 11, being the
seizure lists, Ext.5, being the medical report and
Ext.6, being the X-ray plate are of significance.
Though no documentary evidence was filed
in support of the defence, one witness was examined
on behalf of defence as D.W.1.
4. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner and
learned counsel for the State.
5. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the
accused Petitioner that admittedly P.W.3 was going
along with the victim when the alleged incident
happened and since she has not supported the
prosecution, it creates a great doubt regarding the
occurrence.
6. It is further submitted that the driver of the
vehicle has also not been examined and discrepancy
regarding the timing of the institution of the FIR is
also pressed into service to question the credibility of
the case of the prosecution.
7. Per contra, the learned counsel for the State,
referring to the statement of P.W.6- the victim
coupled with the statement of her elder father P.W.9,
submits that there is no perversity in appreciation of
evidence and the Appellate Court, having rightly
affirmed the judgment passed by the Trial Court, the
matter does not merit interference in exercise of
revisional jurisdiction of this Court.
8. This Court carefully perused the evidence on
record, including that of P.W.6 and being conscious of
the limitations in exercising revisional jurisdiction,
does not find any patent infirmity or perversity in the
appreciation of evidence, so as to warrant
interference with the judgment of conviction and the
sentence imposed. The same are accordingly
affirmed.
9. At this stage, it is submitted by the learned
counsel for the Petitioner that the incident occurred in
the year 1989, almost 37 years back. Over these
three decades and half, the Petitioner who has had
his home and hearth within the jurisdiction of the
Trial Court has well integrated himself into society
and there is no allegation against him save and
except the present incident.
10. Hence, on the said count, in the light of the
Judgment of the Apex court in the case of
Chellammal and another vs. State Represented
by the Inspector of Police, 2025 SCC OnLine SC
870, it is submitted that the Petitioner may be
extended the benefit of the Probation of Offenders
Act ,1958 (hereinafter referred to as "P.O. Act").
11. Learned counsel for the State, on the other
hand submits that the offence as alleged is heinous
and hence the benefit of P.O. Act ought not be
extended. But he does not seriously dispute the fact
that apart from the case at hand, the Petitioner does
not have any criminal proclivity.
12. On a bare perusal of the provisions contained
in the P.O. Act, it is seen that there is no embargo on
the powers of this Court, while exercising jurisdiction
under Section 11 to extend the benefit of the
provisions of the P.O. Act, if the conviction does not
come within the restrictions so imposed.
Ex-facie taking into account the punishment
imposed such prescription does not come into play.
13. Hence, taking into account that the Petitioner has
no criminal antecedent save and except the case at
hand and in the light of the judgment of the Apex Court
in the case of Chellammal(supra), 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 learned Trial Court.
14. Accordingly, the criminal revision stands
disposed of.
15. In view of the disposal of the Crl. Rev.,
pending I.As, if any, stand disposed of.
(V. NARASINGH)
Judge
Orissa High Court, Cuttack,
Dated the 23rd of February, 2026/Santoshi
Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack
