Balaram Sahu vs State Of Odisha
2026 Latest Caselaw 960 Ori

Orissa High Court

Balaram Sahu vs State Of Odisha on 4 February, 2026

Author: V. Narasingh

Bench: V. Narasingh

      IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

               CRL. REV. No.280 of 2003


 (In the matter of an application under Section 401 of
 Cr.P.C.)

Balaram Sahu                ....          Petitioner


                      -versus-

State of Odisha
                            ....    Opposite Party


       For Petitioner: Mr. N.K. Sethi, Amicus Curiae
       For Opposite Party: Mr. S. Panigrahi, ASC



             CORAM: JUSTICE V. NARASINGH

       Date of Hearing and Judgment : 04.02.2026

  V. Narasingh,J.

1. Since there was no appearance on behalf of the

Petitioner when the matter was called, Mr. Niraja Kumar

Sethi, who was present in Court and having standing at

the Bar for two decades, his enrolment number being O-

807/2004, was requested to act as Amicus Curiae.

2. Heard learned Amicus Curiae for the Petitioner

and learned counsel for the State.

3. Assailing the judgment dated 18.02.2003 passed by

the learned Ad hoc Addl. Sessions Judge, Fast Track

Court, Rourkela in Criminal Appeal No.3/18/2000-02

confirming the judgment and the order of conviction

under Section 324 IPC and imposition of sentence to

undergo simple imprisonment of three months passed by

the learned J.M.F.C., Panposh in G.R. Case No.536 of

1998, this Criminal Revision has been preferred.

4. It is apt to note that learned J.M.F.C., Panposh

while convicting the Petitioner- Balaram Sahu under

Section 324 IPC, acquitted the accused persons, namely,

Birju Sahu and Sakhi Sahu, parents of accused

Petitioner-Balaram Sahu.

While convicting the Petitioner, learned Trial

Court referred to the deposition of P.W.4- the injured,

obsereved thus;

"xxx xxx xxx P.W.4 is Ramjit Sahu and Informant of this Case. He deposed that on 18.04.1998 at about 10 A.M. the occurrence took place on the road just infront of this house. Accused Balaram Sahu was

constructing his house thereby obstructing the road leading to his house. When he protested such action of the accused, accused Balaram dealt a blow on his head by means of spade (Kodala) causing bleeding injury thereon. Thereafter, accused Balaram also dealt another blow on his back. He fell down on the ground. Accused Biruju Sahu, father of accused Balaram also dealt slap on his right cheek. He became senseless due to the assault. His wife resolved him to the police station where he lodged the written report marked as Exhibit-4 scribed by the Lochan Sahbu. He was medically examined on police requisition and was also examined by the I.O in this case. Nothing material could be elicited from the cross-examination of P.W.4 so as to discredit his testimony. More so it is apparent that there is a civil dispute between the parties pending in the Court of Tahasildar, Biramitrapur which was owned by the Informant.

"xxx xxx xxx

5. It is submitted by Mr. Sethi, learned Amicus

Curiae, with reference to the materials and evidence on

record that he does not wish to assail the judgment and

order of conviction on merits. Considering that the

occurrence relates to the year 1998 and the nature of

the evidence on record, he prays for the release of the

Petitioner by invoking the provisions of the Probation of

Offenders Act, 1958 (in short, "the P.O. Act").

It is his further submission that the Petitioner is a

first-time offender. The occurrence took place more than

28 years ago. In the meanwhile, the Petitioner, having

learnt his lessons on facing trial, has not indulged in any

other offence. Hence, taking into account the nature of

the allegation and the punishment prescribed, directing

the release of the Petitioner under the P.O. Act would

sub-serve the ends of justice.

6. Learned Public Prosecutor opposes such prayer

and submits that in the light of the evidence on record,

it is not open for this Court to invoke the provision of the

P.O. Act.

7. Section 11 of the P.O. Act reads as under;

"11. Courts competent to make order under the Act, appeal and revision and powers of courts in appeal and revision.--(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code or any other law, an order under this Act, may be made by any court empowered to try and sentence the offender to imprisonment and also by the High Court or any other court when the case comes before it on appeal or in revision.

(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code, where an order under section 3 or section 4 is made by any court trying the offender (other than a High Court), a n appeal shall lie to the court to which appeals ordinarily lie from the sentences of the former court.

(3) In any case where any person under twenty-one years of age is found guilty of having committed an offence and the court by which he is found guilty declines to deal with him under section 3 or section 4, and passes against him any sentence of imprisonment with or without fine from which no appeal lies or is preferred, then, notwithstanding anything contained in the Code or any other law, the court to which appeals ordinarily lie from the sentences of the former court may, either of its own motion or on an application made to it by the convicted person or the probation officer, call for and examine the record of the case and pass such order thereon as it thinks fit.

(4) When an order has been made under section 3 or section 4 in respect of an offender, the Appellate Court or the High Court in the exercise of its power of revision may set aside such order and in lieu thereof pass sentence on such offender according to law:

Provided that the Appellate Court or the High Court in revision shall not inflict a greater punishment than might have been inflicted by the court by which the offender was found guilty."

8. Considering the nature of the allegation, as

borne out from the evidence on record, this Court finds

substance in the submission of the learned Amicus

Curiae appearing for the Petitioner. In arriving at such

conclusion, this Court is guided by the judgment of the

Apex Court in Chellammal and anr. V. State

represented by the Inspector of Police, 2025 SCC

OnLine SC 870.

9. Hence, in the given factual matrix of the case at

hand and in view of the evidence on record, while

maintaining the conviction recorded against the

Petitioner by the learned Trial Court, and 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 his executing a bond of

Rs.5,000/- within four weeks hence. In the event of

violation of the stipulation of the bond, he shall be dealt

with in accordance with Section 9 of the P.O. Act.

10. The Criminal Revision is accordingly disposed of.

11. The fees of the learned Amicus Curiae is assessed

at Rs.7,500/-. The Legal Services Authority, High Court

of Orissa, are requested to disburse the same to the

learned Amicus Curiae on being moved.

(V. Narasingh) Judge

Orissa High Court, Cuttack Dated the 04th February, 2026/PKS/Soumya

Signed by: SOUMYA RANJAN SAMAL

Location: High Court of Orissa Date: 10-Feb-2026 20:36:36