[Cites 7, Cited by 0]
Orissa High Court
Tian @ Nilakantha Naik @ vs State Of Odisha .... Opposite Party on 10 March, 2026
Author: V. Narasingh
Bench: V. Narasingh
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
CRLREV No.149 of 2026
(In the matter of an application under Section 397 read
with 401 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 read with
Section 442 of BNSS, 2023)
Tian @ Nilakantha Naik @
Harijan .... Petitioner
-versus-
State of Odisha .... Opposite Party
For Petitioner : Mr. P.R. Behera, Advocate
For Opposite Party : Mr. A.K. Pati, ASC
CORAM:
JUSTICE V. NARASINGH
DATE OF HEARING & JUDGMENT : 10.03.2026
V. Narasingh, J.
1. The Criminal Revision has been filed assailing
the Judgment dated 15.10.2025 passed by the
learned Additional Sessions Judge, Dharamgarh,
Kalahandi in Criminal Appeal No.22 of 2024 thereby
affirming the judgment and order of conviction dated
11.12.2023 of the Petitioner passed by the learned
Assistant Sessions Judge, Jaipatna in C.T. Case
No.110/56 of 2023 (corresponding to Jaipatna P.S.
Case No.433 of 2022) under Sections 341/324 of
Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as
IPC) and sentencing him to undergo S.I. for fifteen
days for the offence under Section 341 IPC and to
undergo S.I. for two years for the offence under
Section 324 IPC and directing both the sentences to
run concurrently.
2. It is the case of the prosecution that on
02.12.2022 at about 9:10 PM, while P.W.5
(Informant/injured) was talking with his friends in
front of Jayguru Temple at Mukhiguda, the accused-
Petitioner abused and threatened him and assaulted
him with a broken beer bottle, causing injuries. On
the basis of the written report, Jaipatna P.S. Case
No.433 dated 02.12.2022 was registered under
Sections 341/294/324/307 IPC. After completion of
investigation, charge-sheet was submitted on
28.02.2023 under Sections 341/294/324/307 IPC.
And, the Petitioner faced trial for committing
the offence under Sections 341/294/324/307 of IPC.
The plea of defence is one of complete denial
and false implication.
3. To drive home the charge, the prosecution
examined 11 witnesses of whom P.W.5, the
Informant and Injured, P.W.7, the ocular witness,
P.W.6, the Medical officer and P.W.11, the
investigating officer are of significance. Several
documents were exhibited and marked as Ext.P-1 to
P-71.
Neither oral nor documentary evidence was
adduced on behalf of accused Petitioner.
4. On considering the evidence on record and the
materials, the learned Trial Court while acquitting the
Petitioner of the offence under Sections 294/307 of
IPC and refusing to consider the prayer of the
Petitioner to be dealt with under the provisions of the
P.O. Act, sentenced the Petitioner to undergo S.I. for
fifteen days for the offence under Section 341 of IPC
and to undergo S.I. for two years for the offence
under Section 324 of IPC. Both the sentences were to
run concurrently.
5. On appeal, the conviction and the imposition
of sentence having been upheld, the present Criminal
Revision has been filed.
6. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner and
learned counsel for the State.
7. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the
Petitioner that the appreciation of the evidence by the
learned Courts below is ex facie perverse, thereby
calling for interference by this Court in exercise of its
revisional jurisdiction.
8. Learned counsel for the State, on the other
hand, referring to the evidence on record and the
analysis thereof by the learned Courts below and
referring to the contours of revisional jurisdiction of
this Court submits that the matter does not merit
consideration and the Revision is liable to be rejected.
9. On considering the materials on record, this
Court is of the considered view that prima facie there
is no perversity in the matter of appreciation of the
evidence on record by the learned Trial Court as well
as Appellate Court so as to warrant any interference.
10. During the course of hearing, it is brought to
the notice of this Court that the Petitioner, who is
lodged in Sub-Jail, Dharamgarh, Dist.-Kalahandi, out
of the total period of twenty-four months, has
suffered incarceration for twenty-three months. The
memo filed to that effect is taken on record.
11. Considering the period of incarceration already
undergone and the submission that the Petitioner has
no criminal proclivity, this Court is of the view that
interest of justice would be subserved, if the
punishment is confined to the period already
undergone. And, accordingly, it is so directed.
12. The Petitioner shall be released from custody,
if his detention is not required in connection with any
other case. Extract of this order be communicated to
the concerned jail authorities.
13. Registry is requested to do the needful.
14. The Criminal Revision is accordingly disposed
of.
15. Bail bond(s) are cancelled and sureties are
discharged.
(V. NARASINGH)
Judge
Orissa High Court, Cuttack,
Dated the 10th March, 2026/Ayesha
Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack
