[Cites 11, Cited by 0]
Orissa High Court
Ashok Mandal vs State Of Odisha on 11 March, 2026
Author: V. Narasingh
Bench: V. Narasingh
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
CRREV No.117 of 2026
(In the matter of an application under Section 401 of read
with Section 397 of Cr.P.C.)
Ashok Mandal .... Petitioner
-versus-
State of Odisha
.... Opposite Party
For Petitioner : Mr. U. Barik, Advocate
For Opposite Party: Mr. A.K. Pati, ASC
CORAM: JUSTICE V. NARASINGH
DATE OF HEARING & JUDGMENT : 11.03.2026
V. Narasingh,J.
1. This Criminal Revision has been filed
assailing the Judgment dated 27.12.2025 passed
by the learned Addl. Dist. & Sessions Judge,
Umerkote in Criminal Appeal No.02 of 2022,
affirming the order of conviction dated 05.07.2022
of the Petitioner passed by the learned J.M.F.C.,
Umerkote in G.R. Case No.121 of 2007 (T.R.
No.695 of 2007) under Sections 354/511 of IPC
and imposing a sentence of R.I. for a period of one
year and fine of Rs.500/- (Rupees Five hundred
only), and in default to undergo R.I. for period of 3
months, further U/s 451 IPC to undergo R.I. for a
period of one month and fine of Rs.300/-(Rupees
three hundred only)and, in default to undergo R.I.
for a period of Eight days. Substantive sentences
were directed to run concurrently. It was further
directed that on the recovery of fine, the same
shall be paid to the victim Laxmirani Bachar as
compensation u/s 357 of the Cr.P.C. after expiry of
four months of the appeal period.
2. It is the case of the prosecution that on
19.03.2007 at about 2 A.M., the accused forcibly
entered the house of the victim at night. A lamp
was lit in the said room, and he attempted to
outrage her modesty. On her raising hullah, her
brother-in-law suddenly came to her room and
caught hold of the accused. A fight ensued. But
somehow the accused-petitioner managed to
escape.
The next morning a village meeting was
called to resolve the issue. But the accused
Petitioner did not respond. Thereafter, on
21.03.2007, F.I.R. was instituted by the Informant,
registered as Umerkote P.S. Case No. 36 of 2007,
under Sections 451/354/511 of IPC. After
completion of investigation, the charge sheet was
filed under Sections 451/354/511 IPC against the
Petitioner.
3. In the trial, to drive home the charge, the
prosecution examined 7 witnesses of whom P.W.1,
the Informant and P.W.2, the brother-in-law are of
significance.
Defence evidence was adduced by citing
three witnesses of whom D.W.3 is the accused
himself.
4. The learned Trial Court after examining
the evidence and materials on record, including the
statement of the informant P.W.1, who is also the
victim as well as P.W.2- brother-in-law of the
informant, found the Petitioner guilty of
commission of offence under Sections 354/511 of
IPC and directed to undergo R.I. for a period of one
year and imposed a fine of Rs.500/- and in default
to undergo R.I. for a period of three months and
under Section 451 of IPC to undergo R.I. for a
period of one month and fine of Rs.300/- and in
default to undergo R.I. for a period of Eight days
with a further direction that the substantive
sentences shall run concurrently.
Further, the prayer of the Petitioner for
release under the Probation of Offenders Act,
1958(hereinafter referred to as 'P.O. Act') was
negatived.
On appeal being preferred, the conviction
and the imposition of sentence having been upheld,
the present Criminal Revision has been filed.
5. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner
and learned counsel for the State.
6. At the outset, learned counsel for the
Petitioner submits that he does not want to assail
the order on merits and seeks extension of the
benefit of the P.O. Act and it is stated that the date
of occurrence is of the year 2007, i.e. almost 19
years back and the Petitioner is now aged about 73
years.
On instruction, it is further submitted that
save and except the case at hand, the Petitioner
did not involve himself in commission of any other
offence and it is urged that no purpose would be
served by sending the Petitioner to custody at this
belated stage in view of his age. Hence, the benefit
of P.O. Act may be extended to him.
7. Such submission is not seriously opposed
by the learned counsel for the State. However,
taking into account the nature of the offence
committed and in the light of observation of the
learned Trial Court refusing to grant the benefit of
the P.O. Act, he submits that the benefit of the
P.O. Act to the Petitioner ought not to be granted.
8. It is apt to the note that in the meanwhile
more than four years have lapsed since the date of
the order is passed by the learned Trial Court, and
as noted, there is nothing on record to indicate that
the trial Court has taken into consideration the age
of the Petitioner, while considering the prayer for
grant of P.O. Act.
9. So far as the applicability of the P.O. Act is
concerned, this Court is guided by the recent
Judgment of the Apex Court in the case of
Chellammal and anr. V. State represented by
the Inspector of Police, 2025 SCC OnLine SC
870 and accordingly, while affirming the
conviction, this Court directs that the provision of
Section 4 of the P.O. Act be extended to the
Petitioner on terms to be settled by the Trial Court.
It is further directed that the Petitioner shall
pay compensation of Rs.3000/- to the victim, which
shall be disbursed within a period of 20 days
hence, failing which, the same shall entail action in
accordance with procedure laid down under Section
5 of the P.O. Act.
10. In this context, it is apt to note that, so far as
Section 5(2) of the P.O. Act is concerned, in the
event of default in payment of the amount ordered
under Section 5(1) of the said Act, the amount
shall be recovered as a fine in accordance with the
provisions of Sections 386/387 of the Code.
11. It is further clarified that the "Code" herein
refers to the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898,
which corresponds to Sections 461/462 of BNSS
2023 (Sections 421 and 422 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973)
12. The Criminal Revision, along with pending I.As
accordingly stand disposed of.
13. The bail bond(s) stand cancelled and the
sureties are discharged.
(V. NARASINGH)
Judge
Orissa High Court, Cuttack
Digitally Signed Dated the 11th March, 2026/ Soumya
Signed by: SOUMYA RANJAN SAMAL
Designation: Jr. Stenographer
Reason: Authentication
Location: High Court of Orissa
Date: 12-Mar-2026 20:01:34
