Pruthiraj Rana vs State Of Orissa .... Opposite Party on 13 March, 2026

Author: V. Narasingh

Bench: V. Narasingh

               IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

                          CRLREV No.44 of 2004

    (In the matter of an application under Section 401 of the
               Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973)

  1. Pruthiraj Rana
  2. Nanda @ Bighnaraj Rana @ ....                    Petitioners
     Lingaraj Rana
  3. Subarna Rana
  4. Birasingh Bhoi
  5. Goura Bhoi
  6. Lachhi Bhoi
  7. Dhanu Bhoi
  8. Kairu Bhoi
                         -versus-

  State of Orissa                       ....       Opposite Party



  For Petitioners                :   Mr. A.K. Acharya, Advocate

  For Opposite Party             :   Mr. C.R. Swain, AGA


       CORAM:
                         JUSTICE V. NARASINGH

                       DATE OF HEARING : 19.02.2026
                       DATE OF JUDGMENT : 13.03.2026

   V. Narasingh, J.

Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner and learned counsel for the State.

1. This Criminal Revision has been filed assailing the Judgment dated 08.11.2001 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Boudh in Criminal Appeal No.58 of 2000, affirming the order of conviction qua the Petitioners dated 18.02.2000 passed by the learned J.M.F.C., Boudh in G.R. Case No.441 of 1993 (T.R. Case No.135 of 1998) under Sections 147/148/323/325 and 337/149 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as IPC) and imposing sentence of S.I. for one year under Section 148 of IPC, to undergo S.I. for six months under Section 323 read with Section 149 of IPC, to undergo S.I. for three months under Section 337 read with Section 149 of IPC and to undergo S.I. for three years under Section 325 read with Section 149 of IPC and directing the substantive sentences to run concurrently.

2. It is the case of the prosecution that the informant, Badan Kanhar (P.W.2), a resident of village Landapadar under Kantamal Police Station, and his wife Sumitra (P.W.1), have got cultivable land locally known as Landakhol Chhak. On 12.11.1993 at about 7 A.M., while they were reaping paddy from the said land, the petitioners, being armed with Medha, Tabili, stone, etc., surrounded them and threatened to kill them. While the informant and his

wife were trying to escape, one of the accused, Bidesi (since dead) and Birasingh Bhoi- Petitioner No.3 chased them, and Petitoner No.3 pelted a stone which struck the waist of the wife of the Informant. When the wife of the Informant came to his rescue, accused Pruthiraj Rana- Petitioner No.1 dealt a Medha blow causing injury to her hand, and Lachhi Bhoi, accused- Petitioner No.6 assaulted the informant by means of a Tabili on his head. The occurrence subsided on the intervention of some villagers. P.W.2 reported the incident, whereupon the case was registered against the petitioners and, after completion of the investigation, charge-sheet was filed against the Petitioners for commission of offences under Sections 147/ 148/ 323/ 325/ 337/ 149 of IPC.

3. The plea of defence is one of complete denial.

4. To fortify their submission, the prosecution examined 11 witnesses of which P.W.1- Wife of the Informant and Injured, P.W.2- the Informant, P.W.11- the doctor are the material witnesses. Several documents were exhibited and marked as Exts.1 to 4/3, out of which Ext. 1, the FIR, Exts.3 and 4, the seizure lists are of significance.

The defence examined two witnesses as D.W.1 and D.W.2 and exhibited two documents, which were marked as Exts.A and B.

5. Considering the evidence on record, the learned Trial Court found the Petitioners guilty for commission of offences under Sections 147/148/323/325/337/149 of IPC and sentenced them to undergo S.I. for one year under Section 148 of IPC, to undergo S.I. for six months under Section 323 read with Section 149 of IPC, to undergo S.I. for three months under Section 337 read with Section 149 of IPC and to undergo S.I. for three years under Section 325 read with Section 149 of IPC.

Taking into account the economic condition of the Petitioners, no fine was imposed and the sentences were directed to run concurrently.

6. The accused Petitioners preferred an appeal being numbered as Criminal Appeal No.58 of 2000, and the learned Appellate Court (Additional Sessions Judge, Boudh), by judgment dated 08.11.2001, considering the evidence on record and more particularly that of P.Ws.1 & 2, affirmed the conviction and did not interfere with the sentence inter alia on the ground that the same is not excessive. The said judgment is assailed in the present Criminal Revision.

7. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the Petitioners 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 of P.Ws.1, 2, 5, 9 & 10, submits that on a cogent analysis of the evidence, the Petitioners have been found guilty and the sentence imposed cannot, by any stretch of imagination, be said to be excessive, as rightly held by the learned Appellate Court. Hence, this matter does not warrant interference by this Court.

9. On perusal of the evidence on record, particularly that of P.W.1- the informant & P.W.2- the wife of the informat along with P.W.11-the doctor, this Court does not find any prima facie error in appreciation of evidence so as to warrant interference in the order of conviction. Accordingly, the conviction and sentence are hereby affirmed.

10. At this stage, learned counsel for the Petitioners submits that the occurrence took place more than three decades ago and, in the meanwhile, there is nothing on record to indicate that the Petitioners have indulged themselves in commission of any other offence. It is also stated that they have not misused the trust reposed in them while on bail. Hence, it is pleaded that it is a fit case to extend the

provisions of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as 'P.O. Act'

11. Learned counsel for the State does not seriously dispute the fact that apart from the case at hand, the Petitioners do not have any criminal proclivity.

12. It is apt to note that the learned Trial Court has noted the Petitioners' economic condition, which weighed with it in not imposing any fine, and there is no mention as to why release of the Petitioners was not considered under the P.O. Act.

13. Considering the nature of the allegations and the fact that, in the meanwhile, 33 years have passed and the Petitioners have well integrated into society, this Court is persuaded to hold that it is a fit case for the Petitioners to be granted the benefit under the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as 'P.O. Act'), considering the nature of the allegation, as borne out from the evidence on record.

In arriving at such a 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.

14. 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 Petitioners by the learned Trial Court, and having regard to the facts and circumstances, this Court is inclined to direct the release of the Petitioners on probation under Section 4 of the P.O. Act, on conditions to be settled by the Trial Court.

15. The Criminal Revision is accordingly disposed of.

16. Bail bonds are cancelled and sureties are discharged.

(V. NARASINGH) Judge

Orissa High Court, Cuttack, Dated the 13th of March, 2026/Ayesha

Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack