[Cites 13, Cited by 0]
Orissa High Court
Jalanidhi Lima vs State Of Orissa .... Opposite Party on 13 March, 2026
Author: V. Narasingh
Bench: V. Narasingh
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
CRL. REV. No.109 of 2005
(In the matter of an application under Section 397 and
401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973)
1. Jalanidhi Lima
2. Banchhanidhi Lima .... Petitioners
-versus-
State of Orissa .... Opposite Party
For Petitioners : Ms. S. Pradhan, Amicus Curiae
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 Petitioners
and learned counsel for the State.
1. This Criminal Revision has been filed
assailing the judgment dated 17.01.2004 passed
by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge,
Bhawanipatna in Criminal Appeal No. 33/16 of
1998-2003, affirming the judgment of
conviction qua the Petitioner dated 21.07.1998
passed by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge-
cum-Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhawanipatna in
Sessions Case No. 50/20 of 1997 (arising out of
G.R. Case No. 27 of 1996 corresponding to T.R.
No. 841 of 1996 of the Court of J.M.F.C.,
Madanpur, Rampur). By the said judgment, the
learned Trial Court acquitted the co-accused but
found Petitioner No. 1, Jalanidhi Lima, guilty of
the offences under Sections 452, 324 and 366
read with Section 511 of the Indian Penal Code,
and Petitioner No. 2, Banchanidhi Lima, guilty of
the offences under Sections 452 and 366 read
with Section 511 of the Indian Penal Code, while
acquitting him of the offence under Section 324
of the Indian Penal Code.
Accordingly, Petitioner No. 1 was
sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for
six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/-, in
default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for
fifteen days, for the offence under Section 452
of the Indian Penal Code; to undergo rigorous
imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of
Rs. 500/-, in default to undergo rigorous
imprisonment for fifteen days, for the offence
under Section 366 read with Section 511 of the
Indian Penal Code; and to pay a fine of Rs.
1,000/-, in default to undergo rigorous
imprisonment for fifteen days, for the offence
under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code.
Petitioner No. 2 was sentenced to undergo
rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay
a fine of Rs. 500/-, in default to undergo
rigorous imprisonment for fifteen days, for the
offence under Section 452 of the Indian Penal
Code; and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for
six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/-, in
default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for
fifteen days, for the offence under Section 366
read with Section 511 of the Indian Penal Code,
with a direction that the substantive sentences
shall run concurrently.
2. The case of the Prosecution is that on
05.02.1996 at about 8:00 P.M., the accused
Petitioner Nos.1 and 2 along with others, came
in a jeep bearing registration No. OR-S-5693 to
the house of Bishnu Rout- the informant during
his absence and forcibly entered into the house.
By showing a knife, they snatched one gold
earring from the ear of the wife of the informant
and took away Rs.10,000/- from an attaché.
When the father of the informant protested, he
was stabbed with a knife. On hearing the alarm
raised by the children, Narayana Routh, the
brother of the informant came. One Kedara
Sahu and Baishnaba Rana chased the accused
persons and caught hold of four of the accused
persons, while others fled away. On the matter
being reported, investigation was taken up and
charge-sheet was submitted under Sections
147/148/452/324/366/149/511 of the I.P.C.
3. The case of the defense was one of
complete denial and false implication.
4. To drive home the charge, the
prosecution examined 14 witnesses, of whom
P.W.7, the informant, P.W.5, informant's father
and injured, P.W.10, wife of the informant,
P.W.4, the brother of the informant are the
material witnesses. Several documents were
exhibited and marked as Exts.1 to 7/1, of which
Exts.3 and 4, the injury reports of P.W.4 and
P.W.10, Ext.2 the written report are of
significance.
Neither oral nor documentary evidence
was adduced on behalf of the defense.
5. On considering the evidence on record,
the learned Trial Court while acquitting the other
four accused persons, found the accused-
Petitioner No.1 guilty of the offences under
Sections 452, 324 and 366/511 of the I.P.C.,
and the accused Petitioner No.2 guilty of the
offences under Sections 452 and 366/511 of the
I.P.C. sentencing the accused/Petitioner No.1 to
undergo R.I. for six months and to pay a fine of
Rs.500/-, in default to undergo R.I. for fifteen
days for the offence under Section 452 of the
I.P.C., in default to undergo R.I. for fifteen days
for the offence under Section 366/511 of the
I.P.C., and further sentencing him to pay a fine
of Rs.1,000/-, in default to undergo R.I. for
fifteen days for the offence under Section 324 of
the I.P.C. The accused/Petitioner No.2 was
sentenced to undergo R.I. for six months and to
pay a fine of Rs.500/-, in default to undergo R.I.
for fifteen days for the offence under Section
452 of the I.P.C., and to undergo R.I. for six
months and to pay a fine of Rs.500/-, in default
to undergo R.I. for fifteen days for the offence
under Section 366/511 of the I.P.C., directing
the substantive sentences to run concurrently.
Being aggrieved by the order of conviction
and sentence, the Petitioners preferred Criminal
Appeal No.33/16 of 98-2003 and by judgment
dated 17.01.2004, the learned Appellate Court
affirmed the judgment of conviction and
sentence imposed by the Trial Court and
dismissed the appeal. Assailing the same, the
present Criminal revision has been preferred.
6. Heard learned Amicus Curie for the
Petitioners and learned counsel for the State.
7. Learned Amicus Curiae submits that the
appreciation of evidence is ex facie perverse,
which has been mechanically affirmed by the
learned Appellate Court. Hence, the same
warrants interference by this Court in exercise of
its revisional jurisdiction.
8. Such submission is opposed by the
learned counsel for the State referring to the
evidence of the informant (P.W.7), the injured
witnesses (P.Ws.5 and 10) and the doctor
(P.W.8).
9. On considering the evidence on record
and the assessment thereof, this Court is not
persuaded to hold that there is any perversity in
the appreciation of evidence by the learned
Courts below so as to warrant interference by
this Court in exercise of its revisional
jurisdiction.
10. Accordingly, the conviction and sentence
are affirmed.
11. At this stage as an alternative measure,
learned Amicus Curiae submits that keeping in
view that at the relevant time, the Petitioners
were aged about 30 and 22 years and the the
occurrence took place on 05.02.1996, almost
three decades ago, it is a fit case to extend to
them the benefit of the Probation of Offenders
Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as P.O. Act). It
is his further submission that in the meanwhile,
there is no adverse report against the Petitioners
to indicate that the Petitioners have misused the
trust reposed on them while on bail and have
also not involved himself in any other offence.
12. Such submission is not seriously opposed
by the learned counsel for the State.
13. Taking note of such submissions, the
materials on record and in the light of the
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, 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.
14. The Criminal Revision, along with pending
I.As, accordingly stand disposed of.
15. Bail bond(s) stand cancelled and sureties
discharged.
16. The fee of the learned Amicus Curiae shall
be determined as per the procedure followed by
the Legal Services Authority, High Court of
Orissa. The fee, as per the entitlement shall be
released on being moved.
(V. NARASINGH)
Judge
Orissa High Court, Cuttack,
Dated the 13th of March, 2026/Soumya
Signed by: SOUMYA RANJAN SAMAL
Location: High Court of Orissa
Date: 20-Mar-2026 17:45:05
