Ramesh Sahoo Vs State of Orissa — Orissa HC (2024) — LawSathi Research

Ramesh Sahoo Vs State of Orissa — Orissa HC (2024) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Appeal allowed in part with modification of the order of sentence dated 8th May, 2001: conviction under section 325/294 IPC confirmed; sentence reduced to the period already undergone with fines retained (Rs.5,000 for s.325 IPC, default RI 6 months; Rs.500 for s.294 IPC, default SI 15 days); out of the fine paid, Rs.5,000 to be paid to P.W.2 (Injured).

Issue for consideration

Whether the finding of guilt (conviction) of the accused under sections 325 and 294 IPC returned by the Trial Court should be questioned — the appellant expressly did not contest it and confined the appeal to modification of sentence. +1 more

Court's answer

Conviction of the appellant for the offences under section 325/294 IPC is confirmed/maintained (the appellant had not contested the finding of guilt).

Ratio / Principle

Sentence modified in the interest of justice: the accused is sentenced to the period already undergone with the fine retained — Rs.5,000 (default: rigorous imprisonment 6 months) for the offence under section 325 IPC and Rs.500 (default: simple imprisonment 15 days) for the offence under section 294 IPC.

Key takeaways

The injury (fracture on the shoulder of the victim) was shown to be grievous in nature, but there was no further evidence of any sort of permanent impairment or disability having been caused to the victim.ratio¶33
Mitigating circumstances weighed by the Court: near about 25 years had elapsed since the 1999 incident; the appellant, of rural background, is now about fifty years old; no report of mis-utilisation of liberty while on bail; he was in custody from production before the Court until release on bail; he underwent the mental agony of criminal trial for all these 25 years; and he is stated to be now settled with his family and living on daily wages.ratio¶33

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

CRA No.119 of 2001 (High Court of Orissa at Cuttack, judgment dated 20.05.2024) — Ramesh Sahoo v. State of Orissa [D. Dash, J.]: Appeal under Section 374(2) CrPC against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 08.05.2001 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge-Cum-Judge, Special Court, Jharsuguda in T.R. Case No.40 of 2000 (Loikera P.S. Case No.79 of 1999), convicting the appellant under ss.325 & 294 IPC for the 01.10.1999 lathi assault on Sukuram Rohidas (P.W.2) causing fracture of the right hand (injury held grievous) together with filthy verbal abuse; the appellant did not contest the conviction and pleaded only reduction of sentence (original order: RI 3 years + fine Rs.5,000, default RI 6 months; fine Rs.500; Rs.2,500 of fine to the Informant as compensation). Confirming the conviction under s.325/294 IPC, the Court — weighing the lapse of near 25 years, the appellant's age (about fifty) and rural background, the absence of any evidence of permanent impairment or disability to the victim despite the grievous injury, no mis-utilisation of liberty during the long bail period (he had remained in custody until bail release), the mental agony of a 25-year trial and his present settlement on daily wages — held that further imprisonment at this distance of time would be too harsh. Sentence modified to the period already undergone with fines retained: Rs.5,000 (default RI 6 months) for s.325 IPC and Rs.500 (default SI 15 days) for s.294 IPC, with Rs.5,000 out of the fine payable to the injured P.W.2. Appeal allowed in part (modification confined to the order of sentence).

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

CRA No.119 of 2001

In the matter of an Appeal under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and from the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 8^th May, 2001 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-Cum-Judge, Special Court, Jharsuguda in T.R. Case No.40 of 2000.

---- Ramesh Sahoo …. Appellant

-versus-

…. State of Orissa Respondent

Appeared in this case by Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual/Physical Mode):

For Appellant - Mr.D.K. Mishra (Advocate) For Respondent - Mr.P.K. Mohanty Additional Standing Counsel

CORAM

MR. JUSTICE D.DASH

Date of Hearing : 15.05.2024 : Date of Judgment : 20.05.2024

D.Dash,J. The Appellant, by filing this Appeal, has called in question the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 8^th May, 2001 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-Cum-

Page 1 of 7

CRA No.119 of 2001

Judge, Special Court, Jharsuguda in T.R. Case No.40 of 2000 corresponding to Loikera P.S. Case No.79 of 1999.

By the impugned the judgment of conviction and order of sentence, the Appellant (accused) has been convicted for commission of the offence under section 325/294 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, ‘the IPC’). Accordingly, he has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three (3) years and pay fine of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand) in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six (6) months for commission of the offence under section 325 of the IPC; and pay fine of Rs.500/- (Five Hundred) for commission of the offence under section 294 of the IPC. It was further directed by the Trial Court that in case of realization of fine, a sum of Rs.2500/- (Two Thousand Five Hundred) be paid to the Informant, as compensation.

2. Prosecution Case:-

On 01.10.1999 around 3.00 a.m. in the night, the Informant, namely, Sukuram Rohidas (P.W.2) had gone to his field to sprinkle water over there. It is stated that the accused arrived there and charged the Informant (P.W.2) as to why he had committed theft of his fish and so saying, the accused dealt lathi blows on the person of P.W.2 causing fracture of his right hand and swelling on his body. It is further stated that while assaulting

Page 2 of 7

CRA No.119 of 2001

the Informant (P.W.2), the accused had also abused him uttering filthy language. It is stated that one Kumar Purua (P.W.1) then had been to the place of occurrence. Information being lodged by the Informant (P.W.2) about the occurrence at Loikera P.S. in writing, the same was treated as FIR and upon registration of the case, the investigation commenced.

On completion of the investigation, Final Form has been submitted placing this accused to face the Trial for commission of the offence under section 325/294 of the IPC and section 2(1)(x) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

3. The Trial Court, upon examination of the evidence both oral and documentary followed by their scrutiny, has held the accused guilty for commission of the offence under section 325/294 of the IPC and accordingly, he has been sentenced as afore-stated.

4. Learned counsel for the Appellant (accused), from the very beginning, instead of questioning the finding of guilt against the accused under section 325/294 of the IPC as has been returned by the Trial Court, confined his submission as to the modification of sentence by maintaining the conviction of the accused for commission of the offence under section 325 and 294 of the IPC.

Page 3 of 7

CRA No.119 of 2001

He submitted that the incident for which the criminal case had been initiated dates back to 01.10.1999 and in the meantime, twenty-five years have passed when the accused had crossed his fifty. He further submitted that when the accused has not been held guilty for the principal offence, i.e., section 307 of the IPC, the sentence of imprisonment for the offence under section 325 of the IPC if reduced to the period already undergone and fine while keeping the sentence of fine for the offence under section 294 of the IPC untouched, would meet the ends of justice.

5. Mr.P.K.Mohanty, learned Additional Standing Counsel for the Respondent-State, while submitting that the offence, i.e., section 325 of the IPC for which the conviction has been recorded against the Appellant (accused) is punishable with imprisonment of either description for a term, which may extent to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine and for the section 294 of the IPC for which the conviction has been recorded against the Appellant (accused) is punishable with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extent to three months, or with fine, or with both; contended that in the facts and circumstances; which have emerged in evidence, the sentence imposed by the Trial Court is just and proper.

Page 4 of 7

CRA No.119 of 2001

6 . Keeping in view the submissions made; I have carefully read the impugned judgment of conviction and have also extensively travelled through the depositions of the witnesses (P.Ws.1 to P.W.7).

7. The record, being perused, it is seen that the Appellant, having faced the trial for commission of the offence under section 325/294 of the IPC and section 2(1)(x) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, (for short, the SC & ST (POA) Act), he has only been held guilty for commission of the offence under section 325/294 of the.

The injury, being the fracture on the shoulder of the victim, it has been shown to be grievous in nature when there is no further evidence to show that there has been any sort of permanent impairment or disability being so caused to the victim. Fact remains that near about twenty-five (25) years have in the meantime elapsed and the Appellant, who hails from rural background is now about fifty years old. No such report is forthcoming that the Appellant has mis-utilized the liberty while he was on bail during all these periods. Record also reveals that the Appellant was in custody after he was produced before the Court till his release on bail. The accused has also undergone mental agony of criminal trial for all these twenty-five (25) years

Page 5 of 7

CRA No.119 of 2001

and it is stated that he is now settled with his family and living on daily wages.

8 . Cumulatively viewing all these factors into account, in my considered view, at this distance of time, directing the accused to further undergo imprisonment would stand too harsh.

9 . Accordingly, while maintaining the conviction of the accused for the offence under section 325/294 of the IPC, this Court is of the view that the interest of justice would be best served and the ends of the same would met; if the accused is sentenced to the period already undergone and pay fine of Rs.5000/- (Rupees Five Thousand) in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months for the offence under section 325 of the IPC and pay fine of Rs.500/- (Rupees Five Hundred) for commission of the offence under section 294 of the IPC in default to undergo simple imprisonment for fifteen (15) days.

Accordingly, the Appellant’s conviction for the offence under section 325/294 of the IPC being confirmed; he is sentenced to the period already undergone and pay fine of Rs.5000/(Rupees Five Thousand) in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six (6) months for commission of the said offence; and to pay fine of Rs.500/- (Rupees Five Hundred) in default to undergo simple imprisonment for fifteen (15) days for

Page 6 of 7

CRA No.119 of 2001

commission of the offence under section 294 of the IPC. The fine being paid by the Appellant; out of the same, a sum of Rs.5000/shall be paid to P.W.2 (Injured).

10. In the result, the Appeal is allowed in part with the modification as to the order of sentence dated 8^th May, 2001 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-Cum-Judge, Special Court, Jharsuguda in T.R. Case No.40 of 2000 to the extent as indicated above.

(D. Dash), Judge.

Basu

Signature Not Verified

Digitally Signed Signed by: BASUDEV NAYAK Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA : CUTTACK Date: 21-May-2024 19:05:31

CRA No.119 of 2001

Page 7 of 7