Jambeswar Pradhan Vs State — Orissa HC (2024) — LawSathi Research

Jambeswar Pradhan Vs State — Orissa HC (2024) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Modification of the order of sentence: imprisonment replaced by fine of Rs.500/- per offence — Appellant Nos.2–7 under ss.148 and 337/149 IPC, and Appellant Nos.6 & 7 additionally under s.324 IPC — in default simple imprisonment for 10 days; Appeal disposed of accordingly.

Issue for consideration

Whether the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 16.08.2001 passed by the learned Special Judge, Puri in Trial Case No.19 of 1996 should be interfered with in this appeal under s.374(2) CrPC. +1 more

Court's answer

The Appeal stood disposed of with modification of the order of sentence to the extent indicated, i.e., substitution of imprisonment by fine.

Ratio / Principle

Considering all relevant factors and the age of the Appellants, this Court was inclined to impose a sentence of fine instead of the sentence of imprisonment ordered by the Trial Court.

Key takeaways

Appellant Nos.2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 were sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.500/- for the offence under s.148 IPC and a fine of Rs.500/- for the offence under s.337/149 IPC, and Appellant Nos.6 and 7 (Dhadu Parida and Bhalu Khatei) a fine of Rs.500/- for the offence under s.324 IPC, in each case with default simple imprisonment of 10 days.ratio¶7
Material considerations were that the incident dated back to 12.04.1993 and the Appellants had in the interim undergone the mental agony of a criminal trial for more than 30 years, besides one week of custody for Appellant Nos.1, 2, 8, 9 and 10.ratio¶6

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Orissa at Cuttack (D. Dash, J.; hearing 06.05.2024, judgment 20.05.2024) in CRA No.179 of 2001, an appeal under s.374(2) CrPC against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 16.08.2001 passed by the learned Special Judge, Puri in Trial Case No.19 of 1996 (arising out of G.R. Case No.558 of 1993, J.M.F.C., Pipili). The Appellants had been convicted under ss.148/337/194 IPC, with Appellant Nos.6 and 7 further convicted under s.324 IPC, and sentenced to concurrent simple imprisonment of six months (s.148), one month (s.337/149) and three months (s.324, Nos.6 & 7); they stood acquitted of charges under ss.147/323/336/341/379 IPC and s.3(1)(x) of the SC & ST (P.A.) Act. Observing that the incident dated back to 12.04.1993, that the Appellants had endured the mental agony of a criminal trial spanning more than 30 years, that Appellant Nos.1, 2, 8, 9 and 10 had spent a week in custody, that they hailed from a rural background with no pre-planning behind the incident and no reported prior criminal involvement, and keeping in view their age, the Court substituted the sentences of imprisonment with a fine of Rs.500/- for each offence (default simple imprisonment 10 days). The Appeal was disposed of with the order of sentence modified to that extent; the convictions themselves were not the subject of the modification.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK CRA No.179 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 16^th August 2001 passed by the learned Special Judge, Puri in Trial Case No.19 of 1996.

Jambeswar Pradhan & Others …. Appellants

-versus-

…. State of Orissa Respondent

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

=========================================================

For Appellants - Mr. D.P. Dhal, Senior Advocate.

For Respondent - Mr. G.N. Rout,

Additional Standing Counsel.

CORAM:

MR. JUSTICE D. DASH DATE OF HEARING :06.05.2024: DATE OF JUDGMENT:20.05.2024

D.Dash, J. The Appellants, by filing this Appeal, have assailed the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 16^th August 2001 passed by the learned Special Judge, Puri in Trial Case No.19 of 1996, arising out of G.R. Case No. 558 of 1993 on the file of learned J.M.F.C., Pipili.

The Appellants (accused persons) have been convicted for offence under section-148/337/194 of the Indian Penal Code, 1960

Page 1 of 5

CRA No.179 OF 2001

(for short, ‘the IPC’) and Appellant Nos.6 and 7 have further been convicted for offence under section-324 of the IPC. All the Appellants have been sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six (06) months for the offence under section-148 of the IPC and one month for the offence under section-337/149 of the IPC; whereas the Appellant Nos. 6 & 7 have been further sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for three months for the offence under section 324 of the IPC with the view that all the sentences are run concurrently.

The Appellants having faced the trial for commission of offence under section-147/148/324/323/336/337/341/379/149 of the IPC and section-3(1)(x) of the SC & ST (PA) Act; all have been acquitted of the charge under section-147/323/336/341/379 of the IPC and section-3(1)(x) of the SC & ST (P.A.) Act and except the Appellant Nos.6 & 7 who have not been acquitted under section324 of the IPC all others have also been acquitted of the said charge.

Prosecution case is that on 12.04.1993 during noon hour near the embankment, the Appellants namely, Bhalu Khatei, Dhadia Parida and Gadei Pradhan and one Sarat Khatei scolded Bijaya Kumar Jena, the son of the Informant, threw his articles and then having assaulted him, took away his cycle. The information in writing being lodged at the concerned Police Station, case being registered, investigation was taken up.

Page 2 of 5

CRA No.179 OF 2001

The plea of defence is that of complete denial and false implication.

Learned Counsel for the Appellants submitted that the Appellants namely Jambeswar, Dibakar, Rama Chandra, and Pathani have remained in custody from 14.04.1993 to 21.04.1993; whereas others have not remained under detention during trial. He submitted that looking at the nature of accusations, further keeping in view the fact that the incident for which, the Appellants faced the trial, had taken placed on 12.04.1993, when by now there has been lapse of more than three decades, for which they have undergone mental agony for the conviction recorded against the Appellant Nos.1, 8, 9 and 10, the period already undergone on each count would be in the interest of justice meet its end. He, further submitted that in so far as the case of the Appellant Nos.2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 are concerned, after this long lapse of time, when they had already under gone, the metal agony of criminal trial for three decades, the sentence of imprisonment would stand too harsh and instead sentence of fine as deemed just and proper would serve the ends of justice.

Learned Counsel for the State submitted that the sentence imposed on the Appellants commensurate the offence.

Keeping in view the submissions made, I have carefully read the judgment of conviction and order of sentence

Page 3 of 5

CRA No.179 OF 2001

impugned in this Appeal. It reveals that incident dates back to 12.04.1993 and the Appellants have in the meantime undergone metal agony of a criminal trial for more 30 years, when also Appellant Nos.1, 2, 8, 9 and 10 have remained in custody for a week.

They hail from rural background and there was no prior panning behind the incident and no such report as to the involvement of the Appellants in any criminal activity is forthcoming.

Keeping in view all the relevant factors as also the age of the Appellants; this Court is inclined to impose the sentence of fine of rupees instead of the sentence of imprisonment as has been ordered by the Trial Court.

Accordingly, the Appellant Nos.2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 are hereby sentenced to pay fine of Rs.500/- for the offence under section-148 of the IPC in default to undergo simple imprisonment for 10 days; fine of Rs.500/- for the offence under section-337/149 of the IPC in default to undergo simple imprisonment for 10 days whereas the Appellant Nos.6 and 7 Dhadu Parida and Bhalu Khatei are sentenced to pay fine of Rs.500/- for the offence under section-324 of the IPC in default to simple imprisonment for 10 days, which in the opinion of this

Page 4 of 5

CRA No.179 OF 2001

Court, at this distance of time would serve the interest of justice and meet its end.

The Appeal stands accordingly disposed of with the modification to the order of sentence to the extent as indicated above.

(D. Dash), Judge.

Narayan

Signature Not Verified

Digitally Signed Signed by: NARAYAN HO Reason: Authentication Location: OHC Date: 23-May-2024 13:32:52

Page 5 of 5

CRA No.179 OF 2001