Jatindra Mohanty Vs State

2. Pursuant to the order passed on 25.11.2024, learned Addl. Govt. Advocate produced the instruction provided by the IIC, Town P.S., Sambalpur. Basing on the said instruction, it is contended that mental condition of the present appellant is not good and he is residing in his own residence after being discharged from VIMSAR, Burla.

¶14

3. Heard Ms. M.K. Dash, learned Amicus Curiae appearing for the appellant and Mr. C.K. Pradhan, learned Addl. Govt. Advocate for the State.

¶15

4. The present Appeal has been filed challenging the order of conviction passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Sambalpur in S.T. Case No.45/35 of 1993. Vide the said judgment, the present appellant

¶16

// 2 //

¶17

has been convicted and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 5 years for the offence under Section 307 of the IPC.

¶18

5. In support of the appeal, learned counsel for the appellant contended that the alleged incident occurred on 30.08.1992 and basing on the report submitted by the informant who happens to be P.W. 2, the prosecution case was set in motion. After filing of the charge-sheet, petitioner was charged for the offences under Section 307 of the IPC and faced the Trial.

¶19

5. 1. It is contended that even though in course of Trial, material were brought to the notice of the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Sambalpur that appellant has no intention to commit the offence, but because of sudden provocation, the incident occurred, but without proper appreciation of such stand of the appellant so taken in course of the Trial, learned Addl. Sessions Judge convicted and sentenced the appellant for the offences under Section 307 of the IPC and convicted him to undergo R.I. for 5 years.

¶20

5. 2. It is also contended that basing on the order passed by this Court on 29.12.1993, petitioner is continuing on bail and in the meantime petitioner has not violated any of the terms and conditions.

¶21

Page 2 of 4

¶22

// 3 //

¶23

5. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant also contended that while continuing on bail, petitioner because of his bad mental condition, jumped from the 1^st floor while under treatment at VIMSAR, Burla. As per the report submitted by the learned Addl. Govt. Advocate in Court today, the mental condition of the appellant is also not good and he is taking medicine for his treatment. It is accordingly contended if at all this Court will upheld the order of conviction and sentence, then the appellant be released in terms of the provisions contained under the P.O. Act, 1958.

¶24

6. Learned Addl. Govt. Advocate on the other hand basing on the material available on record, contended that in view of the categorical statement of the injured P.W. 6 and the evidence of P.W. 2 read with evidence of the Doctor-P.W.1 as well as the IO who happens to be P.W. 7, the appellant has been rightly convicted and sentenced.

¶25

6. 1. It is also contended that injury sustained by the injured because of the overt act of the appellant by way of a knife, has been well proved in course of the Trial. It is however not disputed that as per the report submitted by the local police, petitioner’s mental condition is not good and he is under continuous treatment after his jumping from the 1^st Floor of VIMSAR, while under treatment earlier.

¶26

Page 3 of 4

¶27

// 4 //

¶28

7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and considering the submissions made and the materials available on record, this Court though is not inclined to interfere with the impugned order of conviction and sentence, but taking into account the mental condition of the appellant at present, is inclined to direct for his release under the provisions of Probation of Offenders Act, 1958. This Court accordingly directs the Appellant to surrender before the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Sambalpur within a period of 4 (four) weeks from today. On his surrender as directed, consequential follow up action be taken by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Sambalpur to release the appellant under the provisions of Probation of Offenders Act, 1958.

¶29

8. The appeal accordingly stands disposed of.

¶30

(Biraja Prasanna Satapathy) Judge

¶31

Basudev

¶32

Signature Not Verified

¶33

Page 4 of 4

¶34

Digitally Signed Signed by: BASUDEV SWAIN Designation: SR. STENO Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 23-Dec-2024 16:22:23

Jatindra Mohanty v. State

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jatindra Mohanty v. State

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Jatia Naik Vs State

Jyoti Pr.Nanda Vs v.C.,Utkal Universit

Dr.Bhimsen Sahoo Vs Vice-Chancellor,Sri Jagannath Sanskrit Viswa Vidyalaya,Srivihar,Puri

Babudhar Behera Vs State of Odisha

Sukanta Kumar Mohapatra Vs State of Odisha

Sidheswar Das Vs State of Odisha