Ghanashyam Sahu Vs State

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK CRLA No.172 of 2003

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 20^th June 2003 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, (Fast Track Court), Bhadrak in Sessions Trial Case No.67/172 of 2002.

¶3

¶4

…. Ghanashyam Sahu & Another Appellants

¶5

-versus- …. State of Orissa Respondent

¶6

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

¶7

========================================================= For Appellant Mr. M.R. Mohanty, Advocate.

¶8

For Respondent - Mr. P.K. Mohanty,

¶9

Additional Standing Counsel.

¶10

CORAM:

¶11

MR. JUSTICE D. DASH DATE OF HEARING :03.05.2024: DATE OF JUDGMENT:20.05.2024

¶12

D.Dash, J. The Appellants, by filing this Appeal, have assailed the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 20^th June 2003 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, (Fast Track Court), Bhadrak in Sessions Trial Case No.67/172 of 2002 arising out of Bhadrak (R) P.S. Case No.209 of 2001 of the file of learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate (S.D.J.M.), Bhadrak.

¶13

Page 1 of 4

¶14

CRLA No.172 OF 2003

¶15

The Appellants (accused persons) have been convicted for offence under section-354 of the Indian Penal Code,1860 (for short, ‘the IPC’) and they have been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay fine of Rs.1000/- in default to pay fine sentence to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months.

¶16

The accused persons being charged for commission of offence under section-376/511 of the IPC, the Trial Court upon examination of evidence both oral and documentary and their scrutiny has held the prosecution to have failed to prove the charge under section-376/511 of the IPC. However, accepting the evidence of the victim (P.W.1) and further keeping in view the role of these Appellants in the said incident, directed against P.W.1, these Appellants have been held guilty of commission of offence under section-354 of the IPC. Accordingly, they have been sentenced as aforestated.

¶17

Learned Counsel for the Appellants from the beginning instead of questioning the conviction of the Appellants for the offence under section-354 of the IPC confined his submission as to the alteration of sentence. According to him, the incident when dates back to 16.10.2001 and as the Appellants, who hail from the rural background and admittedly as there were prior enmity between the Appellants of one hand and the P.W.1 (victim) on the other hand, when by now they have undergone metal agony

¶18

Page 2 of 4

¶19

CRLA No.172 OF 2003

¶20

of criminal trial for more than 20 years, the sentence of imprisonment would stand too harsh, further keeping in view the present age of the Appellants. He, therefore, submitted for modification of the sentence as deemed just and proper.

¶21

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

¶22

Keeping in view the submissions made, the record being perused, it is seen that the present age of the Appellant No.1 is more than 70 years and that of Appellant No.2 is more than 55 years. Both the Appellants hail from rural background. The evidence also reveals that this Appellant No.1 having lodged an F.I.R. against the husband of the victim (P.W.1), the husband of the victim (P.W.1) had been convicted under commission of the section-307 of the IPC and just few days of delivery of said judgment, the present F.I.R. has been lodged. The Appellants having been acquitted of the principal offences for which they had been charged i.e. the offence under section-376/511 of the IPC as the evidence on that score has been found to be deficient, have been convicted for the offence under section-354 of the IPC only.

¶23

Taking into account all these above in their proper perspective, at this distance of time, when the Appellants have already undergone mental agony of criminal trial for more than

¶24

Page 3 of 4

¶25

CRLA No.172 OF 2003

¶26

22 years, this Court is of the view that for the conviction of the Appellants for the offence under section-354 of the IPC, if they are sentenced to pay fine of Rs.2,500/- (Rupees two thousand five hundred) each in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six (06) months each; that would meet the ends of justice and serve its end.

¶27

In that view of the matter, the conviction of the Appellants for commission of offence under section-354 of the IPC being maintained, they are sentenced to pay fine of Rs.2,500/- each with the default stipulation of undergoing of rigorous imprisonment for a period of six (06) months.

¶28