Allowed

Ramakanta Sahoo v. State

Orissa HC20 May 2024CRLA/49/2003

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this appeal, the High Court of Orissa found the Trial Court committed a grave error by convicting the appellant for robbery (section 392 IPC) without the injured victim's testimony or supporting medical evidence. The Court allowed the appeal and quashed the conviction and sentence.

What did the court decide?

The judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 21st February 2003 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge is set aside.

Ramakanta Sahoo Vs State — Cheating and Forgery | Orissa HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK CRLA No.49 of 2003

¶2

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 21^st February 2003 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.III in Sessions Trial Case No17/55/70 of 2002.

¶3

¶4

Ramakanta Sahoo

¶5

…. Appellant

¶6

-versus-

¶7

…. State of Orissa Respondent

¶8

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

¶9

========================================================= For Appellant Mr. B.R. Mohanty, Advocate. For Respondent - Mr. P.K. Mohanty, Additional Standing Counsel.

¶10

CORAM:

¶11

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

¶12

D. Dash, J. The Appellant, by filing this Appeal, has assailed the judgment of conviction and order of sentence 21^st February 2003 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.III in Sessions Trial Case No17/55/70 of 2002

¶13

Page 1 of 5

¶14

CRLA No.49 OF 2003

¶15

arising out of G.R. Case No.46 of 1999 of the file of learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate (S.D.J.M.), Bhubaneswar.

¶16

The Appellant (accused) has been convicted for commission of offence under section-392 of the IPC and accordingly, he has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three (3) years and pay fine of Rs.3,000/- in default to undergo R.I. for a further period of 6 months.

¶17

The prosecution case is that on 05.01.1999 around 10 pm, when one Raghunath Chotray was returning to his house from Banamalipur, three to four persons attacked him with sword. He out of fear tried to escape, and while running away, this accused Babuni @ Ramakanta Sahoo assaulted by means of sword, resulting major bleeding injury on his left shoulder. Said accused is said to have snatched away the gold chain from his neck, one ring and watch, he then fled away. In that injured condition, that Raghunath Chotray reached his house with much difficulty; therefrom, he was taken to hospital. On return from Hospital he lodged the F.I.R. which has triggered the investigation. Finally on completion of investigation, this accused Babuni @ Ramakanta Sahoo was placed for trial for commission of offence under section-397 of the IPC.

¶18

Page 2 of 5

¶19

CRLA No.49 OF 2003

¶20

The Trial Court upon examination of the evidence of the prosecution witnesses as also the proved documents as marked exhibits have held that the prosecution has not been able to establish the charge under section-397 of the IPC. However, the Trial Court has found the evidence to be sufficient in establishing a case for commission of offence under section-392 of the IPC as against the Appellant. Accordingly, he has been sentenced as aforestated.

¶21

The Appellant (accused) submitted that here in the case although the prosecution has not examined that the injuredRaghunath Chotray who himself is the victim; the Trial Court has taken the evidence of his mother and younger brother who have been examined during trial as P.Ws.1 and 3 as the substitute to the evidence of injured victim, Raghunath Chhotray, when even there is no medical evidence to provide support to the case of the prosecution that said Raghunath had some injuries by means of sharp cutting weapon (i.e. sword) as stated. He, therefore, submitted that the finding of guilty of the accused for commission of offence under section392 of the IPC with the available evidence cannot sustain and therefore, is liable to be quashed.

¶22

Learned Counsel for the State-Respondent supporting the finding of the guilt as has been returned by the Trial Court has held that the mother and younger brother of the injured

¶23

Page 3 of 5

¶24

CRLA No.49 OF 2003

¶25

having stated about the incident and the injury sustained by that Raghunath Chotray, the Trial Court did commit no error in holding the accused guilty for commission of offence under section-392 of the IPC.

¶26

Keeping in view the submissions made; I have carefully read the judgment passed by the Trial Court and I have also extensively travelled through the evidence adduced by the prosecution witnesses i.e. P.Ws. 1 to 6.

¶27

The very prosecution case is that Raghunath Chotray was detained on the way by this Appellant who then caused injuries on him by inflicting blows by means of sword and forcibly took away his gold chain, ring, and a watch, said Raghunath has not been examined. There is no evidence on record that it was this Appellant who had it intercepted Raghunath in this way. It is, he who alone could have said so. When it is not stated that Raghunath was not alive, and that the accused was caught hold at the spot and as there is no medical evidence even to support the version of P.Ws.1 and 3, their evidence ought not to have been accepted as the base for finding of guilt to stand. In that view of the matter, this Court finds that the Trial Court has committed grave error in convicting the accused for commission of offence under section-392 of the IPC and sentencing him as aforestated.

¶28

Page 4 of 5

¶29

CRLA No.49 OF 2003

¶30

In that view of the matter, this Appeal is allowed. The judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.III, Bhubaneswar in Sessions Trial Case No.17/55/70 of 2002 are hereby set aside.

¶31

(D. Dash), Judge.

¶32

Narayan

¶33

Signature Not Verified

¶34

Digitally Signed Signed by: NARAYAN HO Reason: Authentication Location: OHC Date: 23-May-2024 13:32:53

¶35

Page 5 of 5

¶36

CRLA No.49 OF 2003

Ramakanta Sahoo v. State

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramakanta Sahoo v. State

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Manas Behera Vs State of Odisha

Sushanti Pradhan Vs State of Odisha

Sidheswar Mohapatra Vs State of Odisha

Ghanashyam Sahu Vs State

Jambeswar Pradhan Vs State

Ramesh Sahoo Vs State of Orissa