Sambhu Kumar Vs State

S.S. Mishra, J. The sole appellant has filed the present Criminal Appeal assailing the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 04.02.1994 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sambalpur in S.T. Case No.146/29 of 1992-93 convicting the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 307 of the IPC and sentenced him to

¶13

undergo R.I. for a period of three years.

¶14

2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that the accused-appellant and the injured are the residents of O.P. Mill Colony of Brajrajnagar. The injured had given a pant cloth piece to the accused, but the accused appellant did not pay the cost of that cloth piece. On 12.02.1992 at about 6 P.M., the injured asked the accused to pay back the money. So, there was an altercation between them. The accused-appellant paid the money. But after sometime, at about 8 P.M., while the injured was strolling in the colony, the accused stabbed at the upper left abdomen of the injured. The injured was hospitalised, but he could survive despite grievous injury.

¶15

3. The prosecution, in order to prove its case, examined 8 witnesses. Out of whom, P.Ws.1 and 2 were the doctors, who had examined the injured. P.W.3 was the injured himself. P.W.4 is the father of the injured. P.W.5 was the seizure witness. P.W.6 was a witness to the quarrel. P.W.7 was the Police Officer, who investigated into the case and P.W.8

¶16

was a helper.

¶17

Page 2 of 15

¶18

4. Heard Mr. Bhabani Shankar Rayaguru, learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Ms. Suvalaxmi Devi, learned Additional Standing Counsel appearing for the Respondent-State.

¶19

5. The learned trial Court, after appreciating the evidence of the

¶20

prosecution witnesses, recorded the following findings:

¶21

“12. To reiterate the witnesses P.Ws.3, 5, 6 & 8 make statements that the injured was shifted to the clinic of P.W.1. It is evident from the statement of P.W.1 that she is a private medical practitioner having a clinic at Brajrajnagar. She had examined the injured and found an incised wound situated in between the belly and chest of left side which was probably caused by a pointed cutting weapon. The seized knife, M.O.I was examined by her on police requisition and she opines that such knife could cause the aforesaid injury. She has further opined that the injury of the injured was sufficient to cause the death of a person in ordinary course. As the injury was serious in nature, she advised to shift him to other hospital. P.W.2 was a Medical Officer then attached to E.S.I. hospital. The injured was taken to him by 11.45 p.m. of that night with a stitched wound below the left ribs cage. He advised to shift the patient to other hospital. As mentioned above, it is evident from the statements of witnesses inclusive of P.W.4 the father of the injured that the injured was shifted to Burla Medical College Hospital, where he was hospitalized for 19 days. These factors reveal that the injury was quite serious in nature and was sufficient to cause the death of person in ordinary course.

¶22

13. The statements of witnesses remain absolutely unassailed.

¶23

14. Hence, there is clinching and unassailed evidence that the accused had picked up quarrel with the injured in connection with the price of a pant piece. Soon thereafter he stabbed the injured between the chest and abdomen of the left

¶24

Page 3 of 15

¶25

part. He was found with blood stained knife which was recovered from his possession. P.W.3 states that by such knife the accused stabbed him. The doctor found such injury and opines that the knife, M.O.I could cause such injury. The accused had also admitted before P.W.8 that he stabbed P.W.3 just below the left chest. Now the question is whether this act of the accused falls within the purview of Section 307 I.P.C. ?”

¶26

6. Finding the appellant guilty of the offence punishable under Section 307 of the IPC, the appellant was sentenced to undergo R.I. for three years. The appellant is aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and has assailed the same in this Criminal Appeal.

¶27

7. Mr. B.S. Rayaguru, learned counsel for the appellant has taken me

¶28

to the evidence of P.W.3, the injured and the evidence of the doctors, P.Ws.1 and 2 and submitted that there is inherent contradictions in the testimony of those vital witnesses. Therefore, relying upon the testimony of the weak nature of evidence of the witnesses sustaining the conviction under Section 307 of the IPC against the appellant may not be safe. He has also submitted that the learned trial Court has relied upon the evidence of P.W.8 to draw the corroboration to the evidence of P.W.3 without realizing the fact that P.W.8 is not trustworthy witness, as he himself was involved in three criminal cases. He has also submitted that

¶29

Page 4 of 15

¶30

P.W.8 was a stock witness planted by the police to support false narrative of prosecution against him. He has submitted that the findings recorded by the learned trial Court that the statements of the witnesses remained absolutely unassailed as an error on record inasmuch as except P.Ws.3 and 8, the other non-official witnesses, such as, P.W.4, who is the father of the injured and P.W.5 the seizure witness, who have not supported the prosecution case. Therefore, the entire prosecution case only hinges upon the singular evidence of P.W.3.

¶31

Mr. Rayaguru, learned counsel for the appellant has also relied upon some judgments of this Court in the cases of Ramesh Chandra Sahu & Anr. Vs. State of Orissa , reported in (2009) 42 OCR-626 , Dolamani Pradhan vs. State of Orissa , reported in 121 (2016) CLT 451 and Haris Chandra Jani vs. State of Orissa , reported in 2002 (Supp.) OLR (NOC)-782 . Relying upon the aforementioned three judgments of this Court, he has stated that in the instant case, the seizure of the weapon of offence is not proved. The bed head ticket of the injured has also not been proved on record. Therefore, the prosecution has miserably failed to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubt.

¶32

Page 5 of 15

¶33

8. Per contra , Ms. Suvalaxmi Devi, learned Additional Standing Counsel appearing for the Respondent-State has relied upon the testimony of P.Ws.1, 2 and 3 and submitted that no further evidence is indeed required to justify the judgment of the learned trial Court because the testimony of these witnesses are unambiguous, not shaky, trustworthy and reliable.

¶34

9. I have gone through the entire evidence on record with the help of the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties and analysed the findings recorded by the learned trial Court vis-à-vis the evidence of the prosecution.

¶35

10. P.W.3 was the injured in the present case. He in his statement has stated as under:

¶36

“I know the accused in the dock. I used to stay in Qr. No.H/2 of Orient Paper Mill Colony at Brajrajnagar. Accused also stays in the same row of quarters. I had previously given a pant piece to the accused. So, the accused was due to pay me Rs.40/-. On 19.2.92 by 6 p.m. I asked the accused to pay the money. The accused picked up quarrel with me and paid Rs.40/-. On that night, around 8 p.m. while I was returning from market near H-line colony, the accused suddenly came and stabbed me by a knife on my left abdomen (shows heal mark of injury on the upper part of left abdomen) while the accused was giving the second blow, I caught the knife. So I sustained injury on my left palm. I sustained bleeding injuries. I raised shouts saying accused Sambhu stabbed me by knife.

¶37

Page 6 of 15

¶38

One Murali standing near the pan shop came there. I told him. Then I proceeded in a vehicle, which was coming from that side, to the clinic of P.W.1. There doctor, P.W.1 gave me medical aid. Then I went to E.S.I. hospital. Therefrom I went to Jharsuguda. Therefrom I was sent to Burla Medical College Hospital. I was hospitalized as an indoor patient for 19 days. I can identify the knife by which I was stabbed. M.O.I is the said knife. At the place of occurrence, street electric light was then glowing.”

¶39

11. Essentially he has stated in his evidence that he demanded Rs.40/-

¶40

from the accused-appellant at 6 p.m. and there was a sudden altercation

¶41

taken place and in the evening at 8 p.m., the accused-appellant attacked him with a knife stabbing in his abdomen. He has also stated that the accused tried to give the second blow, which caused him injury in his left palm, however, he got escaped. The intention of the accused to bodily harm or cause injury which is dangerous to the life of the injured is apparent from the overt act alleged against the appellant, because in the evening at 6 p.m., the quarrel took place when P.W.3 demanded Rs.40/- and though the appellant paid Rs.40/-, but in the late evening, in order to take revenge, he had attacked P.W.3. He attempted to give the second blow to P.W.3, which escape target otherwise, it would have been life threatening blow.

¶42

Page 7 of 15

¶43

12. P.W.4 was the immediate post-occurrence witness, who has stated

¶44

that he heard that the accused Sambhu Kumar has stabbed his son and immediately he went to the clinic, where he found that there was a bandage on the belly of P.W.3. He has also stated that the doctor advised to take him to a better hospital.

¶45

13. P.W.5, who was a seizure witness, largely supported the prosecution version. P.W.6 has stated that on 19.02.1992 at 6 p.m., he found the accused appellant and injured P.W.3 having altercation. He asked the accused as to why they were quarrelling. The accused told that the injured P.W.3 asked him money, as he has taken the cloth piece from the injured and the witness has stated that in his presence, he has paid Rs.40/- to the injured (P.W.3). On the same evening, at about 8 p.m., he heard shout and came out. He found that the accused appellant was holding a blood stained knife and Murali, P.W.8 snatched the same from the accused. P.W.8, Murali took the knife and the accused to the Police Station and they shifted P.W.3 to the hospital. His testimony is directly corroborating with the evidence of P.W.8 (Murali). Immediately thereafter, P.W.3 came running and informed him that accused/appellant

¶46

Page 8 of 15

¶47

stabbed him by the knife. At that point of time, he saw the accused was coming with the knife. The knife was stained with blood. The narrative of the prosecution story stood further corroborated from the evidence of

¶48

P.Ws.1 and 2. P.W.1 in his evidence has stated as under:

¶49

“I am a private medical practitioner having my clinic styled as Nivedita Sevasadan at Brajrajnagar. On 19.2.92, I had examined Rajesh Prasad son of Mahatam Prasad and found the following injuries in his person

¶50

i) one incised wound (stab) of size 1-1/2 x 1-1/2 x ½ situated in between belly and chest of left side.

¶51

The injury was probably caused by a sharp cutting and pointed weapon. It was simple in nature. I examined the patient at about 8 p.m. of that date. The injury was fresh. I gave necessary medical aid. The injured told me that he was stabbed by one Sambhu. I advised the patient to go to hospital for better medical aid. On police requisition I submitted my report as Ext.1 and Ext.1/1 is my signature. The injury was sufficient to cause death of a person in ordinary circumstances. A knife is a sharp cutting and pointed weapon.”

¶52

14. The said witness has also stated that the M.O.I, the weapon of offence (knife) was produced before him. The nature of injury on P.W.3 has been opined to be possible by the said weapon. He has also opined that the injury was sufficient to cause death of a person in the ordinary circumstance.

¶53

Page 9 of 15

¶54

15. P.W.2 is another doctor, who has stated that P.W.3 came to the hospital with an incised wound on his left subcostal region (below the ribs cage). The wound was stitched and the condition of the patient was very serious. So, he advised to shift the patient to another hospital.

¶55

16. The evidence of two doctors, P.Ws.1 and 2 further lend support to the prosecution version as emanating from the evidence of P.Ws.3, 4, 5, 6 and 8. Therefore, there is no scope of any doubt regarding nonavailability of the cogent evidence in so far as establishing the guilt of the appellant of the offence punishable under Section 307 of the IPC is concerned.

¶56

17. Hence, I am of the view that the learned trial Court has rightly appreciated the evidence of all the prosecution witnesses in unison and convicted the appellant. Therefore, I affirm the conviction of the accused-appellant.

¶57

18. At this stage, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant was 21 years of age at the time of the incident, which took place in the year 1992 and P.W.3 was also of the same age. By now,

¶58

Page 10 of 15

¶59

more than three decades have already been lapsed. The present appeal has been pending since 1994.

¶60

The learned counsel for the appellant further submitted that though the offence is grave in nature, the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case warrant a lenient view. The incident occurred at the heat of a moment between two young individuals, both aged around 21 years at that time, without any element of premeditation or sustained enmity. More than three decades have elapsed since the occurrence, and during this long period, the appellant has borne the mental agony of criminal prosecution. There is no record of his involvement in any other offence, and his conduct throughout these years appears to be satisfactory.

¶61

19. Therefore, this is a fit case, where the appellant should have been treated under the benefits of the Probation of Offenders Act. However, the same prayer made by the appellant before the learned trial Court was turned down, inter alia, recording as under:

¶62

“17. The offence warrants a punishment of 10 years of imprisonment or life imprisonment. The facts and circumstances of the case reveals that the accused with utter

¶63

Page 11 of 15

¶64

disrespect to law and order and personal security of others committed crime revealing his propencity to commit crime. So, he does not deserve to be dealt under the provision of P.O. Act.”

¶65

20. Mr. Rayaguru, learned counsel for the appellant further submitted

¶66

that during the trial, the appellant was arrested on 10.04.1992 and was released on bail on 23.09.1992. As an under trial prisoner, the appellant has already undergone about 5 months and 13 days. When the judgment of the trial Court was pronounced on 04.02.1994, the appellant was taken into custody. This Court, vide its order dated 24.02.1994 admitted the appellant to bail. Therefore, after conviction, the appellant has undergone about 20 days’ custody. In toto , the appellant has undergone incarceration for a period of 6 months and 3 days.

¶67

21. In that view of the matter, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant may be given the benefit under the Probation of Offenders Act.

¶68

22. This Court has carefully considered the submissions made and perused the materials on record. It appears that although the offence is grave in nature, the occurrence took place more than three decades ago when the appellant was a young man of 21 years. There is nothing on

¶69

Page 12 of 15

¶70

record to suggest that he has been involved in any other criminal activity thereafter. Over the long span of years, the appellant has remained wellintegrated into society and appears to have reformed himself into a lawabiding citizen. The long pendency of the criminal proceedings has, in itself, served as a sufficient deterrent. The Court is, therefore, of the considered opinion that the appellant’s case falls within the purview of the reformatory spirit underlying the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, which seeks to encourage the rehabilitation of offenders who have shown signs of reform and have lived responsibly thereafter.

¶71

23. Regard being had to the fact that the appellant has already undergone custody for a period of 6 months and 3 days and the incident relates back to the year 1992. At that point of time, the appellant was 22 years old and at present he would be about 55 years. The prayer made by the learned counsel for the appellant deserves merit, as the facts of the case akin to the case decided by the Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench in the matter of Anil Kumar Singh @ Pappu vs. The State of U.P. , reported in ( 2023:AHC-LKO:32343) , which has held as thus:

¶72

Page 13 of 15

¶73

“27. Section 357 Cr.P.C. and Section 5 of the Offenders Act empowers the Court to award compensation to the victim(s) of the offence in respect of the loss/injury suffered. The object of the section is to meet the ends of justice in a better way. This section was enacted to reassure the victim that he is not forgotten in the criminal justice system. The amount of compensation to be awarded under Section 357 Cr.P.C. depends upon the nature of crime, extent of loss/damage suffered and the capacity of the accused to pay, which the Court has to conduct a summary inquiry as well as considering the submission of learned counsel for appellant as earlier, this Court is of the view that benefit of Section 4 of the Probation of First Offender Act, 1958 should be provided to the appellant.

¶74

28. Thus the appeal is partly allowed. The conviction as directed by trial court is confirmed and on the point of sentence it is directed to be released the appellant on probation and under section 4 of the U.P. of the Probation of Offenders Act with stipulated condition that he will keep peace and good conduct for one year subject to furnishing personal bond of Rs.50,000/- and two sureties of the like amount before the Court.”

¶75

24. Taking into consideration all the mitigating facts of the present case and the judgment of the Allahabad High Court, the conviction for offence U/s.307 IPC is upheld, however, instead of sentencing him to undergo imprisonment, this Court directs that he be released under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, for a period of six months, upon his executing a bond of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand) within one month with one surety for the like amount, to

¶76

Page 14 of 15

¶77

appear and receive sentence when called upon during the said period and, in the meantime, to maintain peace and good behaviour. The appellant shall remain under the supervision of the concerned Probation Officer during the said period of probation.

¶78

25. With the above observation, the Criminal Appeal is disposed of.

¶79

The High Court of Orissa, Cuttack.

¶80

Dated the 11^th Day of November, 2025/ Subhasis Mohanty

¶81

Signature Not Verified

¶82

Digitally Signed Signed by: SUBHASIS MOHANTY Designation: Personal Assistant Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack. Date: 12-Nov-2025 11:11:22

¶83

Page 15 of 15

Sambhu Kumar v. State

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sambhu Kumar v. State

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Gitanjali Biswal Vs State of Odisha

Prasanta Vs State

Binaya Vs State

Kuna Das Vs State

Maheswar Sahu Vs State of Odisha

Pravat Vs State