Sanjaya Ku.Tripathy Vs State

judgment and order dated 31.08.2007 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kendrapara in S.T. Case No.7 of 2006, arising out of G.R. Case No.624 of 2000, whereby the appellant, though acquitted of the charge under Section 307 IPC, was convicted under Section 323 IPC

¶13

and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for two months.

¶14

2. Heard Mr. Ashreet Behera, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Mr. Manas Chand, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Raj Bhusan Dash, learned Additional Standing Counsel for the State.

¶15

3. The prosecution case in brief is that on 29.07.2000 at about 12 noon, the appellant assaulted the injured Aviram Dash (P.W.7) by means of a lathi near Dandachounra of village Adhanga, causing injuries on different parts of his body. The assault was allegedly preceded by threats and demand for money. The injured was admitted to District Headquarters Hospital, Kendrapara and treated as an indoor patient. After regaining consciousness, he narrated the incident to his father, following which the informant lodged a written report at Kendrapara Police Station. On the basis of the said report, Kendrapara P.S. Case No.207 of 2000 was registered and an investigation was taken up. On completion of the investigation, charge-sheet was submitted under

¶16

Page 2 of 10

¶17

Section 307 IPC. On stance of denial by the accused, he was put to trial on the charges as mentioned above.

¶18

4. To establish the charges against the accused, the prosecution examined a total of eight witnesses. Among them, P.W. 1, P.W. 2, and P.W. 3 were independent witnesses. P.W. 4 was the doctor, who examined the injured party, P.W. 5 was the informant, P.W. 6 was the informant's younger son and brother of the injured party, P.W. 7 was the injured party, and P.W. 8 was the Investigating Officer. In contrast, the defense did not present any evidence.

¶19

5. The learned trial Court, upon appreciation of evidence, recorded a categorical finding that though the prosecution succeeded in establishing the assault by the appellant, the essential ingredients of Section 307 IPC were not made out, particularly in view of the nature of injuries, weapon used, and absence of intention to cause death. Consequently, the appellant was convicted under Section 323 IPC. The relevant portion of the aforesaid judgment is extracted herein below for ready reference:-

¶20

“16. Thus, in the instant case, judging the circumstances, situation and time of occurrence,

¶21

Page 3 of 10

¶22

the deposition of the injured (P.W.7) appears to be natural description of the occurrence and it can not be said for a moment that he has tried to improve by exaggerating and blowing up the occurrence with intention of involving the accused in the alleged crime. So, the testimonies of P.Ws. 5,6 and 7 coupled with the injury report Ext-1, the discharge certificate, Ext 3 and the testimony of the doctor (P.W.4) as regards the nature of the injuries on the injured, as discussed supra, none else but the accused, who assaulted Aviram Dash (P.W.7) by means of lathi causing injuries on his person on the date, time and place of occurrence.

¶23

17. It is the intention, which is sina-qua-non, in order to liable the accused for the offence U/s. 307 of the I.P.C. The intention can be gathered from the nature of weapon, the parts of the body where the injuries inflicted, nature of injuries inflicted and the opportunity available, which the accused gets. In the case in hand the accused had no intention to cause the death of the injured Aviram Dash(P.W.7) and the injuries are not on the vital part of his body. Thus, the ingredients of the offence U/s.307 IPC are not made out by the prosecution against the accused, but the prosecution has well proved the charge U/s.323 of the I.P.C. beyond all reasonable doubt against the accused.

¶24

18. In the facts and circumstances of the case as discussed above, prosecution as well proved the charge U/s. 323 IPC and has failed to prove the

¶25

Page 4 of 10

¶26

charge U/s.307 of the I.P.C. beyond all reasonable doubt against the accused.

¶27

19. In the result, the accused is held guilty of the offence punishable U/s. 323 of the I.P.C. instead of Sec. 307 I.P.C. and convict him thereunder.”

¶28

6. I have carefully considered the submissions advanced by the

¶29

learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for the State and have gone through the records of the case, including the depositions of the witnesses and the documents produced.

¶30

7. On the question of conviction, this Court finds no infirmity in the reasoning adopted by the learned trial Court. The testimony of the injured witness (P.W.7) is clear, cogent and consistent. It is well settled that the evidence of an injured witness stands on a higher pedestal and ordinarily commands great weight, unless serious infirmities are shown.

¶31

8. The testimonies of P.W.5 and P.W.6 clearly corroborate the occurrence in material particulars, inasmuch as P.W.5, the informant and father of the injured, deposed about receiving information regarding the assault, finding his son lying injured and bleeding, shifting him to District Headquarters Hospital, Kendrapara, and lodging the written

¶32

Page 5 of 10

¶33

report after the injured narrated the incident, while P.W.6, the younger brother of the injured, supported the prosecution case by stating that the appellant assaulted his brother with a lathi while he was proceeding towards Derabisi Out Post and further corroborated the motive as well as the factum of treatment of the injured at the said hospital, thereby lending assurance to the prosecution version. The testimony of P.W.5 in that regard is relevant, which is reproduced herein for ready reference:-

¶34

“The name of my eldest son is Abhiram Das, who was on the occurrence proceeding towards out post at about 12 noon at Adhanga Danda Chounra the accused detained my son and assaulted causing bleeding. I was informed that my son was assaulted and lying unconscious. I reached the spot and found bleeding injuries all over the body including eyes, back, head. My son is not able to see. I took a car and shifted my injured son to Dist. Headquarters Hospital, Kendrapara for treatment where he regained sense. He narrated me the occurrence and accordingly I reported.”

¶35

9. The medical evidence adduced through P.W.4 fully corroborates

¶36

the oral testimony. The injury report (Ext.1) and discharge certificate (Ext.3) establish that the injured sustained multiple injuries caused by a

¶37

Page 6 of 10

¶38

hard and blunt object, consistent with assault by a lathi. The injuries

¶39

were simple in nature, and no fracture or life-threatening injury was detected. The testimony of P.W.4 in that regard is relevant, which is reproduced herein for ready reference:-

¶40

“On 29.7.2000 I as Asst. Surgeon DHH Kendrapara on police requisition examined one Aviram Das s/o Mathuri Das of VillageJahangara, Derabisi, Kendrapara and found the following injuries:

¶41

1) Bruise 1" x ½" x 2" over left fore arm

¶42

2) Bruise 2" x 2" x 1" over right thigh

¶43

3) Bruise 1" x 1" x ½" over left thigh

¶44

4) Lacerated wound 1" x ½" x ½" left outer canthus of eye

¶45

All are simple in nature and might have been hard and blunt objects, age being within 6 hours. The patient was admitted to male surgical ward DHH Kendrapara.”

¶46

10. The learned trial Court has rightly observed that the mere absence

¶47

of independent eyewitnesses is not fatal, particularly when the occurrence took place suddenly and the injured witness inspires confidence. Hostility of P.Ws.1, 2 and 3 does not weaken the prosecution case, as their testimony was not the foundation of the conviction.

¶48

Page 7 of 10

¶49

11. This Court, therefore, concurs with the finding of guilt recorded by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, holds that the conviction of the appellant under Section 323 IPC is legal, justified and based on proper appreciation of evidence. The same does not warrant interference.

¶50

12. Coming to the sentence, this Court notes that the offence under Section 323 IPC is punishable with imprisonment or fine or both, and the injuries caused were simple in nature. The incident occurred in the year 2000, and more than two decades have already elapsed since the occurrence. There is no material on record to suggest that the appellant is a habitual offender.

¶51

13. The object of the Probation of Offenders Act is reformative and rehabilitative. Courts are expected to balance deterrence with the prospects of reformation, particularly in cases involving minor offences not attended by grave violence or moral turpitude. During this long duration, the appellant has faced the protracted ordeal of criminal prosecution and appeal proceedings. Considering the passage of time and the absence of any subsequent criminal antecedents, this Court is

¶52

Page 8 of 10

¶53

inclined to take a lenient view in the matter of sentence. Therefore, while not interfering with the judgment of conviction recorded against the appellant for the offence as stated above, I am inclined to grant the benefit of the Probation of Offenders Act so as to suffice the sentence part.

¶54

14. Accordingly, while upholding the conviction of the appellant under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code, the sentence of imprisonment imposed upon him by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kendrapara, is hereby set aside. The fine amount is enhanced to Rs.20,000/-, in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month. 15. The appellant is directed to be released on probation of good conduct for a period of six months under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, on his executing a bond for a sum of Rs.5,000/(Rupees Five Thousand) within one month with one surety for the like amount to appear and receive the sentence when called upon during such period and in the meantime, the appellant shall keep peace and good behavior and he shall remain under the supervision of the concerned

¶55

Page 9 of 10

¶56

Probation Officer during the aforementioned period of six months. The fine amount shall be deposited by the appellant within one month from today. The amount to be deposited shall be disbursed to the injured in accordance with the provision of Section 357 of the Cr. P.C.

¶57

16. Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal is partly allowed.

¶58

The High Court of Orissa, Cuttack.

¶59

Dated the 23th Day of December, 2025/Subhashis Mohanty

¶60

Signature Not Verified

¶61

Digitally Signed Signed by: SUBHASIS MOHANTY Designation: Personal Assistant Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack. Date: 23-Dec-2025 17:29:23

¶62

Page 10 of 10

Sanjaya Ku.Tripathy v. State

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sanjaya Ku.Tripathy 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

Surya Narayan @ Surya Pradhan Vs State of Odisha

Bijay Kumar Jena Vs State of Odisha

Prasanta @ Prasant @ Prashanta Gaana Vs State of Odisha

Narendra Kumar Pandey Vs State of Orissa

Sarat Ch.Barik Vs State

Niro Bhuyan Vs State