Jayanta Pradhan Vs State — Orissa HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

Jayanta Pradhan Vs State — Orissa HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Conviction under Section 323 IPC upheld; sentence modified — appellant to be released on probation under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act for six months on executing bond of Rs.5,000/- (with one surety for the like amount) within one month, keeping peace and good behaviour under supervision of the Probation Officer.

Issue for consideration

Whether the appellant's conviction under Section 323 IPC recorded by the learned trial court should be sustained on appellate review of the evidence. +1 more

Court's answer

This Court found no reason to disagree with the findings recorded by the learned trial court; the appellant's conviction under Section 323 IPC is upheld.

Ratio / Principle

Even considering only the evidence of P.Ws.4 and P.W.5 (the doctor), the trial court's findings cannot be questioned; the Court was reluctant to give indulgence to the convict-appellant regarding the conviction under Section 323 IPC.

Key takeaways

Regard being had to the appellant's societal position, clean antecedents and the fact that the incident occurred in 2007, the Court held the appellant entitled to the benefit of the Probation of Offenders Act read with Section 360 Cr.P.C.ratio¶¶37
Instead of sentencing the appellant to suffer imprisonment, the Court directed his release under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act for six months on executing a bond of Rs.5,000/- with one surety, keeping peace and good behaviour under supervision of the Probation Officer.ratio¶¶49

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

CRIMINAL APPEAL (ORISSA HC, S.S. Mishra, J., 12.02.2026): Conviction of appellant under Section 323 IPC (assault on informant during paddy-purchase quarrel with a 'Kerengela', 09.12.2007, Jharbandh P.S.) upheld — Court found no reason to disagree with trial court findings corroborated by the injured witness and doctor P.W.5; acquittal under Sections 341/307/294 IPC undisturbed. With counsel confining arguments to quantum of sentence, and considering the 2007 vintage of the incident, two-year trial, 16-year appeal pendency and appellant's clean antecedents and settled life, sentence modified: appellant released under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 read with Section 360 Cr.P.C. for six months on bond of Rs.5,000/- with one surety, under Probation Officer supervision. Criminal Appeal partly allowed. Relied on Pathani Parida (2012 (Supp-II) OLR 469); Dhani @ Dhaneswar Sahu (2007 (Supp.II) OLR 250); Sk. Wahed Ali (AIR OnLine 2025 ORI 280); Maheswar Sahu (CRA No.302 of 1996).

THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

CRLA No. 264 of 2009

(In the matter of an application under Section 374 of Criminal Procedure Code)

Jayanta Pradhan ……. Appellant -VersusState of Orissa ……. Respondent

For the Appellant : Mr. Prasanta Kumar Das, Advocate

For the Respondent : Mr. S. Panigrahi, ASC

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE SHRI JUSTICE SIBO SANKAR MISHRA

Date of Hearing: 03.02.2026 : Date of Judgment: 12.02.2026

S.S. Mishra, J. The present Criminal Appeal is preferred by the appellant assailing the judgment of conviction and order of sentence

dated 16.05.2009 passed by the learned Ad hoc Additional Sessions

Judge, Fast Track Court, Padampur in Criminal Trial No. 193/5 of

2008-09 convicting him under Section 323 IPC and sentenced to undergo R.I. for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default to undergo S.I. for two months.

2. Heard Mr. Prasanta Kumar Das, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. S. Panigrahi, learned Additional Standing Counsel for the State.

3. The narrative of prosecution report in the present case is that one Bhismadev Poch of village Sareikela under Jharbandh Police Station lodged written report on 09.12.2007 alleging therein that on the same day at about 11.30 Α.Μ. the accused person Jayanta Padhan quarrelled with him on the issue of purchase of paddy. The accused raised the price of paddy scheduled to be purchased by the informant and rate was fixed by him. As the accused raised the price, the informant confronted him as

to why he raised the price of paddy negotiated by him for purchase. Thereafter, the accused enraged and assaulted the informant by means of "Kerengela", a lathi like wooden stick fixed in the bullock cart. The accused also abused him with obscene languages. On being assaulted, the informant sustained head injury and blood oozed from his head and

Page 2 of 9

his pant and shirt were stained with blood. On the basis of the written report, the police registered the case as Jharbandh P.S. Case No.49 dated 10.12.2007, corresponding to G.R. Case No.363 of 2007 and after completion of the investigation, charge sheet has been filed in the present case.

4. To establish the charges, the prosecution examined nine witnesses and exhibited as many as six documents. The accused-appellant, having taken a stance of complete denial, claimed trial and accordingly he was put to trial.

5. After analysing the evidence on record, the learned trial court arrived at the following conclusion:-

“………… On conjoint reading of evidence of P.Ws.1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7 and 8, who proved respective plank of prosecution case a ring of truth is surfaced that there was assault on the injured person and there was injuries on the person of the injured person. The other part about hurling with obscene languages by the accused person to the injured person and restraining him however not surfaced. To further strengthen the prosecution narratives the evidence of doctor P.W.5 Dr.Jadumani Sahu is adduced by the prosecution who proved the injury report in respect of injured person Bhismadev Podh and deposed in the Court and he also proved the query report filed by him. P.W.5-Dr. Jadumani Sahu deposed that, on

Page 3 of 9

9.12.2007 he had examined injured person Bhismadev Podh on police requisition and found following injury:-

(i) Laceration of size 4cm x 3cm x 2cm situated horizontally on the scalp of head 7cm above left year.

The injury is simple in nature caused by hard and blunt object. Duration of injury 24 hrs. at the time of examination. Time of examination 4.45 P.M. on 9.12.2007.

He proved the Medical Report marked Exhibit-3 and Exhibit3/1 is his signature therein. He also deposed that police made query on producing one wooden stick on 11.05.2008 and resorted opinion from him. He opined that the injury in Exhibit-3 can be possible by weapon of offence produced before him. Also he opined that the weapon shown to him can cause death if assaulted forcefully on vital part of the body like head on the person. Exhibit-4 is the Query Report and Exhibit-4/1 is his signature therein.

6. Although the appellant stood charged for the offence punishable

under Sections 323/341/307/294 of IPC, but the learned trial Court relying upon the evidence of the prosecution, arrived at a conclusion that the appellant is not guilty of offence punishable under Sections 341/307/294 of IPC. However, the appellant has been convicted under Section 323 of IPC and was sentenced to undergo R.I. for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default to undergo S.I. for two months.

Page 4 of 9

7. The incident relates back to the year 2007 and the trial went on for about two years, which only ended on 16.05.2009 and the appeal had been pending since 2009. However, the learned trial Court by a deep analysis of the evidence brought on record has found the appellant guilty of the offence, as mentioned above.

8. While analyzing the evidence on record, I find no reason to disagree with the findings recorded by the learned trial court. The learned trial court has heavily relied upon the evidence of the informant, who was the injured person. He has deposed that the accused persons on 09.12.2007 at about 11.00 A.M. picked up quarrel with him on the issue of purchase of paddy. When he questioned about raising of the price of the paddy, he was assaulted on his head, as a result of which he sustained bleeding injury. He has lodged the FIR, which was marked as Ext.1. He also proved the seizure list Ext.2. The said witness was subjected to extensive cross examination, but the defence could not yield anything to their advantage. On the contrary, the evidence of P.W.5, the doctor directly corroborated with the evidence of injured witness. P.W.5, the doctor has found a lacerated wound of size 4cm x 3cm x 2 cm situated

Page 5 of 9

horizontally on the scalp of head 7 cm above the left year. The doctor has opined that the injury was simple in nature. Leaving apart the testimony of other witnesses even if the evidence of P.Ws.4 and 5 are taken into consideration, the findings returned by the learned trial court cannot be questioned. Hence, this Court is reluctant to give indulgence to the convict-appellant in so far as recording of conviction of the appellant on the charges under Section 323 of IPC is concerned.

9. Mr. Das, learned counsel for the appellant has strenuously argued the case on merit and taken me to the evidence on record. After arguing for some time, he submitted that keeping in view the procrastinated judicial process undergone by the appellant in this case and the ordeal of trial faced by the appellant, he would rather confine his argument to the quantum of sentence rather than arguing the appeal questioning the conviction. He submitted that the incident pertains to the year 2007. The appellant has undergone the rigors of trial for about two years. Thereafter, the appeal was preferred in the year 2009. The appeal has been prolonging to be heard for more than 16 years. The appellant, who was in his early thirties then, is now is aged about forty-nine years and

Page 6 of 9

therefore, sending him to custody for fulfilling his remaining sentence at this belated stage would serve no purpose. The learned counsel further submitted that the appellant has no criminal antecedents and no other case of a similar nature or otherwise is stated to be pending against him. Over the years, he has led a dignified life, integrated well into society, and is presently leading a settled family life. Incarcerating him after such a long delay, it is argued, would serve little penological purpose and may in fact be counter-productive, casting a needless stigma not only upon him but also upon his family members, especially when there is no suggestion of any repeat violation or ongoing non-compliance with regulatory norms. Therefore, in the fitness of situation, the appellant may be extended the benefit of the Probation of Offenders Act read with Section 360 of Cr.P.C. I am inclined to accede to the prayer made by Mr. Das, learned counsel for the appellant on the facts scenario of the case.

10. Regard being had to the societal position of the appellant, clean antecedents and the fact that the incident had taken place in the year 2007, I am of the considered view that the appellant is entitled to the benefit of the Probation of Offenders Act read with Section 360 of

Page 7 of 9

Cr.P.C. Additionally, the case of the appellant is also covered by ratio of

the judgment of this Court in the case of Pathani Parida & another vs. Abhaya Kumar Jagdevmohapatra¹ and Dhani @ Dhaneswar Sahu vs. State of Orissa² .

Additionally, the present case is also squarely covered by the judgment of this Court in Sk. Wahed Ali Vs. State of Orissa³ , wherein, while dealing with an offence of a similar nature, the Court had extended the benefit of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 to the appellant, who had been convicted under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code.

Similar view has also been taken by this Court in Maheswar Sahu and another vrs. State of Orissa⁴ .

The ratio of the aforesaid decision, emphasizing the reformative approach of criminal jurisprudence in cases involving personal disputes and absence of criminal antecedents, is fully applicable to the facts and

circumstances of the present case.

1 2012 (Supp-II) OLR 469

2 2007 (Supp.II) OLR 250

3 AIR OnLine 2025 ORI 280

4 CRA No.302 of 1996 disposed of on 11.11.2025

11. In such view of the matter, the present Criminal Appeal in so far as the conviction is concerned, the same is turned down. But instead of sentencing the appellant to suffer imprisonment, this Court directs the appellant to be released under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act for a period of six months on his executing bond 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 Probation Officer during the aforementioned period of six months.

12. Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal is partly allowed.

The High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Dated the 12^th of February, 2026/Ashok

Signature Not Verified

Digitally Signed Signed by: ASHOK KUMAR JAGADEB MOHAPATRA Designation: Secretary Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa Date: 13-Feb-2026 11:05:15

Page 9 of 9