Research › Search › Judgment

Orissa High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 5 (ORI)

CHITTARANJAN RAM v. STATE OF ORISSA

2002-01-08

BASUDEVA PANIGRAHI

body2002
BASUDEVA PANIGRAHI, J. ( 1 ) PETITIONERS being undeterred by the orders of conviction and sentence passed by both the Courts below have filed this revisional application. ( 2 ) PROSECUTION case in short is as follows: on 8-6-1988 at about 11. 00 a. m. while the informant Basanti Singh was constructing the kitchen in her courtyard the petitioners forming an unholy gang trespassed into her courtyard, abused her in slang language followed by uprooting the fence. When the informant protested the high-handed action of the petitioners, the petitioner Jugal Kishore Ram had assaulted her by a twig as a reason whereof she sustained bleeding injury on her hands. At that juncture her nephew Sarat Kumar Singh raised hue and cry and he too was assaulted by Jugal Kishore Ram. Petitioners Satya Ranjan Ram and Chittaranjan Ram uprooted the fence of about 50 cubits length which was valued at Rs. 100/ -. The matter was reported at the police station whereupon a case against the petitioenrs was registered under Ss. 341, 323, 294 and 427/34, IPC. The investigation was carried on and after completion of the same, charge-sheet was placed against the petitioners. Prosecution, in order to sustain conviction against the petitioners had examined 7 witnesses. On the contrary the defence examined one witness. The learned J. M. F. C. Bhadrak acquitted the accused persons under Ss. 341, 294 and 427, IPC but convicted them only under S. 323/34, IPC, and sentenced each of them to pay a fine of Rs. 1000. 00, in default to undergo S. I. for one month each. Being aggrieved and affected by the order of conviction and sentence, the petitioners preferred an appeal before the learned Sessions Judge, Balasore which was eventually disposed of by the Addl. Sessions Judge, Bhadrak in Criminal Appeal No. 25/93. The learned Addl. Sessions Judge while affirming the order of conviction reduced the sentence by imposing a fine of Rs. 200. 00 each in default to undergo S. I. for 7 days. Being aggrieved by such sentence the petitioners have filed this case. ( 3 ) LEARNED counsel appearing for the petitioenrs has contended with strong intensity of conviction that the prosecution has utterly failed to prove the ingredients of the offence under S. 323, IPC against the petitioners. Learned trial Court as well as appellate Court have superficially examined the evidence and recorded an order of conviction. ( 3 ) LEARNED counsel appearing for the petitioenrs has contended with strong intensity of conviction that the prosecution has utterly failed to prove the ingredients of the offence under S. 323, IPC against the petitioners. Learned trial Court as well as appellate Court have superficially examined the evidence and recorded an order of conviction. It has been further contended that there was substantial delay in despatch of the FIR by the police to the Court of S. D. J. M. , Bhadrak. It is, therefore, to be held that the prosecution has not properly proved the case against the accused persons and the accused-petitioners should at least be given benefit of doubt. ( 4 ) FROM the judgments passed by both the Courts below it appears that nowhere the delay in despatch of the FIR has been urged before the Courts below. Therefore, it would be a futile exercise to examine the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners at this revisional stage, Suffice it to say that both the Courts below on a resume of the materials have concurrently held the petitioners guilty of having committed an offecne punishable under S. 323/34, IPC. Learned Advocate appearing for the petitioners while winding up his argument has fervently submitted that the offenders in this case are law abiding citizens and that there has been no previous criminal record against them. Therefore, in such circumstances, instead of imposing either any substantive sentence or fine it would be apposite to release them in exercise of powers under S. 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act. ( 5 ) IN the result, while maintaining the order of conviction, I hereby direct the petitioners to be released on execution of bond before the learned Magistrate on condition that they would maintain good conduct for a period of at least one year, in default to undergo the sentence as directed by the appellate Court. ( 6 ) SUBJECT to the above modification in sentence, the revisional application stands dismissed. Petition dismissed.