Research › Search › Judgment

Orissa High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 655 (ORI)

PURNA CHANDRA PANDA v. STATE OF ORISSA

2003-11-11

A.S.NAIDU

body2003
JUDGMENT : A.S. Naidu, J. - Shorn of unnecessary details, the facts out of which the criminal action was set in motion against the Petitioner are that on 11-4-1983 at about 9.30 p.m. while the informant P.W. 1 was returning to his village from Rampur along with P.W. 3 in front of the house of P.W. 5 the accused-petitioner suddenly appeared before him, abused him in filthy language and demanded money from him. P.w. 1 protested against such action of the accused-petitioner. Being enraged, the accused-petitioner pelted a stone which struck the head of the informant P.W. 1 and he fell down on the ground. Thereafter the accused petitioner bit has belly. On the basis of the FIR lodged by the informant P.W. 1, the case was initiated against the accused-petitioner who faced trial for commission of offences under Sections 324/337 Indian Penal Code. To substantiate its case, prosecution examined as many as seven witnesses and exhibited two documents. The plea of defence was complete denial and no witness was examined on its behalf. The trial Court on the basis of the evidence, both oral and documentary, convicted the accused-petitioner under Sections 324/337 Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to undergo R.I. for four months for the offence u/s 342 Indian Penal Code and three months for the offence u/s 337 Indian Penal Code, directing both the sentences to run concurrently. 2. The judgment of the trial Court was impugned by the accused-petitioner in appeal before the Court of Session in Criminal Appeal No. 166 of 1985 and the learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Puri, after scrutinising the evidence and the materials on record arrived at the conclusion that the prosecution had failed to establish the charge against the accused-petitioner u/s 337 Indian Penal Code and set aside the conviction of the accused-petitioner u/s 337 Indian Penal Code. But then, relying on the evidence of P.W. 1 and the eye-witness PW. 5 as also the evidence of the doctor PW. 6, the appellate court came to the conclusion that the finding of the trial Court so far as conviction u/s 324 Indian Penal Code is concerned, was correct and there was no reason to interfere with the same. On the basis of such conclusion the conviction and sentence passed against the accused-petitioner u/s 324 Indian Penal Code by the trial Court were maintained. On the basis of such conclusion the conviction and sentence passed against the accused-petitioner u/s 324 Indian Penal Code by the trial Court were maintained. The judgment of the appellate court is impugned in this Revision. 3. Mr. D.P. Das, Learned Counsel for the Petitioner, forcefully submitted that the courts below have not properly appreciated the evidence and the conclusions reached by them are based on surmises and conjectures. It was also submitted that basing upon the evidence of only P.Ws. 1 and 5, who were interested witnesses, the order of conviction and sentence could not have been passed by the courts below. It was also submitted that the Petitioner is an old man and the occurrence taken place as for back as in 1983, this Court should take a liberal view and acquit the Petitioner of the charge. 4. Learned Counsel for the State at the other hand supported the reasonings given by the appellate Court. It was submitted that the evidence of P.W. 5 who was neither a chance witness nor an interested witness coupled with the evidence of the doctor P.W. 6 proves the guilt of the Petitioner and it is a fit case where the order of conviction and sentence should not be interfered with. 5. After hearing the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner, I examined the materials-available on record. It reveals that when the informant P.W. 1 was talking with PW. 5, all on a sudden the Petitioner appeared there, abused him in filthy language and pelted a stone at him which made him fall down on the road and last but not the least-he bit his belly. This fact gets fully corroborated from the evidence of the injury report as well as the evidence of the doctor P.W. 6. P.W. 5 was an eye-witness to the entire occurrence. There is no reason to disbelieve his evidence. Considering the materials on record, I have no hesitation to confirm the conviction of the Petitioner u/s 324 Indian Penal Code. However, the occurrence took place on 11-4-1983. Twenty years have passed in the meanwhile. The Petitioner who was thirty-four years at the time of the occurrence has become fifty four years' old now. At this stage his undergoing sentence of imprisonment for a minor crime committed by him according to me may not be just and proper. However, the occurrence took place on 11-4-1983. Twenty years have passed in the meanwhile. The Petitioner who was thirty-four years at the time of the occurrence has become fifty four years' old now. At this stage his undergoing sentence of imprisonment for a minor crime committed by him according to me may not be just and proper. There is evidence which reveals that the informant P.W. 1 had borrowed some money from the Petitioner and was adopting dilly dally tactics to repay the same. Being enraged the Petitioner had committed the alleged crime. On a cumulative assessment of the facts and circumstances, I feel imposing a fine in lieu of rigorous imprisonment in the present case would meet the ends of justice. 6. According, while maintaining the conviction of the Petitioner u/s 324 Indian Penal Code, I modify the sentence of four months' rigorous imprisonment and direct the Petitioner to pay a fine of Rs. 500.00 (five hundred) within three months from today, in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months. The Criminal Revision is accordingly disposed of.