Research › Search › Judgment

Orissa High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 792 (ORI)

Prakash Chandra Pradhan v. State

2014-11-24

B.P.RAY

body2014
JUDGMENT : B.P. Ray, J. The petitioner has challenged the order of conviction and sentence dated 25.2.2005 passed by the learned Ad hoc Additional Sessions Judge, (Fast Track), Aska in Criminal Appeal No. 40 of 20041 Criminal Appeal No. 46 of 2003 confirming the order of his conviction dated 7.8.2003 passed by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Aska in Sessions Case No. 4 of 2000/S.C. No. 56 of 2000 under Section 307 IPC and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for four years and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/-, in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month. It is further directed that out of the fine amount of Rs. 5,000/- a sum of Rs. 4,500/- shall be paid to the injured-P.W.5 as compensation for the injuries caused to him as well as loss and harassment to him. 2. The prosecution case, in nutshell, is that on 5.12.1997, the informant-injured had been to Bellaguntha Science College along with one Babula Pradhan to appear in +2 Arts Examination by a cycle. After the examination was over at 11.30 A.M., he found the accused-petitioner standing in front of the college. Thereafter, the accused-petitioner requested the informant-injured to visit Budhakendu temple and, accordingly, the informant accompanied him to the said temple, where they offered Puja and took Prasad. Thereafter, the accused-petitioner requested the informant to go to the house of his aunt at Kulongi. On the way, the accused-petitioner consumed a bottle of liquor (ginger) and suddenly brought out a knife and with an intention to kill the informant stabbed him on the back of his neck and then on his abdomen. In order to save himself, the informant tried to snatch the knife and in the process, he sustained injuries on his fingers of his both hands. The further case of the prosecution is that fifteen days prior to the date of occurrence, the informant had seen the accused-petitioner being engaged in an immoral act with a minor girl for which the accused-petitioner intended to kill the informant being apprehensive that the informant might have divulged his misdeeds to others. On the report of the informant, the O.I.C. Gangpur Police Station registered a case under Section 307/326/324 IPC and took up investigation. On completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed under Sections 307/324 IPC against the accused-petitioner. 3. The plea of the defence is complete denial. 4. On the report of the informant, the O.I.C. Gangpur Police Station registered a case under Section 307/326/324 IPC and took up investigation. On completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed under Sections 307/324 IPC against the accused-petitioner. 3. The plea of the defence is complete denial. 4. In order to bring home the charge against the accused-petitioner, the prosecution examined as many as eleven witnesses on its behalf, out of whom, P.W.5 was the informant-injured and P.W.9 was the Doctor, who examined the injured on the date, of the incident and found six injuries, which were simple in nature. The defence has examined none. The trial Court basing on the evidence of P.W.5-informant-injured, convicted the accused-petitioner under Section 307 IPC which was confirmed by the appellate Court. 5. Miss Mohapatra, learned counsel for the accused-petitioner submitted that the prosecution had to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt and having failed to do so, the observation of the trial Court that "normal presumption is that a witness speaking on oath speaks the truth" was not correct and conviction based on such surmises and conjecture cannot stand the 'scrutiny of law. She also submitted that the P.Ws. 3, 4, 6 and 7 were the villagers, who had seen the informant in injured condition, but they were not the eye witnesses to the occurrence and, thus, their evidence could not be relied upon. She also submitted that the injuries sustained by the informant-injured were simple in nature and not on any vital part of the body and hence, the conviction under Section 307 IPC cannot be sustained. Miss Mohapatra also submitted that the occurrence took place in the year 1997 and, in the meantime, about seventeen years have passed and the parties must have settled their disputes and sending the accused-petitioner to custody after lapse of seventeen years will not enure to the benefit of either party. 6. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the State, I am not inclined to re-appreciate the evidence and materials available on record and come to a conclusion different from the conclusion reached by the Courts below affirming the guilt of the accused and convicting him under Section 307 IPC. 6. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the State, I am not inclined to re-appreciate the evidence and materials available on record and come to a conclusion different from the conclusion reached by the Courts below affirming the guilt of the accused and convicting him under Section 307 IPC. However, in view of the judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court as well as the judgment of this Court in the case of Punia Sethi v. State, 2004(1) OLR 663 , I modify the substantive sentence passed by the Courts below reducing the same to the period of imprisonment already undergone and enhance the amount of fine from "Rs. 5,000/-" to "Rs. 15,000/-" (Rupees fifteen thousand), in default to undergo R.I. for six months. The petitioner shall deposit the fine amount within three months hence failing which, he shall undergo the sentence as directed by Courts below. Out of the fine amount of Rs. 15,000/- (Rupees fifteen thousand), a sum of Rs. 14,000/- (Rupees fourteen thousand) shall be paid to the informant-injured and the balance amount i.e. Rs. 1000/- (Rupees one thousand shall remain in the State Exchequer. The Criminal Revision is accordingly disposed of.