Danei Juanga vs State Of Orissa

V. Narasingh, J. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner and learned counsel for the State.

This Criminal Revision has been filed assailing the judgment dated 24.12.2004 passed by the Adhoc Addl. Sessions Judge (F.T. II), Keonjhar, in Criminal Appeal No.80/9 of 2003/2004 while not interfering with the judgement of conviction dated 02.12.2003 passed by the CJM-Asst. Sessions Judge, Keonjhar in S.T. Case No.28/109 of 2003 arising out of G.R No.499 of 2002 for commission of offence under Section 324 of IPC, modified the sentence of punishment and sentenced the Petitioner to undergo S.I. for a period of six months and to pay fine of Rs.1000/- (Rupees One Thousand), in default, to undergo S.I. for a period of one month with further direction that the period of U.T.P, if any, be set off.

The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 15.06.2002 at about 10 P.M., while Jostna Sahoo (Informant-P.W.1) and her husband, Khetrabasi Sahoo (Injured-P.W.2), were having their meal, one Lochan and Uma Juanga went to their house and informed P.W.2 that the Petitioner was causing disturbance at their house, hearing which P.W.2 went to the spot and asked the Petitioner and his father not to create any commotion. Thereafter, the Petitioner assaulted P.W.2 on his neck with an axe, causing bleeding injury, while the other accused persons assaulted him due to which he became unconscious and was taken to his house by Nalu Juanga (P.W.4) and Arjuna Juanga (P.W6). Thereafter, P.W.1 and other villagers took him to the Hospital, where he regained consciousness and narrated the occurrence to P.W.1. Eventually, F.I.R. was lodged and upon completion of the investigation, charge-sheet was filed under Sections 307/34 of the IPC.

To drive home the charge, the prosecution examined eight witnesses, of whom P.W.1 is the informant, P.W.2 is the injured, P.W.3, 4, 5 and 6 are occurrence witnesses, P.W.8 is the doctor and P.W.7 is the I.O.

Several documents were marked and exhibited as Exts.1 to 3/3 and of the said Exhibits, Ext.3 & 4-Seizure lists, Ext.2/2-Injury Report, are of significance.

Though no witnesses were examined in support of the defense, documentary evidence was adduced as Ext.A.

Taking into account the evidence on record and rejecting the plea of false implication as well as the plea of release under the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as ‘P.O. Act’), the Trial Court convicted the Petitioner for the commission of offence under Section 324 of IPC and sentenced him to undergo R.I. for a period of one year and to pay fine of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand), in default, to undergo R.I. for a period of three months with further direction that the period of U.T.P, if any, be set off.

On appeal being preferred, the Appellate Court modified the sentence by reducing it to S.I of six months with a fine of Rs.1000/- (Rupees One Thousand), in default, to undergo S.I for a period of one month with further direction that the period of U.T.P, if any, be set off as noted.

Assailing the same, this Criminal Revision has been preferred.

The learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that the appreciation of evidence by the Trial Court and the Appellate Court is ex facie perverse in as much as, there were no independent witnesses, save and except the interested witnesses and, though such ground was specifically taken, the same did not find favour before the Trial Court nor was it taken into account by the Appellate Court.

Per contra, learned counsel for the State submits that there is no infirmity in the impugned judgments warranting interference by this Court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction. There is no embargo in relying on the testimony of the injured and his family members if the same is found to be cogent.

On perusal of the judgment of the Trial Court, this Court finds that the Trial Court has specifically dealt with the issue.

Referring to the seizure list, it observed that the same lends authenticity to the prosecution case. In the facts of the present case, the Petitioner was nabbed while attempting to flee and in the factual matrix of the case at hand, non-examination of independent witnesses does not in any way dilute the prosecution case.

Such finding has been affirmed by the Appellate Court as already noted.

On close scrutiny of the evidence on record, including the seizure list and the statements of the witnesses, this Court does not find any perversity in the appreciation of evidence by the Courts below. Accordingly, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the order of conviction.

So far as the execution of sentence is concerned, learned counsel for the State submits that the Petitioner was in custody for an insignificant period and taking into account the offence committed under Section 324 of IPC, no leniency ought to be shown.

Alternatively, learned counsel for the Petitioner, Mr. Nayak, relying on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Chellammal and Another vs. State represented by the Inspector of Police reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 870, submits that the onus is on the Court to assign reasons as to why the Petitioner ought not to be released under the P.O. Act.

Taking into account the nature of the allegations and submissions of the learned counsel that the occurrence took place on 15.06.2002 and in the meanwhile, about two decades have passed and, there is nothing on record to indicate that during this period the Petitioner has indulged himself in any other offence, this Court finds substance and force in the submission of the learned counsel for the Petitioner, Mr. Nayak that this is a fit case where the provisions of the P.O. Act are to be invoked.

Hence, in the given factual matrix of the case at hand and in view of the evidence on record, while maintaining the conviction recorded against the Petitioner by the Trial Court, and having regard to the facts and circumstances, this Court is inclined to direct the release of the Petitioner on probation under Section 4 of the P.O. Act, on conditions to be settled by the learned Trial Court. The imposition of fine is set-aside.

The Criminal Revision is accordingly disposed of.

In view of the disposal of the CRLREV, pending I.As, stand disposed of.