Muralidhar Das vs State of Odisha

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 12.06.2002 passed by the learned Ad hoc Additional District & Sessions Judge-Cum-Fast Track Court No.II, Puri in Crl. Appeal No.43/111 of 2001/95, thereby modifying the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 26.10.1995 passed by the learned Asst. Sessions Judge, Karanjia, Mayurbhanj in G.R. Case No.49 of 1985 (T.R. No. 393/1985) qua the Petitioner under Sections 324 of IPC, directing him to undergo R.I. for a period of one year.

It is apt to note that, as borne out from the judgment of the Appellate Court, during pendency of the appeal, the conviction under Section 323 of the IPC recorded by the learned S.D.J.M., Puri in G.R. Case No.79 of 1985 was compounded and, on analysis of the evidence adduced through ten prosecution witnesses, the conviction under Section 326 of the IPC was altered to one under Section 324 of the IPC and the Petitioner was further directed to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year. The Appellate Court also set aside the fine of Rs. 1,000/- and reduced the substantive sentence from two years to one year.

The prosecution case, in short, is that on 13.01.1985 at about 8.00 p.m., when Chaila Martha (P.W.7), the paternal uncle of the Informant (P.W.1) had been to the market, the accused, due to a previous grudge, assaulted P.W.7 in front of his shop by means of a knife on the head & right hand, causing bleeding injuries. Due to such assault, P.W.7, he fell down on the spot and was shifted to Chandanpur Hospital, from where he was referred to District Headquarters Hospital, Puri. Thereafter, on the basis of the written report lodged by Harihar Martha (P.W.1), the FIR was registered and after completion of the investigation, charge sheet was filed under Sections 323 and 326 of the IPC.

To drive home the charge, the prosecution examined as many as ten witnesses, out of whom P.W.1 is the informant, P.Ws.2 to 6 are the witnesses to the occurrence, P.W.7 is the injured, P.W.8 is the I.O. and P.Ws.9 & 10 are the doctors.

Several documents were also exhibited as Exts.1 to 4/1.

No evidence was adduced on behalf of the defence. The plea of the defence was one of complete denial and false implication.

On consideration of the materials on record, the Trial Court while not granting the benefit of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as “P.O. Act”) convicted and sentenced the Petitioner to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months under Section 323 of IPC and in respect of the commission of offence under Section 326 of IPC he was directed to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- (Rupees One Thousand only), in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two months.

On appeal being preferred, the Appellate Court, after going through the evidence and materials on record, on which the Trial Court had placed reliance, modified the judgment of conviction and sentence as imposed and directed the Petitioner to undergo R.I. for a period of one year under Section 324 of IPC.

Assailing the same, the Petitioner is before this Court.

At the outset, learned counsel for the Petitioner submitted that he does not want to assail the order of conviction on merits and referred to the finding of the Trial Court that, by the time it passed the order, the Petitioner had already undergone incarceration for 8 days. Therefore, the learned counsel submits that the sentence be confined to the period of incarceration already undergone.

Learned counsel for the State opposes such prayer.

On the touchstone of the power of this Court to interfere while exercising revisional jurisdiction as succinctly stated in the case of Amit Kapoor v. Mr. Ramesh Chander, (2012) 9 SCC 460, this Court is not persuaded to hold that there is any perverse appreciation of evidence by the Trial Court as well as the Appellate Court as claimed, so as to warrant interference. Hence, the conviction under Section 324 of the IPC stands affirmed.

It is stated at the bar that the occurrence took place in the year 1985 and the Petitioner is now aged about 63 years and that nothing has been brought on record by the prosecution to indicate that, in the meanwhile, he has involved himself in the commission of any other offence.

Since no useful purpose would be served by directing him to undergo further imprisonment now, after more than three decades, this Court is of the considered view that confining the sentence to the period already undergone would subserve the ends of justice and accordingly it is so directed.

Accordingly, the CRLREV stands disposed of.