Padu @ Pradeep Parida vs State Of Orissa

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

This Criminal Revision has been filed assailing the Judgment dated 17.03.2005 passed by the learned First Addl. Sessions Judge, Puri in Criminal Appeal No. 12/19 of 2004, thereby modifying the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 11.03.2004 passed by the learned Asst. Sessions Judge-cum-C.J.M, Puri in S.T. No.152/342 of 2003 arising out of G.R. Case No.1358 of 2002 relating to Satyabadi P.S. Case No.174 of 2002 qua the Petitioner, whereby he was convicted for commission of offence punishable under Sections 457/392 of IPC and sentenced him to undergo R.I. for a period of three years and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- (Rupees One Thousand), in default, to undergo R.I. for a period of one month on each count.

The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 23.11.2002 at about 1:00 A.M., some unidentified persons, holding deadly weapons, forcibly entered into the dwelling house of Satrughna Sahu (Informant- P.W.1), confined all his family members in one room and looted Rs.40,000/-(Rupees Forty Thousand) cash from an aluminium trunk, along with Rs.2,000/- (Rupees Two Thousand) cash from the children’s Savings Pot, i.e., SARAGAT and gold ornaments, and also took away 1 kg of cashew nut, 1 kg of cinnamon and 2 kg of ground pepper, assaulted one of the inmates of the informant’s house and then fled away from the spot after locking the door from outside.

After being rescued by the neighbours from the closed house, P.W.1 was able to lodge an FIR. Thereafter, upon completion of the investigation, a charge-sheet was filed under Sections 457/395 of IPC.

To drive home the charge, the prosecution examined 28 witnesses cited out of them 15 supported the prosecution and the remaining 13 prosecution witnesses were declared hostile. Out of the examined witnesses, P.W.1 is the informant and owner of the house, P.W.2 is the wife of the informant, P.W.3 is the daughter of the informant, P.W.4 is the neighbor of the informant, P.Ws.5, 6, 8, 10 and 11 are seizure witnesses, P.W.7 is an independent witness, P.W.9 is a tenant under the informant, P.W.12 is the brother of the informant, P.Ws.13 and 14 are the Magistrates who conducted the T.I. Parade and P.W.15 is the I.O.

Several documents were exhibited and marked as Exts.1 to 13 on behalf of the prosecution.

Neither oral nor documentary evidence was adduced on behalf of the defense. The plea of the defence was one of false implication.

On consideration of the materials on record, the Trial Court convicted the Petitioner for the commission of offence under Section 395 of IPC and sentenced him to undergo R.I. for a period of 5 years and to pay a fine of Rs.2000/- (Rupees Two Thousand), in default, to undergo R.I. for a period of six months and for commission of offence under Section 457 of IPC directed to undergo R.I. for a period of 5 years and to pay a fine of Rs.2000/-(Rupees Two Thousand), in default, to undergo R.I. for a period of six months with further direction that the substantive terms of imprisonment shall run concurrently and the period of U.T.P. be set off.

On appeal being preferred, the Appellate Court modified the judgment of conviction and sentence to one under Section 457/392 of IPC and sentenced the Petitioner to undergo R.I. for a period of three years and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/-(Rupees One Thousand), in default, to undergo R.I. for a period of one month on each count. Assailing the same, the Petitioner is before this Court.

It is the submission of the Amicus Curiae, Ms. Ray that the appreciation of evidence by the Courts below is ex facie perverse so as to warrant interference by this Court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction.

Learned counsel for the State opposes such prayer.

On consideration of the materials on record and the appreciation thereof, this Court is not persuaded to accede to the submission of the Amicus Curiae that the analysis and reasoning of the learned Courts below is patently perverse, so as to warrant interference in exercise of revisional jurisdiction. Hence, this Court is not persuaded to interfere with the judgment of conviction and sentence, which is upheld.

On a bare scrutiny of the judgments passed by the Trial Court as well as the Appellate Court on the question of sentence, it is to be noted that notwithstanding that there is no embargo in terms of application of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as ‘P.O. Act’) keeping in view the punishment prescribed relating to the offences in respect of the Petitioner for which he was found guilty, there is no mention as to why the Petitioner, who is stated to be a first offender, should not be released by application of the P.O. Act.

In its recent dictum in the case of Chellammal and Anr. V. State represented by the Inspector of Police, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 870, the Apex Court has extensively dealt with the background in which the Act was enacted and virtually a duty is now casted upon the Courts to justify as to why they are not extending the P.O. Act.

Considering the letter and spirit of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Chellammal (Supra) and since ex facie the punishment prescribed for the offence does not suffer from the disqualification as envisaged under Section 4(1) of the P.O. Act, this Court is persuaded to hold that directing the Petitioner to be released under the P.O. Act would sub-serve the ends of justice. Hence, this Court directs that the Petitioner be released on probation under Section 4 of the P.O. Act, on conditions to be settled by the learned Trial Court.

The fine of Rs.1000/- is to be treated as compensation to be paid within three months, failing which the same shall entail action in accordance with procedure laid down under Section 5 of the P.O. Act.

In this context, it is apt to note that, so far as Section 5(2) of the P.O. Act is concerned, in the event of default in payment of the amount ordered under Section 5(1) of the said Act, the amount shall be recovered as a fine in accordance with the provisions of Sections 386/387 of the Code.

It is further clarified that the "Code" herein refers to the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, which corresponds to Sections 461/462 of BNSS 2023 (Sections 421 and 422 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973).

The CRLREV is accordingly disposed of.

In view of the disposal of the CRLREV, all the pending I.A.(s) stand disposed of.

The fees of the learned Amicus Curiae shall be fixed as per the schedule adopted by the Legal Services Authority, High Court of Orissa, for conducting criminal cases in this Court. Such fees shall be disbursed on being moved.