Samaru Bhoi & Ors. vs State of Orissa

This Criminal Revision has been filed assailing the Judgment dated 04.06.2005 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Balangir, in Criminal Appeal No. 28/19 of 2003-2005, affirming the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 24.09.2003 passed by the learned S.D.J.M., Patnagarh arising out of G.R. Case No.1 of 1994 (T.R. No.193 of 1994) qua the Petitioners while acquitting them for commission of offence under Section 506 of IPC but convicting them under Sections 147/148/149/323/324 of IPC, sentencing them to undergo R.I. for a period of one year on each count and further to undergo R.I. for a period of 6 months for the commission of offence under Sections 323/149 of IPC and further sentencing them to undergo R.I. for a period of two years with a fine of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One Thousand), in default, to undergo R.I. for a period of 3 months for the commission of offence under Sections 452/149 of IPC with further direction that the sentences shall run concurrently and period of detention, if any, be set off in case of each convict.

The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 27.12.1993 at about 8 P.M, Bhagyabati Bhoi (informant), wife of one Hari Bhoi, was staying with her father Bighna Bhoi (P.W.3) at village Maruan. While her father and Satya Bag, her maternal uncle (P.W.4) were taking their meals at P.W3’s house, accused Samaru Bhoi, Budhu Bhoi and Raghu Bhoi, being armed with Barchhas (spears), and accused Madan Mohan Khamari, Debar Khamari, Kalia Bhoi and Satya Naryan Bangula, being armed with lathis, rushed towards the house of P.W.3, threatened to kill him and dragged him inside the house. When P.W.4 protested, accused Budhu Bhoi and Raghu Bhoi assaulted him on his head with a spear, while accused Narayan Bangola and Kalia Bhoi assaulted him with lathis, accused Samaru Bhoi assaulted P.W.3 on his head with a Barchha and accused Debar Khamari assaulted him with a lathi, and when the mother of the informant, Nuadei Bhoi (P.W.2), intervened, accused Budhu Bhoi assaulted her on her head with an iron rod, as a result of which P.W.2, P.W.3 and P.W.4 sustained bleeding injuries and fell down, following which the accused persons left the spot. In the meantime, witnesses reached the spot on hearing the commotion, and it was alleged that the occurrence had taken place due to prior enmity in connection with the landed properties of the parties. The next morning, the injured persons were shifted to the hospital and the informant lodged an FIR at Patnagarh Police Station under P.S. Case No. 131/93 dated 28.12.1993. Thereafter, upon completion of the investigation, a charge sheet was filed under Sections 147/148/452/324/323/506/149 of I.P.C.

To drive home the charge, the prosecution examined 10 witnesses, of whom P.W.6 is the informant, P.W.2 is an injured and mother of the informant, P.W.3 is an injured and father of the informant, P.W.4 is an injured and uncle of the informant, P.Ws.1, 5, 7 and 8 are independent witnesses, P.W.9 is the I.O and P.W.10 is the medical officer. Several documents were adduced and marked as Exts.1 to 3/1 on behalf of the prosecution.

No documentary evidence was adduced, but one defense witness, D.W.1 was adduced on behalf of the defense.

On consideration of the materials on record, the Trial Court while acquitting the Petitioners for commission of offence under Section 506 of IPC, convicted them under Sections 147/148/324/ 323/149 of IPC, sentencing them to undergo R.I. for a period of one year on each count and further to undergo R.I. for a period of 6 months for the commission of offence under Sections 323/149 of IPC and further sentencing them to undergo R.I. for a period of two years with a fine of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One Thousand), in default, to undergo R.I. for a period of 3 months for the commission of offence under Sections 452/149 of IPC with further direction that the sentences shall run concurrently and period of detention, if any, be set off in case of each convict.

On appeal being preferred, the Appellate Court did not find any infirmity in the appreciation of evidence and affirmed the conviction and sentence imposed. Assailing the same, the present Criminal Revision has been filed.

During the course of the hearing, it is submitted by the learned counsel that Petitioner No.1 has passed away in the meanwhile and since there is no motion on his behalf to continue the revision, the same stands abated so far as Petitioner No.1 is concerned.

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the Petitioners that the appreciation of evidence by the Trial Court as well as the Appellate Court is ex facie perverse so as to warrant interference by this Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction, notwithstanding, the contours of exercise of such jurisdiction.

Learned counsel for the state opposes such prayer and submits that there is no infirmity in the judgment of the Appellate Court warranting interference.

This Court is not oblivious to the scope of interference while exercising revisional jurisdiction and since, the allegation of perverse appreciation cannot be adjudicated without analysing the evidence on record, for such a limited purpose, this Court considers it appropriate to scan the evidence.

On careful scrutiny of the evidence on record and considering the rival submissions, this Court does not find any infirmity in the appreciation of evidence by the Appellate Court in affirming the conviction and sentence so as to warrant interference in this Criminal Revision and accordingly, the conviction and sentence as passed by the Appellate Court is hereby affirmed.

On the question of sentence, taking into account that the incident took place in the year 2005 and that the Petitioner Nos.2 to 6 are now aged about 67, 55, 82, 54 and 82 years respectively, and taking a cue from the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Chellammal and Anr. V. State represented by the Inspector of Police, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 870, this Court is persuaded to hold that the benefit of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘P.O. Act’) can be extended to the Petitioner Nos.2 to 6, since ex facie the sentence prescribed for the offence does not suffer from the disqualification as envisaged under Section 4(1) of the Act, 1958.

Accordingly, the benefit of the P.O. Act is extended and this Court directs that Petitioner Nos.2 to 6 be released on probation under Section 4 of the P.O. Act, on conditions to be settled by the Trial Court.

In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case at hand, the imposition of fine is set aside.

The Criminal Revision is accordingly disposed of.