Sudhansu Sekhar Nayak vs State Of Odisha

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

This Criminal Revision has been filed assailing the Judgment dated 08.08.2003 passed by the learned Adhoc Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.II, Puri in Criminal Appeal No. 3/95 of 2001/1993, affirming the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 13.08.1993 passed by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge-cum-Subordinate Judge, Puri, in S.T. Case No. 7/40 of 1993 qua the Petitioner under Section 307 of I.P.C., directing him to undergo R.I. for seven years and to a fine of Rs. 15,000/-, in default to undergo R.I. for one year.

The prosecution case, in brief, is that the Petitioner is related to the victim, Purna Chandra Nayak (P.W.9), and there was a prior dispute between their families, which fact has been admitted by both the prosecution and the defence. On 08.07.1992, while P.W.9 was proceeding to the school where he was working as a Peon, the Petitioner allegedly attacked him near a shop with a bhujali, causing multiple bleeding injuries. When the Petitioner attempted to inflict a blow on his neck, P.W.9 tried to protect himself with his left hand, suffering severe injuries. He was initially taken to the hospital and thereafter shifted to S.C.B. Medical College and Hospital, Cuttack, where part of his left hand had to be amputated. Eventually, the son of the victim-P.W.9 reported the matter to the police. During investigation, the Petitioner was arrested and allegedly made a confession while in police custody, pursuant to which the weapon of offence, i.e., the bhujali, was recovered. After completion of the investigation, charge-sheet was filed against the accused for the commission of offence under Sections 307 of the I.P.C.

In order to substantiate the charge, the prosecution examined 12 witnesses, of whom P.W.3, is the informant, P.W.9 is the injured, P.W.4 and 8 are the doctors, P.W.12 is the I.O. and P.Ws.1,2,5,6, 10 and 11 are the eye witnesses to the occurrence and P.W.7 is the junior clerk attached to the Registration Department of surgery S.C.B. Medical College and Hospital, Cuttack. Several documents were also exhibited and marked, of which Ext.1, the FIR, Ext.2, the injury report and Exts.5 and 6, the seizure lists are of significance. Two M.Os. were also produced.

Neither oral nor documentary evidence was adduced on behalf of the defence.

The plea of the defence was one of complete denial. It was further pleaded that the case had been falsely foisted against him and that he had not led the police to recover any ‘Bhujali’. Rather, after assaulting him, the police took him to village Batuli Pada, where two persons, after conversing with the police, produced a ‘Bhujali’ from under a bush and handed it over to the police.

On consideration of the evidence on record, the Trial Court convicted the Petitioner for commission of the offence under Section 307 of the IPC and directed him to undergo R.I. for seven years and to pay a fine of Rs. 15,000/-, in default to undergo R.I. for one year.

On an appeal being preferred, the Appellate Court affirmed the Judgment of conviction and order of sentence. Challenging the same, the present revision has been filed.

While recording such conviction, the learned Trial Court as well as the Appellate Court has analysed the evidence of P.W.3-the informant, P.W.9-the injured, P.W.4 and 8-the doctors and P.W.11-the I.O.

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the Petitioner that, in the given facts of the present case, the conviction of the Petitioner to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years and punishment under Section 307 of IPC merits the interference of this Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction.

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 analyzing the evidence on record, for such limited purpose this Court considers it appropriate to scan the evidence.

On careful scrutiny of the evidence on record, including the seizure list and the statements of the witnesses 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.

At the outset, learned counsel for the Petitioner, Mr. Panda submits that he does not want to assail the conviction on merits.

It is further submitted that nothing is brought on record to indicate that in all these years the Petitioner has committed any other offence. In view of the same, the punishment may be confined to the period of incarceration undergone. It is also submitted that the incident happened on 08.07.1992, more than two decades ago and directing the Petitioner to undergo the remainder of the sentence after lapse of such period would not serve any purpose.

Learned counsel for the State, on the other hand, submits that, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, showing leniency would amount to misplaced sympathy, resulting in injustice to the cause of the injured. Hence, such a prayer ought not to be entertained.

On a conspectus of the evidence on record and the mitigating circumstances borne out from the materials on record, in the light of the number of years that have elapsed in the meanwhile and on going through the judgments passed by the Trial Court and as affirmed by the Appellate Court, this Court finds no infirmity in the appreciation of evidence by the Courts below.

Considering the same, while not interfering with the order of conviction under Section 307 of the IPC, this Court feels that the interest of justice would be subserved if the period of punishment is confined to the period of incarceration already undergone, more so since there is nothing on record to indicate that during the currency of bail, the Petitioner has misused the trust reposed in him.

Taking into account the rival submissions, the date of occurrence, i.e., 08.07.1992, the present age of the Petitioner, being about 56 years and his subsequent conduct during all these years, this Court confines the sentence to the period of incarceration already undergone.

In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case at hand, the imposition of the fine is not interfered with.

However, the sentence relating to the fine is modified to the extent that the fine amount of Rs.15,000/- shall be deposited before the learned Trial Court within a period of six months since failing which steps shall be taken in accordance with law to ensure that the Petitioner undergoes the default sentence of R.I. for a period of one year. On realization, the same shall be paid to the injured.

The Criminal Revision, along with pending I.As, accordingly stand disposed of.