Upi @ Upendra Das vs State of Orissa

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

This Criminal Revision has been filed assailing the judgment dated 22.02.2003 passed by the learned Additional District Judge (F.T.C.), Chatrapur (GM) in Criminal Appeal No.04 of 2002, affirming the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 19.08.2002 passed by the learned J.M.F.C., Kodala, Ganjam in G.R. Case No.111 of 1993 (T.R No.542 of 1993) qua the Petitioner, for the commission of offence under Section 326 of IPC and sentencing him to undergo R.I. for a period of two years and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- (Rupees Five hundred), in default, to undergo R.I. for a further period of three months. In case of realization, the fine amount shall be paid to the victim as a mark of benevolence and compensation under Section 357 of Cr.P.C. The period of detention undergone by the convict in this case shall be set off under Section 428 of Cr.P.C. against the substantial period of imprisonment.

The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 02.08.1993 being called by the police, Bisu Das (P.W.6), husband of Rajani Das (Informant- P.W.1) being accompanied by the Gramarakshi of the Kodala Police station, was on his way to the Kodala police station. All of a sudden at about 6 P.M. near the Duan Bandha, the accused came from behind being armed with a Kati and dealt blows the said on P.W.6, causing severe bleeding injuries on the left side shoulder, left forearm and left palm. The accused, however, soon after the incident managed to escape from the spot. The injured P.W.6 was then taken to the Hospital for treatment. The informant lodged an FIR under Kodala P.S. No.88/93. Thereafter, upon completion of investigation charge-sheet was filed under Sections 341/324/326 of IPC.

To drive home the charge, the prosecution examined nine witnesses, of whom P.W.1 is the informant, P.W.6 is the victim, P.W.2 is the mother of the victim, P.W.3 and 4 are the witnesses to the seizure of apparels of the victim and weapon of offence respectively, P.W.5 is the medical officer, P.W.8 is the Assistant Surgeon, P.W.7 is an independent witness and P.W.9 is the I.O.

Several documents were exhibited and marked on behalf of the prosecution as Exts.1 to 13/1, of which Ext.4, which is the injury report is of significance.

Though no documentary evidence was adduced on behalf of the defense, one defense witness was examined as D.W.1.

Considering the evidence on record, the Trial Court acquitted the Petitioner under Section 341/324 of IPC and held him guilty of the offence under Section 326 of the IPC and sentenced him to undergo R.I. for a period of two years and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- (Rupees Five Hundred), in default, to undergo R.I. for a further period of three months.

On appeal being preferred, the Appellate Court taking into account the evidence on record, did not interfere with the order of conviction and sentence.

Assailing the same, the present revision has been preferred.

The Appellate Court refused the prayer of the Petitioner for converting the conviction to one under Section 324 of IPC which according to the learned Amicus Curiae is the outcome of non-application of mind. Hence, the impugned judgement merits interference by this Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction.

On scrutinizing the evidence on record, this Court is not persuaded to hold that there is any infirmity in the appreciation of evidence so as to warrant alteration of conviction to Section 324 IPC as urged. The order of conviction is thus affirmed.

It is stated at the Bar that the Petitioner has undergone incarceration of about three months.

Taking into account that the occurrence took place in the year 1993 and the Petitioner is aged about 51 years now and 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, in the considered view of this Court no useful purpose would be served by directing him to undergo further imprisonment, now after more than two decades.

As such, this Court is of the considered view that confining the sentence, to the period already undergone would sub-serve the ends of justice and accordingly, it is so directed.

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

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.

Accordingly, the CRLREV stands disposed of.