Orissa High Court
Pravakar Das vs State Of Orissa on 12 February, 2026
THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
CRA No. 96 of 2001
(In the matter of an application under Section 374 of Criminal
Procedure Code)
1. Pravakar Das
2. Baidyalochan Mahakud
3. Himansu Mahakud
4. Anta @ Antu Majhi
5. Tamrai Mahali
6. Prasanta Kumar Naik ....... Appellants
-Versus-
State of Orissa ....... Respondent
For the Appellant : Mr. Satyabrata Mohapatra, Advocate For the Respondent : Mr. Ashok Kumar Apat, AGA CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE SHRI JUSTICE SIBO SANKAR MISHRA Date of Hearing: 03.02.2026 : Date of Judgment: 12.02.2026 S.S. Mishra, J. The present Criminal Appeal is preferred by the appellants assailing the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 05.04.2001 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rairangpur, Mayurbhanj in S.T. Case No. 31/151 of 2000 arising out of G.R. Case No.173 of 1999 (T.C. No.1190 of 1999) convicting them under Sections 148/452/332/324/149 IPC and sentenced to undergo R.I. for three months and to pay a fine of Rs.500/-, in default to undergo R.I. for a further period of fifteen days on each count. The sentences were directed to run consecutively.
2. Heard Mr. Satyabrata Mohapatra, learned counsel for the appellants and Mr. Ashok Kumar Apat, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State.
3. The narrative of prosecution report in the present case is that the informant Prasanta Kumar Sahoo lodged a written report alleging therein that on 26.5.99 he was the B.D.O. of Bahalda Block. On that day at about 8.10 A.M. when he was discharging his official duties in his office chamber, at that time all the accused persons forcibly and without his permission entered into his office chamber and questioned him as to why the Gramika Pratinidhi was selected at village Jharadihi. Before giving any answer, all the accused persons dealt fist blows, slaps on his body and by means of one sharp edged stone assaulted on his head. By this, he sustained severe bleeding injuries on his head and the accused persons were also attempted to kill him. Page 2 of 10 When the Block Officials came to the spot, at that time, the accused persons went away by a jeep. Soon-after the occurrence, the informant lodged the report at Bahalda Police Station and thereafter the O.I.C., Bahalda P.S. registered the P.S. Case No.33/99 under Sections 147/148/452/332/307/149 IPC.
4. On the basis of the aforementioned allegations, investigation was conducted and charge sheet was filed against the appellants and on their stance of complete denial and claim for trial, they were put to trial on the charges, as mentioned above.
5. In order to establish the charges, the prosecution has examined six witnesses and exhibited as many as seven documents along with M.Os. I to IV.
Out of six witnesses, P.W.1 was the informant, P.W.2 was a post occurrence witness. P.W.3 and P.W.4 were the independent witnesses. P.W.5 was the doctor, who examined the informant on police requisition. P.W.6 was the Investigating Officer, who conducted investigation and submitted charge sheet in the present case.
Page 3 of 10
6. The learned trial court, upon a thorough and meticulous appreciation of the entire oral and documentary evidence adduced by the prosecution, arrived at the following conclusion:-
"9. Now coming to the discussion of Section 148/452/332/149 I.P.C. I should seen the evidence of P.W.1. Already, I have discussed in my preceding paragraphs that the accused persons being a member of an unlawful assembly holding the deadly weapons i.e. metals (M.O.II and III) attempted to commit the death of P.W.1 by entering into the chamber of P.W.1. So when the accused persons had assaulted the B.D.O. (P.W.1) for that reason I am clear that the accused persons had forming an unlawful assembly with their common object holding deadly weapons entered into the Office chamber of P.W.1 and had assaulted him. In the F.I.R., P.W.1 has mentioned that on 26.5.99 at about 8.10A.M. while he was discharging his official duties in the office chamber, at that time the accused persons had forcibly entered and had assaulted him. He has clearly stated by the assault he did not perform his official duties. Section 332 I.P.C. says that:
"Voluntarily causing hurt to deter public servant from his duty-whoever voluntarily caused hut to any person being a public servant in the discharge of his duty as such public servant, or with intent to prevent or deter that person or any other public servant from discharging his duty as such public servant, or in consequence of anything done or attempted to be done by that person in the lawful discharge of his duty as such that public servant, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both."
However, due to assault P.W.1 did not perform his Official duties at the time of the occurrence. So also it is clear that P.W.1 was a public servant at the time of occurrence and Page 4 of 10 he was prevented to perform his official duties by the accused persons.
10. P.W.6 has stated that on 26.5.99 he registered the case on receipt of the F.I.R. from P.W.1 and in course of investigation he visited the spot, and prepared the spot map vide Ext-.4. He seized 2 stones and one spectacle vide Ext 2. He also seized one blood stained tarkish towel and one blood stained banion of the informant in the hospital on the production of P.W1 vide Ext.5. He also seized the commander jeep bearing No. OR-11-9715 with its documents. He has sent the injured for medical examination. The Learned Defence Counsel has simply, suggested him that with connivances of the B.D.O. he foisted this case against the accused persons. However, P.W.6 has perfectly and correctly investigated into the case and his investigation has proved the occurrence and the injuries of P.W.1.
11. U/S-313 Cr.P.C. the accused persons have stated that when they made allegations against the B.D.O. (P.W.1) before the Collector, Mayurbhanj, Baripada and they made hunger strike in front of the Block Office at Bahalda for that reason P.W.1 has falsely implicated them in this case. D.W.1 who is the Ex-M.L.A. of Bahalda Constituency has stated that in the year 1999 the B.D.O., Bahalda (P.W.1) was there and on that period he was the M.L.A. He has reported to the Collector, Mayurbhanj, Baripada about the irregularity of Bahalda Block. There was hunger strike in that period. In that hunger strike all the accused persons had participated. The Collector, Mayurbhanj had enquired about law grade work of the Block. D.W.1 has not proved any piece of document that P.W.1 had made irregularity in the Block Office. So also he has not proved on which date Collector, Mayurbhanj had enquired about the law grade work of the Block. Already I have discussed that the accused persons are the Political persons. So naturally D.W.1 will speak in favour of the accused persons with a view to get political gain from them. So the D.W.1 has deposed against P.W.1 at the instance of the accused persons."
Page 5 of 10
7. P.W.1, the informant in his cross-examination stated that many other official staff were present in the office at the time of the incident, but the names mentioned in the depositions have not been examined by the police. Mr. Mohapatra, learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that P.Ws.1 and 2, who were the peons of the Block office of Bahalda were turned hostile, whereas P.W.4, who was also a peon in his examination-in-chief stated that "he do not know anything about the case". Therefore, the prosecution declined his version. He further submitted that P.W.5, the doctor who examined the informant in his cross examination stated that the blood pressure of P.W.1 was 150/118, which is considered as high blood pressure and for such high blood pressure, the patient may also fall down. He further submitted that the nature and the injuries are lacerated wounds and the medical report also suggested that the informant had high blood pressure. But in absence of any supportive evidence, only on the basis of the sole uncorroborated testimony of the informant (P.W.1), who was inimical to the appellants, his testimony should be scrutinized with caution and care. The learned trial court convicted the appellants without taking into consideration of the deposition of D.W.1 and sentenced all of them to undergo R.I. Page 6 of 10 for three months and to pay a fine of Rs.500/-, in default to undergo further R.I. for fifteen days.
8. The learned trial Court by a deep analysis of the evidence brought on record has found the appellants guilty of the offence, as mentioned above. The incident relates back to the year 1999 and the trial went on for about two years only to end up on 05.04.2001 and the appeal has been pending since 2001.
9. While analyzing the evidence on record, I find no reason to disagree with the findings recorded by the learned trial court, hence, I affirm the conviction recorded against the appellants.
10. At this stage, Mr. Mohapatra, learned counsel appearing for the appellants has limited his submissions to the question of sentence without venturing into the merits. He submitted that keeping in view the procrastinated judicial process undergone by the appellants in this case and the ordeal of trial faced by the appellants, he would rather confine his argument to the quantum of sentence. He submitted that the incident pertains to the year 1999. The appellants have undergone the rigors of trial for about two years. Thereafter, the appeal was preferred in the year 2001. The appeal has been prolonging to be heard for more than 24 years. Some of the appellants are now above Page 7 of 10 fifties and some of them also above sixties. Therefore, sending them to custody for fulfilling their remaining sentence at this belated stage would serve no purpose. The learned counsel further submitted that the appellants have no criminal antecedents and no other case of a similar nature or otherwise is stated to be pending against them. Over the years, they have led a dignified life, integrated well into society, and are presently leading a settled family life. Incarcerating them after such a long delay, it is argued, would serve little penological purpose and may in fact be counter-productive, casting a needless stigma not only upon them but also upon their family members, especially when there is no suggestion of any repeat violation or ongoing non- compliance with regulatory norms. Therefore, in the fitness of situation, the appellants may be extended the benefit of the Probation of Offenders Act read with Section 360 Cr.P.C. To substantive his contention, he has relied upon the judgment of this Court in Sk. Wahed Ali Vs, State of Orissa1, and another judgment of this Court in Maheswar Sahu and another vrs. State of Orissa2, wherein similar view has also been taken by this Court.
1 AIROnline 2025 ORI 280 2 CRA No.302 of 1996 disposed of on 11.11.2025 Page 8 of 10 I am inclined to accede to the prayer made by Mr. Mohapatra, learned counsel for the appellants on the facts scenario of the case.
11. Regard being had to the societal position of the appellants, clean antecedents and the fact that the incident had taken place in the year 1999, I am of the considered view that the appellants are entitled to the benefit of the Probation of Offenders Act read with Section 360 of Cr.P.C. The case of the appellants is also covered by the ratio of the judgment of this Court in the case of Pathani Parida & another vs. Abhaya Kumar Jagdevmohapatra3 and Dhani @ Dhaneswar Sahu vs. State of Orissa4.
Additionally, the present case is also squarely covered by the judgment of this Court in Sk. Wahed Ali (supra), wherein, while dealing with an offence of a similar nature, the Court had extended the benefit of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 to the appellant, who had been convicted under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code.
On similar footings, this court in Maheswar Sahoo (supra) wherein the accused persons were convicted U/s.326/34 of I.P.C, has extended the benefit of Probation of the Offenders Act,1958. 3 2012 (Supp-II) OLR 469 4 2007 (Supp.II) OLR 250 Page 9 of 10 The ratio of the aforesaid decisions, emphasizes the reformative approach of criminal jurisprudence in cases involving personal disputes and absence of criminal antecedents, is fully applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case.
12. In such view of the matter, the present Criminal Appeal in so far as the conviction is concerned, is turned down. But instead of sentencing the appellants to suffer imprisonment, this Court directs the appellants to be released under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act for a period of six months on their executing bond of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand) each within one month with one surety each for the like amount to appear and receive the sentence when called upon during such period and in the meantime, the appellants shall keep peace and good behavior and they shall remain under the supervision of the concerned Probation Officer during the aforementioned period of six months.
13. Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal is partly allowed.
(S.S. Mishra) Judge The High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Dated the 12th of February, 2026/Ashok Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: ASHOK KUMAR JAGADEB MOHAPATRA Designation: Secretary Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa Date: 13-Feb-2026 11:05:14 Page 10 of 10