CRREV No.320 of 2001 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK CRREV No.320 of 2001 (In the matter of an application under Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973) 1. Rama Chandra Chand 2. Bharat @ Kuna Chand (Since Dead) 3. Krushna Chandra Chand (Since Dead) &. Petitioners -versus- State of Orissa &. Opposite Party For Petitioners : Mr. M.K. Chand, Advocate For Opposite Party : Mr. S. Panigrahi, ASC CORAM: JUSTICE V. NARASINGH DATE OF HEARING : 20.03.2026 DATE OF JUDGMENT : 31.03.2026 V. Narasingh, J. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioners and learned counsel for the State. 1. This Criminal Revision has been filed assailing the Judgment dated 29.05.2001 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Keonjhar in Criminal Appeal No.16 of 1995, affirming the order of conviction qua the Petitioners dated 21.03.1995 passed by the CRREV No.320 of 2001 learned Asst. Sessions Judge, Anandapur in S.T. Case No.1/132 of 1995-93 (arising out of G.R. Case No.7 of 1993) under Sections 341/307/34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as IPC) and imposing sentence for each of the Petitioners to undergo R.I. for 5 years for the offence under Section 307/34 of IPC. No separate sentence was imposed under Section 341 of IPC. 2. The case of the prosecution is that on 06.01.1993 at about 4.30 P.M., the informant, Manmath Sahu (P.W.1), along with Ghanasyam Sahu (P.W.2), the injured, Aparti Charan Ghadei (P.W.3), Brahmananda Ghadei (P.W.4), and Gayadhar Sahu (P.W.6), were returning on their respective cycles from the Judicial Court of Anandapur after their appearance in a case instituted against them by the daughter of accused-Petitioner No.3 (Krushna Chandra Chand). Gananath Jena, who was their neighbour, was initially with them, but he returned by bus. Injured Ghanasyam and Gayadhar were coming on one cycle, with the injured sitting on the front rod. On their way, near Maa. Santani Temple of Anandapur College, the accused persons restrained them. Accused Krushna and Ramachandra caught hold of the cycle on which injured Ghanasyam and CRREV No.320 of 2001 Gayadhar were coming and further held Ghanasyam by his arms. Thereafter, accused-Petitioner No.2, Bharat @ Kuna, stabbed the belly of Ghanasyam with a knife, causing exposure of the intestine and resulting in the immediate fall of the injured. While arrangements were being made for shifting the senseless injured to the hospital, the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Anandapur, reached the spot and took the injured to the Sub-Divisional Hospital, Anandapur for treatment. Subsequently, at 5.30 P.M., a written report (Ext.1) was lodged by Manmath Sahu at Anandapur, which was registered as Anandapur P.S. Case No.2 of 1993 corresponding to G.R. Case No.7 of 1993 and was treated as the F.I.R. On completion of investigation, charge-sheet has been submitted against the accused persons under Sections 341/307/34 of the IPC. 3. In the trial, to drive home the charge, the prosecution examined nine witnesses, of whom P.W.2 the injured, P.W.6 the accompanying witness, and P.W.9, the I.O. are of significance. Several documents were also exhibited at the behest of the prosecution. Neither oral nor documentary evidence was adduced on behalf of the defence. Page 4 of 7 CRREV No.320 of 2001 4. The plea of defence was one of complete denial and false implication. 5. The learned Trial Court, referring to the deposition of P.W.2 (injured) and P.W.6 (accompanying witness), found the charge under Section 307/34 of the IPC to be established against the present Petitioners and directed them to undergo R.I. for five years, while acquitting them of the charge under Section 341 of the IPC. 6. Such order of conviction and sentence having been affirmed by the learned Appellate Court on an analysis of the evidence on record, this Revision has been preferred as noted. 7. At the outset, learned counsel submits that Petitioner Nos.2 and 3 (Bharat @ Kuna Chand and Krushna Chandra Chand, respectively) have passed away. Since there is no motion on behalf of Petitioner Nos.2 and 3 to pursue this Revision, the same abates qua Petitioner Nos.2 and 3 (Bharat @ Kuna Chand and Krushna Chandra Chand, respectively), and as such, the Criminal Revision is confined to Petitioner No.1 (Rama Chandra Chand). 8. It is submitted by the learned counsel for Petitioner No.1, Rama Chandra Chand that ex facie the perversity in appreciation of evidence is of such a nature that warrants interference by this Court. CRREV No.320 of 2001 9. Such submission is opposed by the learned counsel for the State. 10. To examine the veracity of the submissions regarding perversity in appreciation of evidence, for such limited purpose, this Court has perused the evidence on record of P.Ws.2, 6 and 9. 11. It cannot be lost sight of that the accusation against the present Petitioner No.1 is that he along with two other accused (since deceased), detained the bicycle of the injured (P.W.2) along with P.W.6. 12. The attention of this Court is drawn to the cross-examination of P.W.9, the I.O., wherein it is stated that such facts were not stated during the course of investigation. 13. In the light of the same, it is submitted that such vital contradiction having been lost sight of by the learned Trial Court as well as Appellate Court in exercise of supervisory jurisdiction, the order of conviction and sentence is liable to be set aside by this Court. 14. Per contra, learned counsel for the State submits that while exercising revisional jurisdiction, this Court does not have coextensive power to re- appreciate the evidence, and if the submission of the learned counsel for the Petitioners is accepted, this Court would be acting as a second Appellate Court, CRREV No.320 of 2001 which is not permissible. It is further submitted that the witnesses examined by the prosecution corroborate the allegations in material particulars, and the contradictions referred to by the learned counsel for the Petitioners are not of such significance as to render the judgment to be considered as perverse, ex facie, so as to warrant interference by this Court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction. 15. On consideration of the evidence on record as well as the materials available and analysis thereof, this Court finds substance in the submission made by the learned counsel for the State, keeping in view the contours of revisional jurisdiction. Accordingly, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the conviction of Petitioner No.1. 16. During the course of hearing, in terms of the order of this Court, it is brought to the notice of this Court that the Petitioner No.1 is now aged about 65 years, and from the certificate of custody, it is borne out that he has undergone incarceration of 137 days. The report from the Superintendent of District Jail, Keonjhar indicates that, while in custody, the conduct of Petitioner No.1 has been satisfactory. No material has been placed before this Court indicating that Petitioner No.1 has misused the liberty while on bail CRREV No.320 of 2001 or has indulged himself in commission of any other offence, during all these years. 18. In view of the same, this Court is of the considered view that interest of justice would be sub served, if the sentence is reduced to the period already undergone. 19. The Criminal Revision is accordingly disposed of. 20. Bail bond(s) are cancelled and sureties are discharged. (V. NARASINGH) Judge Orissa High Court, Cuttack, Dated the 31st March, 2026/Ayesha