IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK CRLA No.103 of 2005 (In the matter of an application under Section 374 (2) of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973) Krupasindhu @ Kurupa Bhoi ……. Appellant -Versus- State of Orissa ……. Respondent For the Appellant : Ms. Ananya Mishra, Amicus Curiae For the Respondent : Mr. Sobhan Panigrahi, Additional Standing Counsel CORAM: THE HONOURABLE SHRI JUSTICE SIBO SANKAR MISHRA Date of Hearing: 05.05.2026 : Date of Judgment: 22.05.2026 S.S. Mishra, J. The sole appellant has assailed the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 07.02.2005 passed by the learned Ad hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No. II, Puri in S.T. Case No.65/390 of 2003, whereby the appellant has been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code and was sentenced to undergo R.I. for two years and to pay a fine of Rs.200/- (Rupees two hundred), in default, to undergo further R.I. for 15 days more. Page 2 of 9 2. The present appeal has been pending since 2005. Continuously none appeared for the appellant, when the matter was taken up for hearing. Therefore, on 15.07.2025, it was ordered that if none appears for hearing on the subsequent day when matter is listed then an Amicus Curiae will be appointed and subsequent to that on 24.07.2025, Ms. Ananya Mishra, Advocate was appointed as Amicus Curiae to assist the Court in the matter when the matter was heard and subsequently on 05.05.2026 she filed a detailed written note of submission. 3. Heard Ms. Ananya Mishra, learned Amicus Curiae appearing for the appellant and Mr. Sobhan Panigrahi, learned Additional Standing Counsel appearing for the Respondent-State. 4. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 18.02.2003, while Tapi Bhoi and Ganesh Sethi were returning home from the market, the accused, Krupasindhu Bhoi, at Narendrakona, allegedly assaulted Tapi by striking him on the backside of his head with a broken glass tumbler, causing profuse bleeding injuries. Thereafter, Ganesh took Tapi to Town P.S., Puri, to lodge a report, from where Tapi was shifted to the District Headquarters Hospital, Puri, for treatment. Page 3 of 9 5. The plea of the accused is one of complete denial. He claimed trial, therefore, after framing of charges under Section 341/307 of the IPC, he was put to trial. 6. To bring home the charge against the accused, the prosecution has examined as many as six witnesses. Out of them, P.W.1 is the informant and elder brother of Tapi Bhoi; P.W.2, namely Ganesh Sethi, was accompanying Tapi Bhoi at the time of occurrence; P.W.3 was the injured, Tapi Bhoi himself; P.W.4 was the doctor, who treated Tapi after the occurrence; P.W.5 was another witness to the case, who has not stated anything about the incident or the accused or the injured; and P.W.6 was the Investigating Officer. The defence has examined no witness. 7. Upon a detailed analysis of the oral and documentary evidence adduced by the prosecution, the learned trial Court came to hold that the prosecution had failed to establish the ingredients of the offence under Section 307 IPC as well as the charge under Section 341 IPC beyond all reasonable doubt. However, considering the nature of weapon used and the injuries sustained by the victim, the learned trial Court found the appellant guilty of the offence punishable under Section 324 IPC. The relevant findings of the learned trial Court are extracted herein below: “9. The learned counsel for the defence has submitted that the blood-stained clothes were not seized by the I.O., so the prosecution case cannot be believed. The learned counsel for the prosecution has submitted that non-seizure of blood- stained clothes by the I.O., cannot be taken to be a ground to disbelieve the prosecution case if the evidence of the witnesses are trustworthy reliable and believable. So, the consistent and positive evidence of the witnesses without any ill-will cannot be disbelieved for non-seizure of blood- stained wearing apparels by the I.0. 10. The learned counsel for the defence has submitted that there is no interruption in the act of the accd. while dealing the blow, which did not cause death of P.W.3 and as such, the accused has not committed any offence under Sec. 307 I.P.C. The evidence in this case goes to show that prosecution has not made out a case under the facts and circumstances as envisaged under sec. 300 I. P. C. What the Court has to see is whether the act, irrespective of its result, was done with the intention or knowledge or under the circumstances mentioned in the section. It is sufficient if there is intent coupled with some overt-act in execution thereof. In this case the nature of injury, place of injury and the weapon of offence do not suggest the intention or knowledge for the offence of causing death of the victim. But the weapon of offence i.e. a broken glass tumbler is a dangerous weapon if used for inflicting an injury. So, I bent upon to convict the accused under Sec. 324 IPC. As there is no direct evidence of wrongful restrain the accused is acquitted of the charges under Secs.341/307 I.P.C…….” 8. Ms. Mishra, learned Amicus Curiae appearing for the appellant, has primarily advanced her submissions on two grounds. Firstly, she contended that there was an inordinate delay in lodging the F.I.R., inasmuch as the occurrence allegedly took place on 18.02.2003 whereas the F.I.R. was lodged nearly 12 hours thereafter, i.e., on the following day, 19.02.2003. Although P.Ws.2 and 3 have stated that they immediately proceeded to Town P.S. to report the matter, no such report has been brought on record and the delay in lodging the F.I.R. has remained unexplained. 9. Secondly, it was submitted that the broken glass tumbler, which forms the basis of the prosecution case, was neither recovered nor seized during investigation, nor was it produced before the learned trial Court. It was further argued that while P.Ws.1 and 2 deposed that the appellant assaulted P.W.3 on the backside of his head with a glass tumbler, there is nothing in their evidence to suggest that the tumbler was broken. Though P.W.3 has categorically stated that he was assaulted by means of a broken glass tumbler, according to the learned Amicus Curiae, he had no occasion to notice whether the tumbler was broken or intact, as he himself stated that the assault came from behind. Additionally the blood stained clothes of the injured has also not been seized. 10. It was, therefore, contended that an intact glass tumbler, by itself, may not qualify as a “dangerous weapon or means” so as to attract the offence under Section 324 IPC, unless it is specifically established that the nature of the weapon and the manner in which it was used rendered it dangerous. On such grounds, prayer has been made for acquittal of the appellant from the said charge. 11. Upon careful appraisal of the evidence on record, this Court finds that the testimonies of P.Ws.1, 2 and 3 are substantially consistent with regard to the occurrence and the overt act attributed to the appellant. Their evidence clearly establishes that the appellant assaulted P.W.3 on the backside of his head, resulting in bleeding injuries, which also stands corroborated by the medical evidence of P.W.4. Merely because certain procedural lapses occurred during investigation, such as non-seizure of the blood-stained wearing apparels or failure to seize and produce the alleged weapon of offence before the Court, the entire prosecution case cannot be discarded when the ocular evidence of the witnesses are otherwise cogent, trustworthy and reliable. It is well settled that lapses on the part of the Investigating Officer should not, by themselves, become a ground to throw out an otherwise credible prosecution case. 12. However, this Court finds substance in the submission advanced by the learned Amicus Curiae insofar as the nature of the weapon of offence used in the commission of the crime. Though the prosecution case proceeds on the allegation that the assault was made by means of a broken glass tumbler, there is no convincing evidence on record to conclusively establish that the tumbler was, in fact, broken at the time of occurrence. While P.Ws.1 and 2 have merely stated that the assault was made by a glass tumbler, P.W.3 has described it as a broken glass tumbler, despite his own statement that the blow was dealt from behind, thereby making it doubtful whether he had the opportunity to notice the exact nature of the tumbler. Furthermore, the alleged weapon of offence was never seized or produced before the learned trial Court. 13. In such circumstances, a reasonable doubt arises as to whether the weapon used could be termed a “dangerous weapon or means” within the meaning of Section 324 IPC. It is a settled principle of criminal jurisprudence that where two views are possible, the one favourable to the accused must be adopted. Accordingly, the benefit of such doubt deserves to be extended to the appellant. 14. Therefore, while this Court is not inclined to disbelieve the prosecution version regarding the assault itself, the conviction of the appellant under Section 324 IPC cannot be sustained in the absence of clear and cogent proof regarding the use of a dangerous weapon. Page 8 of 9 Nonetheless, the evidence on record unmistakably proves that the appellant voluntarily caused hurt to P.W.3. Hence, the conviction of the appellant is modified from Section 324 IPC to Section 323 IPC. 15. At this stage, Ms. Mishra, learned Amicus Curiae has also submitted that a lenient view may be taken while imposing the sentence. The learned trial Court has sentenced the appellant to undergo R.I. for 2 years and imposed a fine of Rs.200/-. It appears from the record that the appellant has already undergone custody for a period of 5 months and 28 days. The incident relates back to the year 2003. At that point of time, the appellant was about 34 years of age. Hence, at present, the appellant would be about 57 years of age. Much water has flown under the bridge by now. The appellant is already settled in his life with his family. Over the years, he has lived peacefully, well integrated into society, and is presently leading stable family life. Incarcerating him at this belated stage would have a serious and cascading effect on the entire family. Therefore, she submitted that a lenient view should be taken while considering the sentencing of the appellant. 16. In view of the aforementioned mitigating facts and circumstances, the prayer made by Ms. Mishra, learned Amicus Curiae deserves merit. Taking into consideration the aforementioned, while modifying the sentence to conviction u/s.323 I.P.C the sentence imposed by the learned trial Court to the appellant is modified to that of the period the appellant has already undergone. However, to balance the scale of Justice the fine of Rs.200/- imposed on the appellant is enhanced to Rs.2,000/- (Rupees two thousand), in the event of failure to pay the fine amount, the appellant shall undergo R.I. for a period of fifteen days more. The appellant shall deposit the fine amount within a period of four weeks from today. The fine amount to be deposited shall be disbursed to P.W.3 in accordance with Section 357 of the Cr.P.C. as compensation. 17. Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal is partly allowed. 18. This Court records the appreciation for the effective and meaningful assistance rendered by Ms. Ananya Mishra, learned Amicus Curiae. She is entitled to an honorarium of Rs.7,500/- (Rupees seven thousand and five hundred) to be paid as token of appreciation. (S.S. Mishra) Judge The High Court of Orissa, Cuttack. Dated the 22nd Day of May 2026/ Subhasis Mohanty Designation: Personal Assistant Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack. Date: 25-May-2026 20:33:05