THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK CRLA No.356 of 2006 CNR-ODHC010018112006 (In the matter of an application under Section 374 of Criminal Procedure Code) Bibhuti Dehuri ……. Appellant -Versus- State of Orissa ……. Respondent For the Appellant : Mr. Jayasankar Mishra, Advocate For the Respondent : Mr. A.K. Apat, AGA CORAM: THE HONOURABLE SHRI JUSTICE SIBO SANKAR MISHRA Date of Hearing: 21.07.2026 : Date of Judgment: 30.07.2026 S.S. Mishra, J. The present Criminal Appeal has been preferred by the appellant assailing the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 14.08.2006 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Boudh in S.T. No.66 of 2005 arising out of G.R. Case No.107 of 2004, corresponding to Manamunda P.S. Case No. 56 of 2004 on the file of the learned J.M.F.C., Kantamal. By the impugned judgment, the appellant was found guilty of the offence punishable under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code and was sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.3,000/-, with a default stipulation to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months. 2. Heard Mr. Jayasankar Mishra, learned Counsel for the appellant and Mr. A.K. Apat, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State. 3. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 21.07.2004 at about 11.00 a.m., the informant had gone to the agricultural field to serve meals to her husband, who was engaged in cultivation. At that time, the goats belonging to the informant allegedly entered into the land of one Nimai Dehuri for grazing. This led to an altercation, whereupon the accused persons, namely, Bibhuti Dehuri, Lata Dehuri, Jagoda Dehuri and Dolly Dehuri, allegedly abused the informant and her husband in filthy language. It is further alleged that appellant Bibhuti Dehuri, armed with an "Isa", dealt two blows on the head of the informant's husband, causing him to lose consciousness and fall to the ground. On the basis of the written report lodged by the informant, Manamunda P.S. Case No. 56 of 2004 was registered. Upon completion of investigation, the police submitted charge-sheet against the accused persons for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 294, 323, 307, 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The case, being exclusively triable by the Court of Session, was committed to the Court of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Boudh, where the accused persons faced trial in S.T. No. 66 of 2005. Upon conclusion of the trial, the learned trial court convicted the present appellant under Section 324 IPC and acquitted him of the remaining charges, while passing the sentence as noted above, giving rise to the present appeal. 4. In order to substantiate its case, the prosecution examined eight witnesses, proved documents marked as Exts. 1 to 12, and produced Material Object-I (M.O.-I). On the other hand, the defence examined one witness, who was examined as D.W.1, in support of its case. Page 4 of 12 5. Upon a careful appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence on record, the learned trial Court found that the prosecution had failed to establish the charge under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code beyond reasonable doubt. The learned trial Court observed that although the prosecution had produced the discharge certificate and CT scan plate of V.S.S. Medical College Hospital, Burla, the same could not be relied upon in the absence of the examining doctor, to prove the said documents. Placing reliance on the evidence of P.W.6, who had examined the injured on police requisition and opined that the injuries sustained were simple in nature, the learned trial Court concluded that the offence under Section 307 IPC was not made out. However, considering the nature of the weapon allegedly used and the circumstances attending the occurrence, the learned trial Court held that the appellant had committed an offence punishable under Section 324 IPC. It was further held that the prosecution had failed to prove the remaining charges beyond reasonable doubt on account of inconsistencies and contradictions in the evidence. Accordingly, the learned trial Court recorded the following findings: “In connection with the nature and gravity of injury sustained by p.w.3 the victim he produced the Discharge certificate and scanning plate of Burla Hospital marked Ext. 2 & 3 (with objection on behalf of Defence). In the absence of examination Doctor with reference to such documents it is not appropriate to accept and rely on the same. The Doctor p.w.6 who examined on police requisition opined that the injury was simple in nature and also deposed that he had not reflected in such injury report for further treatment at V.S.S. Medical College Hospital, Burla with the aforesaid materials on record only thing can be accepted under law that the opinion of p.w.6 about the nature of injury as simple. The weapon of offence used for the offence is Merha length of 6'-4" and the diameter have been mentioned as 7 ½” as the root and 6" at the top the size. Such large size weapon can safely be used for causing death. So, considering the nature of injury and size of the weapon, I am of the view, that the act constitute an offence u/s 324 I.P.C. and not u/s 307 I.P.C. Relating to other offences, it has already been discussed that the evidence on the same are inconsistent, confusing and the prosecution is not able to prove the same beyond reasonable doubt.” 6. Accordingly, the learned trial Court acquitted the appellant of the charges under Sections 341, 294, 307 and 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. However, holding that the prosecution had succeeded in establishing the offence punishable under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code beyond reasonable doubt, the learned trial Court convicted the appellant thereunder and sentenced him to pay a fine of Rs.3,000/-, with a default stipulation to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months. Aggrieved by the said Judgment of conviction and Order of sentence, the present appeal has been preferred by the appellant. 7. At the outset, learned counsel for the appellant fairly submitted that he would confine his submissions to the quantum of sentence. Learned counsel submitted that the occurrence took place in the year 2004 and that the present appeal, preferred in the year 2006, has remained pending for nearly two decades. It was contended that the appellant, who was about 25 years of age at the relevant time, is now about 45 years old. It was further submitted that the appellant has already undergone about 22 days in custody. According to the learned counsel, the appellant has since settled in life and has been leading a peaceful life. In such circumstances, directing him to undergo the remaining part of the sentence after such a prolonged lapse of time would serve no meaningful purpose. Learned counsel further submitted that the appellant has no criminal antecedents and that no other criminal case is pending against him. It was urged that he has remained integrated with society throughout this period and has maintained good conduct. In the aforesaid circumstances, it was submitted that his incarceration at this distant point of time would neither advance the ends of justice nor serve any meaningful penological objective. Accordingly, it was prayed that, having regard to the long passage of time, the nature of the offence, the antecedents of the appellant and the overall facts and circumstances of the case, this Court may extend to him the benefit of the provisions of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958. 8. Upon a careful appraisal of the evidence on record and the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court finds no infirmity in the findings recorded by the learned trial Court. The testimony of the injured witness is found to be cogent, natural and trustworthy and receives due corroboration from the medical evidence of P.W.6, who opined that the injuries sustained by the victim were simple in nature. Although the prosecution produced the discharge certificate and CT scan plate of V.S.S. Medical College Hospital, Burla, the same have rightly not been relied upon by the learned trial Court in the absence of the examination of the concerned doctor. The evidence on record, however, clearly establishes that the appellant voluntarily caused hurt to the injured by means of a dangerous weapon. At the same time, the materials on record fall short of establishing the requisite intention or knowledge necessary to attract the offence punishable under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code. This Court is, therefore, of the considered view that the prosecution has successfully proved the charge under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code beyond reasonable doubt, and the conviction recorded by the learned trial Court thereunder warrants no interference. 9. The record reveals that the occurrence relates back to the year 2004. The appellant was about 25 years of age at the time of the incident. He was convicted by the impugned Judgment and Order of sentence passed by the learned trial Court, and the present appeal has remained pending since the year 2006. As of now, the appellant is about 45 years of age. More than two decades have elapsed since the occurrence, and much water has flown under the bridge. It is not in dispute that the appellant has no criminal antecedents, no other criminal case is stated to be pending against him, and that he has undergone a certain period in custody. During the interregnum, he has remained integrated with society and is stated to be leading a settled life. In such circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that this is a fit case for extending to the appellant the benefit contemplated under the provisions of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Chellammal and Another v. State represented by the Inspector of Police1, has held that it is the statutory obligation of the sentencing Court to consider the applicability of the provisions of the Probation of Offenders Act and that any refusal to extend such benefit must be supported by reasons. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant seeking extension of the benefit under the Probation of Offenders Act merits consideration. 10. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Chellammal (supra) has elaborately explained the scope, object and significance of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 while considering the question of extending the benefit of probation to a convict. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed as follows: 1 2025 INSC 540 “26. On consideration of the precedents and based on a comparative study of Section 360, Cr. PC and sub-section (1) of Section 4 of the Probation Act, what is revealed is that the latter is wider and expansive in its coverage than the former. Inter alia, while Section 360 permits release of an offender, more twenty-one years old, on probation when he is sentenced to imprisonment for less than seven years or fine, Section 4 of the Probation Act enables a court to exercise its discretion in any case where the offender is found to have committed an offence such that he is punishable with any sentence other than death or life imprisonment. Additionally, the non-obstante clause in sub-section gives overriding effect to sub-section (1) of Section 4 over any other law for the time being in force. Also, it is noteworthy that Section 361, Cr. PC itself, being a subsequent legislation, engrafts a provision that in any case where the court could have dealt with an accused under the provisions of the Probation Act but has not done so, it shall record in its judgment the special reasons therefor. 27. What logically follows from a conjoint reading of sub-section (1) of Section 4 of the Probation Act and Section 361, Cr. PC is that if Section 360, Cr. PC were not applicable in a particular case, there is no reason why Section 4 of the Probation Act would not be attracted. 28. Summing up the legal position, it can be said that while an offender cannot seek an order for grant of probation as a matter of right but having noticed the object that the statutory provisions seek to achieve by grant of probation and the several decisions of this Court on the point of applicability of Section 4 of the Probation Act, we hold that, unless applicability is excluded, in a case where the circumstances stated in subsection (1) of Section 4 of the Probation Act are attracted, the court has no discretion to omit from its consideration release of the offender on probation; on the contrary, a mandatory duty is cast upon the court to consider whether the case before it warrants releasing the offender upon fulfilment of the stated circumstances. The question of grant of probation could be decided either way. In the event, the court in its discretion decides to extend the benefit of probation, it may upon considering the report of the probation officer impose such conditions as deemed just and proper. However, if the answer be in the negative, it would only be just and proper for the court to record the reasons therefor.” Having regard to the aforesaid legal position and considering the facts of the present case, particularly the nature of the offence under Sections 324 of the Indian Penal Code, the long lapse of more than twenty years since the occurrence, the custody undergone, the absence of any criminal antecedent and the settled life presently being led by the appellant, this Court is of the considered opinion that the appellant deserves to be extended the benefit contemplated under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, instead of directing him to undergo the remaining part of the sentence. Additionally, the case of the appellant is also covered by the ratio of the judgments of this Court in the cases of Pathani Parida & another vs. Abhaya Kumar Jagdevmohapatra2 and Dhani @ Dhaneswar Sahu vs. State of Orissa3. In view of the aforesaid legal position and the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is inclined to extend to the appellant the benefit contemplated under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act. 2 2012 (Supp-II) OLR 469 3 2007 (Supp.II) OLR 250 11. Hence, the present Criminal Appeal, so far as the conviction is concerned, stands unaltered. But instead of sentencing the appellant to suffer imprisonment, this Court directs the appellant to be released under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act for a period of three months on his executing a bond of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand) within one month with one surety for the like amount to appear and receive the sentence when called upon during such period and, in the meantime, the appellant shall keep peace and good behaviour and shall remain under the supervision of the concerned Probation Officer during the aforementioned period of three months. 12. Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal is partly allowed. (S.S. Mishra) Judge The High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Dated the 30th July, 2026/Subhasis Mohanty Designation: Personal Assistant Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack.