p. 1 CRLREV No.149 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK CRLREV No.149 of 2026 (In the matter of an application under Section 397 read with 401 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 read with Section 442 of BNSS, 2023) Tian @ Nilakantha Naik @ Harijan …. Petitioner -versus- State of Odisha …. Opposite Party For Petitioner : Mr. P.R. Behera, Advocate For Opposite Party : Mr. A.K. Pati, ASC CORAM: JUSTICE V. NARASINGH DATE OF HEARING & JUDGMENT : 10.03.2026 V. Narasingh, J. 1. The Criminal Revision has been filed assailing the Judgment dated 15.10.2025 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Dharamgarh, Kalahandi in Criminal Appeal No.22 of 2024 thereby affirming the judgment and order of conviction dated 11.12.2023 of the Petitioner passed by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Jaipatna in C.T. Case No.110/56 of 2023 (corresponding to Jaipatna P.S. p. 2 CRLREV No.149 of 2026 Case No.433 of 2022) under Sections 341/324 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as IPC) and sentencing him to undergo S.I. for fifteen days for the offence under Section 341 IPC and to undergo S.I. for two years for the offence under Section 324 IPC and directing both the sentences to run concurrently. 2. It is the case of the prosecution that on 02.12.2022 at about 9:10 PM, while P.W.5 (Informant/injured) was talking with his friends in front of Jayguru Temple at Mukhiguda, the accused- Petitioner abused and threatened him and assaulted him with a broken beer bottle, causing injuries. On the basis of the written report, Jaipatna P.S. Case No.433 dated 02.12.2022 was registered under Sections 341/294/324/307 IPC. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet was submitted on 28.02.2023 under Sections 341/294/324/307 IPC. And, the Petitioner faced trial for committing the offence under Sections 341/294/324/307 of IPC. The plea of defence is one of complete denial and false implication. 3. To drive home the charge, the prosecution examined 11 witnesses of whom P.W.5, the Informant and Injured, P.W.7, the ocular witness, P.W.6, the Medical officer and P.W.11, the p. 3 CRLREV No.149 of 2026 investigating officer are of significance. Several documents were exhibited and marked as Ext.P-1 to P-71. Neither oral nor documentary evidence was adduced on behalf of accused Petitioner. 4. On considering the evidence on record and the materials, the learned Trial Court while acquitting the Petitioner of the offence under Sections 294/307 of IPC and refusing to consider the prayer of the Petitioner to be dealt with under the provisions of the P.O. Act, sentenced the Petitioner to undergo S.I. for fifteen days for the offence under Section 341 of IPC and to undergo S.I. for two years for the offence under Section 324 of IPC. Both the sentences were to run concurrently. 5. On appeal, the conviction and the imposition of sentence having been upheld, the present Criminal Revision has been filed. 6. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner and learned counsel for the State. 7. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the Petitioner that the appreciation of the evidence by the learned Courts below is ex facie perverse, thereby calling for interference by this Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction. p. 4 CRLREV No.149 of 2026 8. Learned counsel for the State, on the other hand, referring to the evidence on record and the analysis thereof by the learned Courts below and referring to the contours of revisional jurisdiction of this Court submits that the matter does not merit consideration and the Revision is liable to be rejected. 9. On considering the materials on record, this Court is of the considered view that prima facie there is no perversity in the matter of appreciation of the evidence on record by the learned Trial Court as well as Appellate Court so as to warrant any interference. 10. During the course of hearing, it is brought to the notice of this Court that the Petitioner, who is lodged in Sub-Jail, Dharamgarh, Dist.-Kalahandi, out of the total period of twenty-four months, has suffered incarceration for twenty-three months. The memo filed to that effect is taken on record. 11. Considering the period of incarceration already undergone and the submission that the Petitioner has no criminal proclivity, this Court is of the view that interest of justice would be subserved, if the punishment is confined to the period already undergone. And, accordingly, it is so directed. 12. The Petitioner shall be released from custody, if his detention is not required in connection with any p. 5 CRLREV No.149 of 2026 other case. Extract of this order be communicated to the concerned jail authorities. 13. Registry is requested to do the needful. 14. The Criminal Revision is accordingly disposed of. 15. Bail bond(s) are cancelled and sureties are discharged. (V. NARASINGH) Judge Orissa High Court, Cuttack, Dated the 10th March, 2026/Ayesha