Orissa High Court
(1) Sitaram Jena vs State Of Orissa on 26 March, 2026
THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
CRA No.219 of 1992
(In the matter of an application under Section 374 of the Criminal
Procedure Code, 1973)
(1) Sitaram Jena
(2) Madhusudan Jena
(3) Panchanan Jena
(4) Birendra Jena
(5) Bhima Jena
(6) Bangiri Jena
(7) Bansidhar Jena
(8) Pratap Chandra Jena @ Kati
....... Appellants
-Versus-
State of Orissa ....... Respondent
For the Appellants : Manoj Kumar Mohanty, Advocate
For the Respondent : Mr. Ashok Kumar Apat, AGA
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE SHRI JUSTICE SIBO SANKAR MISHRA
Date of Hearing: 19.03.2026 :: Date of Judgment: 26.03.2026
S.S. Mishra, J. The present Criminal Appeal, filed by the appellants is
directed against the judgment and order dated 30.05.1992 passed by the
learned Additional Sessions Judge, Balasore in S.T. No.7/4 of 1989,whereby the appellants have been convicted for the offences under
Sections 395/457 of I.P.C. read with Section 9(B)(b) of the Indian
Explosives Act. On that count, they have been sentenced to undergo R.I.
for seven years each for the offence under Section 395 of I.P.C., to
undergo R.I. for two years each for the offence under Section 457 of
I.P.C. and to undergo R.I. for one year for the offence under Section
9(B)(b) of the Indian Explosives Act.
2. Heard Mr. Manoj Kumar Mohanty, learned counsel for the
appellants and Mr. Ashok Kumar Apat, learned Additional Government
Advocate for the State.
3. The appeal has been pending since 1992. During pendency of the
appeal, barring the appellant No.1-Sitaram Jena and the appellant No.4-
Birendra Jena, all the appellants have died on different dates. Therefore,
the appeal qua the appellant No.2 (Madhusudan Jena), appellant No.3
(Panchanan Jena), appellant No.5 (Bhima Jena), appellant No.6 (Bangiri
Jena), appellant No.7 (Bansidhar Jena) and appellant No.8 (Pratap
Chandra Jena @ Kati) have already stood abated by virtue of various
Page 2 of 23
orders of this Court, which precisely reflected in the proceedings dated
09.04.2025 and 14.08.2025. In the absence of any application by the
legal representatives or next friends of the deceased-appellants under
Section 394 of the Cr.P.C. seeking leave to continue the appeal, the
appeal qua the appellant Nos.2, 3, 5, 6, 7, and 8 stood abated.
Accordingly, the present appeal survives for consideration only in
respect of appellant Nos.1 and 4.
4. The prosecution case, as revealed from the F.I.R. (Ext.1), is that
on the night of 16.01.1988, between 9:30 p.m. and 10:00 p.m., P.W.2
was sleeping in one room of their house at Nafrai along with his
grandparents and younger brother. At that time, his mother (P.W.7) was
awake, awaiting the return of her husband (P.W.1), who had not yet
come back from his shop. At about 10:30 p.m., P.W.1 returned home,
and after taking their meal, both P.Ws.1 and 7 retired to bed. While they
were about to sleep, they heard a noise at the back door of the house.
From the heavy thud, they suspected that some miscreants were
attempting to break into the house. Shortly thereafter, they heard the
door being forced open. Apprehending danger, P.W.1 opened the
Page 3 of 23
window and, in a state of panic, raised an alarm along with his wife
(P.W.7), but no one responded. Meanwhile, they heard commotion from
the room where the parents of P.W.1 were sleeping along with P.W.2
and his brother. The door of that room was also broken open, and the
accused persons, having entered therein, looted gold and silver
ornaments and other valuables belonging to the family. They further
assaulted the father of P.W.1 and took away cash amounting to
Rs.1,800/- kept in that room. Thereafter, the accused persons proceeded
to the room where P.Ws.1 and 7 were sleeping. They attempted to break
open the door by inserting a crowbar through the gap and also threatened
P.W.1 by inserting a knife through the door, warning that he would be
shot if the door was not opened. Out of fear, P.W.1 opened the door,
whereupon 6 to 7 accused persons entered the room. They had covered
their faces with mufflers and were armed with deadly weapons such as
lathis and knives. The accused persons then broke open boxes and
suitcases in the room and looted gold and silver ornaments, cash of
Rs.1,800/-, and other articles including an umbrella, a torch light, a
Favre Leuba wristwatch belonging to P.W.1, a ladies’ wristwatch
Page 4 of 23
(Kamini) belonging to P.W.7, a chaddar, and other household items.
They also assaulted P.W.1 and forcibly removed the earrings worn by
P.W.7. After committing the dacoity, the accused persons fled the scene
by exploding bombs at the gate and escaping through the bari. In the
meantime, the father of P.W.1, who had climbed onto the roof and raised
alarm to alert the villagers, was brought down and found to have
sustained injuries. Upon hearing the cries of P.W.1 and his father, some
villagers arrived and made arrangements to send the injured to the
hospital. Thereafter, P.W.1, accompanied by a villager, proceeded to the
Police Station and lodged the FIR at about 1:00 a.m., upon which the
G.R. case was registered.
Subsequently, on 18.01.1988, P.W.1 submitted a further report
(Ext.2) at the Police Station disclosing theft of additional articles in the
same occurrence. During the course of investigation, the Investigating
Officer (P.W.14) apprehended the accused persons, conducted a Test
Identification Parade (T.I. Parade) in which they were identified by the
witnesses, and recovered stolen articles at the instance of the accused
persons, who led the police and witnesses to their respective houses. The
Page 5 of 23
seized properties were also subjected to T.I. Parade and were correctly
identified. On completion of investigation, charge-sheet was submitted
against the accused persons, including one Jadu Kuara, who was shown
as an absconder.
The case against the absconding accused, Jadu Kuara, was split
up, and the remaining accused persons, including Balaram Dalei, were
committed to the Court of Session for trial. However, at the stage of trial,
the accused Balaram Dalei absconded, and his case was also separated
from that of the present accused persons.
In their statements recorded under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C., the
accused persons denied the allegations and claimed to be innocent,
asserting that they had been falsely implicated. According to them, they
were taken from their respective houses by the police while they were
asleep, brought to the Police Station, and thereafter produced before the
Court in custody. They further alleged that their photographs were taken
by the Investigating Officer and shown to the witnesses prior to the
holding of the Test Identification Parade (T.I. parade).
Page 6 of 23
5. The prosecution, in order to prove its case, examined fourteen
witnesses. Among them, P.Ws. 1, 2, and 7 were the witnesses, who
identified the accused persons in the Test Identification (T.I.) Parade.
P.W.10 was the Magistrate, who conducted the T.I. Parade of the
accused persons on two occasions, i.e., on 30.01.1988 and 17.03.1988,
and P.W.14 was the Investigating Officer (I.O.) of the case, who carried
out the investigation.
The written report, seizure lists, T.I. Parade report, and other
relevant documents were exhibited as Exts. 1 to 31. The articles seized
during the course of investigation were also produced and marked as
Material Objects (M.Os.) I to XXVIII. However, the defence has not
adduced any evidence in support of its plea.
6. The learned trial Court after analysing the entire evidence brought
on record found the accused persons guilty of offences under Sections
457/395 of I.P.C. read with Section 9(B)(b) of the Indian Explosive Act.
Being aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and order of sentence
passed by the learned trial Court, the present appeal has been preferred
by the appellants.
Page 7 of 23
7. Mr. Mohanty, learned counsel for the appellants, at the outset,
contended that the case of the surviving appellants is outstanding in
comparison to the deceased-appellants because the prosecution case is
only hinges upon the identification of the accused persons through T.I.
parade and the recovery of the stolen articles. The articles were also not
appropriately identified through the T.I. parade. Hence, the present
appellant Nos.1 and 4 are entitled to the benefit of doubt.
8. Mr. Mohanty, learned counsel has drawn the attention of this
Court to the evidence of P.W.10 to create a doubt regarding the nature
and reliability of the identification process adopted by the prosecution to
implicate the present appellants. By emphasizing the testimony of P.W.9,
Mr. Mohanty submitted that his presence at the time of recovery of
articles from appellant No.4 is highly doubtful. According to him, the
recovery took place during daytime in the village; however, the
Investigating Officer (P.W.14), instead of associating local villagers as
witnesses to the seizure, prefer to bring P.W.9 from Jaleswar, which is
situated more than fifteen miles away from the place of occurrence.
Therefore, he submitted that the entire recovery and the recovery alleged
Page 8 of 23
to have been made from the appellant No.4 is hit by Section 100 of
Cr.P.C. In support of his contention, he has relied upon the judgment of
the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sahib Singh vrs. State of
Punjab1. It is submitted by Mr. Mohanty, that before conducting a
search, the police officer concerned is required to call upon some
independent and respective people of the locality to witness the search.
In a given case, if it is not possible to call upon any such witness
available, or any local witnesses are not willing to be a party to such
search, appropriate explanation for not involving the local witnesses
ought to have been reflected in the evidence of P.W.14, the I.O.
However, in the present case, no such explanation has been offered as to
why P.W.9 allegedly a stranger standing at the Jaleswar bus stand was
brought from a distance of fifteen miles to witness the search and
seizure. It is further submitted that, in any event, as mandated under
Sections 100(4) and 100(5) of the Cr.P.C., at least two independent
witnesses ought to have been associated with the search. He has
1
(1996) 11 SCC 685
Page 9 of 23
specifically relied upon paragraph-6 of Sahib Singh (supra), which reads
as follows:-
“6. Having gone through the record we find much substance
in each of the above contentions. Before conducting a search
the police officer concerned is required to call upon some
independent and respectable people of the locality to witness
the search. In a given case it may so happen that no such
person is available or, even if available, is not willing to be a
party to such search. It may also be that after joining the
search, such persons later on turn hostile. In any of these
eventualities the evidence of the police officers who
conducted the search cannot be disbelieved solely on the
ground that no independent and respectable witness was
examined to prove the search but if it is found as in the
present case that no attempt was made even by the police
officer concerned to join with him some persons of the
locality who were admittedly available to witness the
recovery, it would affect the weight of evidence of the police
officer, though not its admissibility. We next find from the
record that the arms and ammunition allegedly recovered
from the appellant and seized were not packeted and sealed.
In Amarjit Singh v. State of Punjab¹ this Court has observed
that non-sealing of the revolver at the spot is a serious
infirmity because the possibility of tampering with the
weapon cannot be ruled out. From the record we further find
that there is no evidence to indicate with whom the revolver
was after its seizure by PW 3 till it was sent to the Arms
Expert for testing through Head Constable Baita Singh. This
missing link also weakens the prosecution case. For all these
infirmities we are of the view, that the appellant is entitled to
the benefit of reasonable doubt.”
9. To buttress his argument, Mr. Mohanty, learned counsel for the
appellants has also relied upon another judgment of the Hon’ble
Page 10 of 23
Supreme Court in the case of State of U.P. vrs. Arun Kumar Gupta2. In
the said judgment as well, similar view has been expressed by the
Hon’ble Supreme Court regarding the seizure witness as per Section 100
Cr.P.C.
10. Per contra, Mr. Apat, learned Additional Government Advocate
for the State has justified the reasoning recorded by the learned trial
Court to arrive at the conclusion that the convicts are guilty of the
offence under Sections 395/457 of I.P.C. and other allied offences.
11. I have carefully considered the submission made by both the
parties at the Bar and also perused the materials available on record in
detail. P.W.1 is the informant in the present case. He deposed that on
16.01.1988 about 11.30 P.M., after he had retired to the bed, the
occurrence took place. At that time, his wife (P.W.7), parents, and his
two sons were present in the house. Before falling asleep, he heard a
sound near the bedroom. Soon after, both he and his wife woke up,
suspecting the entry of dacoits into the house. They opened the window
2
(2003) 2 SCC 202
Page 11 of 23
and shouted for help. Soon thereafter, he heard noises from the room
where his father was sleeping. Both his father and mother raised cries for
help. His mother called him stating that his father was being assaulted.
Within three to four minutes, they also heard the sound at the back door
of their room, where the intruders were attempting to break it open by
using a crowbar and knife. Subsequently, six to seven intruders entered
inside the room armed with lathi, knife, torchlight etc. The said witness
has narrated the attires of all the culprits and stated that the culprits
threatened to fire in case the door is not opened. Out of fear of their
lives, he opened the door. All the culprits looted various articles, the
details of which were also mentioned by the witness. Before leaving, the
culprits exploded a bomb near the gate. The evidence of the informant
(P.W.1) bears minute detail account of the incident. He was also
subjected to extensive cross-examination. He in his cross-examination
stated that he identified the accused persons during the T.I. parade and
also identified the seized articles.
P.W.2 is the son of the informant and PW.7 is the wife of the
informant. Both the witnesses were also present when the dacoity had
Page 12 of 23
taken place. They have narrated in minute detail regarding the manner in
which the accused persons committed the offence. Upon a comparative
reading of the testimonies of these three witnesses, no material or
prominent inconsistencies are found. The efforts made by the defence to
discredit their evidence through extensive cross-examination have also
yielded no result.
P.Ws.3, 4 and 5 were the witnesses those who deposed that on the
following day, they found various stolen articles lying near the river.
They brought those articles and handed over to the police. The said
articles were seized by the police and were subsequently given in zima to
P.W.3. P.Ws.8 and 9 are the witnesses to the seizure of articles.
For the purpose of the present appellants, the evidence of P.W.9
assumes significance. P.W.9 deposed that on 27.01.1988, he had been to
Jaleswar and at about 3.00 P.M., while he was standing at the Badabazar
of Jaleswar, the O.I.C. of Bhogarai P.S. came and called him. At that
time, the O.I.C. had already arrested the accused Banshi Jena (appellant
No.7) and Bangara Jena (appellant No.6). In his presence, both the
arrested accused persons admitted their guilt and disclosed that they had
Page 13 of 23
concealed the stolen articles in their respective houses. Thereafter, along
with the O.I.C., the arrested accused persons and he proceeded to the
village. First, they went to the house of accused, Bansi Jena, from where,
a torch, a wrist watch and some gold and silver ornaments were
recovered. The seizure list was prepared marked as Ext.6 and he affixed
his signature thereon Ext.6/1. Subsequently, they proceeded to the house
of accused Bangara Jena, from where a radio and certain gold and silver
ornaments were recovered. Then, they went to the house of the accused
Bhima Jena (appellant No.5), who, in his presence, produced some gold
and silver ornaments and a chaddar. The same were seized and recorded
in the seizure list marked as Ext.8 and his signature is Ext.8/1.
Thereafter, they proceeded to the house of the accused Barendra Jena
(appellant No.4), who was also arrested in that village. In his presence,
some gold and silver ornaments and a wrist watch were recovered and
seized. A seizure list was prepared in that regard marked as Ext.9 and
after knowing the contents thereof, he signed the same (Ext.9/1). The
said witness was subjected to extensive cross-examination. He stated that
the village Kasida, where the seizures were effected, is about 16 miles
Page 14 of 23
from his village, although he could not specify the distance between
Jaleswar and Kasida. However, nothing material could be elucidated in
his cross-examination so as to favour the defence.
Reading of the evidence (P.W.9) appears to be that he was a
natural witness available to the I.O. and was called upon to witness the
seizure.
P.W.10 was the J.M.F.C., Jaleswar, who conducted the T.I. parade
and deposed that the same was carried out in due compliance with the
prescribed procedure.
12. The learned trial Court convicted the accused persons primarily on
the basis of the recovery of stolen articles and their identification in the
T.I. parade. Reading of the evidence makes it very clear that in so far as
the appellant No.1- Sitaram Jena is concerned, nothing was recovered
from him and in the T.I. parade also he was not identified. In the absence
of recovery of any stolen articles from his possession and he being not
identified by the informant (P.W.1) or for that matter (P.Ws.2 and 7)
exonerates him from the crime. However, in so far as the appellant no.4-
Birendra Jena is concerned, as per the evidence of P.W.9, various articles
Page 15 of 23
have been recovered at his instance from his house, which is reflecting in
Ext.9. However, when those articles were put to T.I. parade in presence
of P.W.10, only one brass panabata could be identified by the witnesses
out of all the seized articles reflecting in Ext.9. That’s how the
complicity of appellant No.4 in the crime is being established. The
learned trial Court has completely disbelieved the T.I. parade conducted
by the Investigating Officer twice on the ground that the accused persons
were already exposed before the T.I. parade was conducted. The learned
trial Court found that P.W.10 conducted T.I. parade of seven accused
persons on 30.01.1988 whereas on 17.03.1988, two accused persons
were put to T.I. parade was conducted in the court room. The accused
persons were brought from Balasore jail to the Jaleswar Court and from
the court gate, they were brought to the court room on foot. Therefore,
their exposer to the witness is obvious. P.W.10 has also deposed that the
witness had already arrived before the accused persons were brought
from Balasore jail. The timing and the procedure adopted by the
prosecution to conduct the T.I. parade particularly after exposing the
accused persons to the witnesses have been doubted. The learned trial
Page 16 of 23
Court in paragraph-8 of the judgment has recorded the reasoning for not
believing the T.I. parade. For convenience of ready reference, paragraph-
8 is reproduced hereunder:-
“8. Apart from this, my attention was invited to the evidence of
P.W.14, the I.O. wherein it is admitted by him that the
photographs of the accused persons were taken soon after their
arrest. Though the I. O. has not agreed to the suggestion that
those photographs were shown to the witnesses before the T.I.
parade was held, the reason of taking their photographs is not
explained by the I.O. P.W.10 is the Magistrate who conducted
T.I. parade of the accused persons on two occasions, one on
30.1.88 and the other on 17.3.88. While on the first occasion
seven of the accused persons were identified, on the second
occasion two, namely Madhusudan and Balaram were identified
by these witnesses. His reports (Exts. 12 and 13) also reveal that
these witnesses could identify the accused persons correctly in
the T.I. parade. It is, however, admitted by him that the T. I.
parades were held in Court room. It is further admitted by him
that the accused persons were brought from Balasore jail to
Court at Jaleswar and from the gate of the Court they were
brought to Court room on foot. It is further admitted by him that
on both the occasions the witnesses had already arrived in the
Court before the accused were bought from Balasore jail.
Though P.W.10 has said that he had taken all the precautions to
keep the witnesses away from the accused persons, there is
every possibility that they might have had a glimpse over them
before the T.I. parade was held. Added to that, when most of the
accused persons were arrested on 27.1.88, the first T.I. parade
was held on 30.1.88 and the second on a much later date, i.e. on
19.3.88. Although the delay for the second T.I. parade was
explained by saying that accused Madhusudan subsequently
surrendered in the Court, the evidence of the I.O. shows that he
surrendered in Court on 11.2.88 and he made prayer for T.I.
parade on 15. 2.88. Still then there should not have been made
so much of delay in holding the T.I. parade. Added to this, it is
also apparent from the evidence of P.W.14, the I.O., as well as
the evidence of P.Ws.8, 9 and 13 that soon after their arrest thePage 17 of 23
accused persons were also taken to their respective houses from
where the stolen articles were recovered. In the case of accused
Katia @ Pratap, recovery of stolen articles was made on
26.1.88 while in the case of accused Madhusudan it was made
on 5.4.88. So far as the other accused persons are concerned,
excepting accused Balaram, recovery of articles was made on
27.1.88. This shows that these accused persons were also
exposed to the villagers while they led the I.O. and witnesses to
their respective villages to give recovery of the stolen articles.
Added to all these, in a case of dacoity in the case of “State of
Orissa-Vrs-Ekan alias Ekarali Khan and others” reported in
(1990) 3 OCR 398 a note of causion is sounded by His Lordship
by saying that T.I. parade held inside court room is improper as
it is a public place. Apart from this, it is also admitted by
P.W.10 that the time of T.I. parade the accused persons, one and
all, complained that they were shown to the witnesses before the
T.I. parade was held. To this effect the learned Magistrate also
has made mention in his reports (Exts.12 and 13) in column 10.
In the circumstances, therefore, it is difficult to rely on the
identity made by P.Ws.1, 2 and 7 in the T.I. parade as there was
every possibility of their having seen the accused persons before
the T.I. parade. Had it not been so, each of them would not have
identified all the accused persons without hesitation and
mistake.”
However, in so far as the T.I. parade of articles are concerned, the
learned trial Court inter alia recorded the reasoning in paragraph-15 of
the judgment believing the same, which reads as under:-
“15. The learned counsel for the defence, however vehemently
contended that Ext. 2, the list submitted subsequently is not
admissible in the evidence as by then investigation had already
started. Ext.2 is a further report submitted by P.W.1 containing
therein a list of articles which also were taken by the dacoits in
the night of occurrence. It is said by P.W.1 that as he did not
remember all the articles stolen on the date of occurrence, he
submitted the other report on the next day (i.e. on 18. 1.88) of
lodging the F.I.R. mentioning therein some other articles whichPage 18 of 23
were stolen from his house. According to the learned counsel for
the defence, the said document is not admissible. In support of it
he has placed reliance in the case of “Kalia and others-vrs-
Emperor” reported in AIR 1925 Calcutta 959. In the aforesaid
case though Their Lordships have held that any subsequent
report after the starting of investigation was not admissible, in
that case the list, however, was taken into account as it did not
directly prejudice the accused persons. In this case, however,
the sole grievance of the learned counsel for the defence is that
even though the document is shown to have been filed in the P.S.
on 18.1.88, it was sent to Court on 27.1.88. P.W.10, the
Magistrate also has admitted that the record report was
received by him on 27.1.88. Basing on it, it is contended that
these articles were subsequently substituted after the recovery
was made to implicate the accused persons with the crime. Such
a plea, however, is not only impossible but also is not
acceptable if one glances through Exts.6, and 11. Ext. 2 mostly
contains few important articles, such as umbrella (M.O.II), 2
pieces of brass daba (M.Os. XIX and XX), one VIP bag (M.O.
XVII) and one chaddar (M.O.VII). Out of these articles, the
chaddar was seized from the house of accused Bhima under Ext.
8, one brass Panabata from the house of Barendra Jena under
Ext.9 and the V. I. P. bag and the umbrella from the house of
Banshidhar under Ext.6. All these exhibits along with Exts.7, 10
and 11 clearly reveal that seizure of these articles was made on
27.1.88 from 4 p.m. to 6-30 pm. These exhibits further clearly
show that the same were sent to Court on 28.1.88 and each of
these exhibits bears dated initial of the Magistrate (P.W.10).
This being so, though Ext.2 was sent to Court on 27.1.88, no
mischief as alleged by the defence could have been played by the
I.O. as by then seizure was not made and the lists were not sent
to Court. Taking, therefore, these facts into account, I am of the
view that as the accused persons were in possession of the
articles soon after the occurrence, they cannot escape the
charge of dacoity.”
13. From the reading of the findings recorded by the learned trial
Court as reproduced in the preceding paragraphs, it is clear that in so far
Page 19 of 23
as the appellant No.1 is concerned, he was neither identified by the
witnesses in T.I. parade, which otherwise, the trial Court concluded that
the same is doubtful nor any recovery was effected from him. However,
even though the T.I. parade qua the appellant No.4 is not believed but
one of the stolen articles reflecting in seizure list (Ext.9) has been
identified by the witnesses in presence of P.W.10 which was recovered
from the appellant No.4. That part of the evidence cannot be doubted.
14. In view of the aforementioned analysis of the evidence, this Court
comes to the conclusion that in absence of any overt act attributed to the
appellant Nos.1 and 4 in so far as the offence under Section 9(B)(b) of
Explosive Act is concerned, both of them stands acquitted for the said
charge. In addition, the appellant No.1 is also entitled to acquittal as
nothing is recovered from him and the T.I. parade conducted by P.W.10
has been doubted. Therefore, the appellant No.1 cannot be connected
with the crime even on stretching the evidence of the witnesses to any
extent. Accordingly, the appellant No.1-Sitaram Jena is acquitted of all
the charges. The bail bond furnished by him stands discharged.
Page 20 of 23
However, the appellant No.4-Birendra Jena is liable for the
offence punishable under Sections 457/395 of I.P.C. on the basis of the
nature of evidence brought on record by the prosecution against him as
discussed above.
15. At this stage, Mr. Mohanty, learned counsel for the appellants
submitted that the appellant No.4 was about 30 years of age at the time
of incident in 1988 and is presently around 69 years old. During the trial
and after the conviction, the said appellant has undergone custody for
about five months. Therefore, he submitted that keeping in view the age
of the appellant No.4 and the fact that the incident had taken place more
than three decades back, a lenient view should be taken on sentencing. It
is also noted that the learned trial Court had imposed a substantive
sentence of seven years R.I. for the offence under Section 395 of I.P.C.
and two years for the offence under Section 457 of I.P.C., which became
very much disproportionate at this point of time.
16. It is true that the appellant No.4 has no criminal antecedents and
he is in the late evening of his life. The incident in question pertains to
the year 1988. At this stage, sending him for serving out the remaining
Page 21 of 23
sentence would be unduly harsh and would not sub-serve any
reformative purpose. Execution of the sentence, as awarded by the
learned trial Court, is likely to have a cascading adverse effect on his
entire family. Over the years, he has led a dignified life, integrated well
into society, and is presently leading a settled family life. Incarcerating
him 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 him but also upon their family members, especially when
there is no suggestion of any repeat violation or ongoing non-compliance
with regulatory norms. In view of the above, the submission advanced by
Mr. Mohanty, learned counsel for the appellants seeking modification of
the sentence, merits favourable consideration.
17. Taking into consideration the overall facts and circumstances of
the case, including the mitigating factors and the age of appellant No.4,
the sentence awarded by the learned trial Court is modified to the period
already undergone by him. However, to balance the scale of justice, the
appellant No.4 is directed to pay a fine of Rs.15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen
Thousand). In default of payment of the said fine within a period of two
Page 22 of 23
months, he shall be taken into custody to serve out the default sentence
of R.I. for a period of two months. The fine amount to be deposited by
the appellant No.4 within a period of two months shall be disbursed to
the family of the informant (P.W.1) in accordance with the provision of
Section 357 Cr.P.C. as compensation.
18. Accordingly, the appeal qua the appellant No.1 allowed. However,
the same stands partly allowed qua appellant No.4.
(S.S. Mishra)
Judge
The High Court of Orissa, Cuttack.
Dated the 26th March, 2026/ Swarna
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: SWARNAPRAVA DASH
Reason: Authentication
Location: High Court of Orissa
Date: 26-Mar-2026 17:35:02 Page 23 of 23
