Orissa High Court
Nanu @ Bhaktahari Behera vs State Of Odisha on 6 August, 2026
Author: V. Narasingh
Bench: V. Narasingh
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
CRLREV No.647 of 2013
CNR NO. ODHC010295002013
In the matter of an application under Section 401 Cr.P.C
read with 397 Cr.P.C.
------------------
Nanu @ Bhaktahari Behera …. Petitioner
-versus-
State of Odisha .... Opposite Party
For Petitioner : Mr. S.K. Bhanjadeo, Advocate
For Opposite Party : Mr. M.R. Mohanty, AGA
CORAM:
JUSTICE V. NARASINGH
DATE OF FINAL HEARING : 06.05.2026
DATE OF JUDGMENT : 06.08.2026
V. Narasingh, J. Heard learned counsel for the
Petitioner and learned AGA for the State.
1. This Criminal Revision has been filed
assailing the Judgment dated 04.07.2013 passed
by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Baripada,
Mayurbhanj, in Criminal Appeal No. 1/5 of 2013
affirming the judgement of conviction and
sentence dated 16.01.2013 passed by the learned
Page 1 of 9
CRLREV No. 647 of 2013
Asst. Sessions Judge Baripada, Mayurbhanj, in
S.T. Case No.59/125 of 2010 arising out of G.R.
Case No.365 of 2010 (T.C. No.608/10) qua the
Petitioner for commission of offence under
Section 3241 of IPC, directing him to undergo R.I.
for a period of two years and to pay a fine of
Rs.5000/- (Rupees Five Thousand only), in
default, to undergo R.I. for a period of six months
and in respect of the commission of offence under
Section 3232, he was directed to undergo R.I. for
a period of six months and to pay a fine of
Rs.1000/- (One Thousand Only), in default, to
undergo R.I. for a period of two months.
2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on
18.04.2010 at about 8 A.M, when the informant
was returning to his house with kerosene from
Bijipur, near the house of one Kartika Chandra
1
324. Voluntarily causing hurt by dangerous weapons or
means.–Whoever, except in the case provided for by Section 334,
voluntarily causes hurt by means of any instrument for shooting,
stabbing or cutting, or any instrument which, used as a weapon of
offence, is likely to cause death, or by means of fire or any heated
substance, or by means of any poison or any corrosive substance, or by
means of any explosive substance or by means of any substance which
it is deleterious to the human body to inhale, to swallow, or to receive
into the blood, or by means of any animal, shall be punished with
imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three
years, or with fine, or with both.
2
323. Punishment for voluntarily causing hurt.–Whoever, except in
the case provided for by Section 334, voluntarily causes hurt, shall be
punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may
extend to one year, or with fine which may extend to one thousand
rupees, or with both.
Page 2 of 9
CRLREV No. 647 of 2013
Behera, the accused restrained the informant,
Biswambar (informant-P.W.1), abused him in
filthy language and also demanded repayment of
money. The accused caught hold of the
informant’s neck and dragged him. The informant
ran towards his house. The accused chased after
him with a bhujali to kill him. Fortunately, the
informant escaped. But, the accused caught hold
of the informant’s wife, Brundabati Behera
(injured- P.W.8) and outraged her modesty by
dragging her saree and assaulted her with 7/8
blows using a bhujali, with the intention to kill her
due to which she sustained bleeding injuries and
fell down. After assaulting the said injured, the
accused fled away. The injured was shifted to the
hospital for her treatment. Thereafter, the
informant- Husband lodged an FIR at Baisinga
P.S. under P.S. Case No. 45, and after completion
of the investigation, a charge-sheet was filed
under Sections 341/354/323/294/324/307/506 of
I.P.C.
3. To drive home the charge, the prosecution
examined 15 witnesses, of whom the P.W.1 is the
informant, P.W.3 is the elder brother of the
informant, P.W.8 is the wife of the informant and
Page 3 of 9
CRLREV No. 647 of 2013
the injured, P.Ws.6 to 13 are seizure witnesses,
P.W.12 and P.W.15 are doctors and P.W.14 is the
investigating officer.
Several documents were adduced and
marked as Exts. 1 to 11/1 on behalf of the
prosecution and one saree, saya, blouse and
Bhujali were adduced as M.O.I to M.O.IV.
Neither oral nor documentary evidence was
adduced on behalf of the defense.
4. On consideration of the materials on record,
the Trial Court convicted and sentenced the
Petitioner under Section 324 of IPC and directed
him to undergo R.I. for a period of two years and
to pay a fine of Rs.5000/- (Rupees Five Thousand
only), in default, to undergo R.I. for a period of
six months and in respect of the commission of
offence under Section 323, he was directed to
undergo R.I. for a period of six months and to pay
a fine of Rs.1000/- (One Thousand Only), in
default, to undergo R.I. for a period of two
months.
On appeal being preferred, the Appellate
Court did not find any infirmity in the appreciation
of evidence and affirmed the conviction and the
Page 4 of 9
CRLREV No. 647 of 2013
sentence imposed. Assailing the same, the
present Criminal Revision has been filed.
5. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the
Petitioner that the appreciation of evidence by the
Trial Court as well as the Appellate Court is ex
facie perverse so as to warrant interference by
this Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction,
notwithstanding, the contours of exercise of such
jurisdiction.
6. Learned counsel for the state opposes such
prayer and submits that the there is no infirmity
in the judgment of the Appellate Court warranting
interference.
7. This Court is not oblivious to the scope of
interference while exercising revisional
jurisdiction and since the allegation of perverse
appreciation cannot be adjudicated without
analysing the evidence on record, for such limited
purpose this Court considers it appropriate to
scan the evidence.
8. On careful scrutiny of the evidence on
record and considering the rival submissions, this
Court does not find any infirmity in the
appreciation of evidence by the Appellate Court in
affirming the conviction and sentence so as to
Page 5 of 9
CRLREV No. 647 of 2013
warrant interference in this Criminal Revision and
accordingly, the conviction and sentence as
passed by the Appellate Court is hereby affirmed.
9. On the question of sentence, taking into
account that the incident took place in the year
2010 and that the Petitioner is aged about 45
years, and taking a cue from the judgment of the
Apex Court in the case of Chellammal and anr.
V. State represented by the Inspector of
Police, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 870, this Court is
persuaded to hold that the benefit of the
Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 (hereinafter
referred to as the P.O. Act) can be extended to
the Petitioner, since ex facie the sentence
prescribed for the offence being two years does
not suffer from the disqualification as envisaged
under Section 4(1)3 of the Act, 1958.
10. Accordingly, the benefit of the P.O. Act is
extended and this Court directs that Petitioner be
released on probation under Section 43 of the
3
4. Power of court to release certain offenders on probation of
good conduct.–
(1) When any person is found guilty of having committed an offence not
punishable with death or imprisonment for life and the court by which
the person is found guilty is of opinion that, having regard to the
circumstances of the case including the nature of the offence and the
character of the offender, it is expedient to release him on probation of
good conduct, then, notwithstanding anything contained in any other
law for the time being in force, the court may, instead of sentencing him
at once to any punishment direct that he be released on his entering
Page 6 of 9
CRLREV No. 647 of 2013
P.O. Act, on conditions to be settled by the Trial
Court.
11. It is further directed that the Petitioner shall
pay compensation of Rs.6000/- to the injured and
failing which, the same shall entail action in
accordance with procedure laid down under
Section 54 of the P.O. Act.
into a bond, with or without sureties, to appear and receive sentence
when called upon during such period, not exceeding three years, as the
court may direct, and in the meantime to keep the peace and be of good
behaviour:
Provided that the court shall not direct such release of an offender
unless it is satisfied that the offender or his surety, if any, has a fixed
place of abode or regular occupation in the place over which the court
exercises jurisdiction or in which the offender is likely to live during the
period for which he enters into the bond.
(2) Before making any order under sub-section (1), the court shall take
into consideration the report, if any, of the probation officer concerned
in relation to the case.
(3) When an order under sub-section (1) is made, the court may, if it is
of opinion that in the interests of the offender and of the public it is
expedient so to do, in addition pass a supervision order directing that
the offender shall remain under the supervision of a probation officer
named in the order during such period, not being less than one year, as
may be specified therein, and may in such supervision order impose
such conditions as it deems necessary for the due supervision of the
offender.
(4) The court making a supervision order under sub-section (3) shall
require the offender, before he is released, to enter into a bond, with or
without sureties, to observe the conditions specified in such order and
such additional conditions with respect to residence, abstention from
intoxicants or any other matter as the court may, having regard to the
particular circumstances, consider fit to impose for preventing a
repetition of the same offence or a commission of other offences by the
offender.
(5) The court making a supervision order under sub-section (3) shall
explain to the offender the terms and conditions of the order and shall
forthwith furnish one copy of the supervision order to each of the
offenders, the sureties, if any, and the probation officer concerned.
4
5. Power of court to require released offenders to pay
compensation and costs.–(1) The court directing the release of an
offender under Section 3 or Section 4, may, if it thinks fit, make at the
same time a further order directing him to pay–
(a) such compensation as the court thinks reasonable for loss or injury
caused to any person by the commission of the offence; and
Page 7 of 9
CRLREV No. 647 of 2013
12. In this context, it is apt to note that, so far
as Section 5(2)4 of the P.O. Act is concerned, in
the event of default in payment of the amount
ordered under Section 5(1)4 of the said Act, the
amount shall be recovered as a fine in accordance
with the provisions of Sections 386/387 of the
Code.
It is further clarified that the “Code” herein
refers to the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898,
which corresponds to Sections 4615/4626 of
(b) such costs of the proceedings as the court thinks reasonable.
(2) The amount ordered to be paid under sub-section (1) may be
recovered as a fine in accordance with the provisions of Section 386 and
387 of the Code.
(3) A civil court trying any suit, arising out of the same matter for which
the offender is prosecuted, shall take into account any amount paid or
recovered as compensation under sub-section (1) in awarding damages.
5
461. Warrant for levy of fine.–(1) When an offender has been
sentenced to pay a fine, but no such payment has been made, the Court
passing the sentence may take action for the recovery of the fine in
either or both of the following ways, that is to say, it may–
(a) issue a warrant for the levy of the amount by attachment and sale of
any movable property belonging to the offender;
(b) issue a warrant to the Collector of the district, authorising him to
realise the amount as arrears of land revenue from the movable or
immovable property, or both, of the defaulter:
Provided that, if the sentence directs that in default of payment of the
fine, the offender shall be imprisoned, and if such offender has
undergone the whole of such imprisonment in default, no Court shall
issue such warrant unless, for special reasons to be recorded in writing,
it considers it necessary so to do, or unless it has made an order for the
payment of expenses or compensation out of the fine under Section
395.
(2) The State Government may make rules regulating the manner in
which warrants under clause (a) of sub-section (1) are to be executed,
and for the summary determination of any claims made by any person
other than the offender in respect of any property attached in execution
of such warrant.
(3) Where the Court issues a warrant to the Collector under clause (b)
of sub-section (1), the Collector shall realise the amount in accordance
with the law relating to recovery of arrears of land revenue, as if such
warrant were a certificate issued under such law:
Page 8 of 9
CRLREV No. 647 of 2013
Bharatiya Nyaya Suraksha Sanhita, 2023
(Sections 421 and 422 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973).
13. The Criminal Revision is accordingly disposed
of.
(V. Narasingh)
Judge
Orissa High Court, Cuttack,
Dated the 6th August, 2026/Ayesha
06.08.2026/Uploaded
Provided that no such warrant shall be executed by the arrest or
detention in prison of the offender.
6
462. Effect of such warrant.–A warrant issued under clause (a) of
sub-section (1) of Section 461 by any Court may be executed within the
Signature Not Verified local jurisdiction of such Court, and it shall authorise the attachment and
Digitally Signed sale of any such property outside such jurisdiction, when it is endorsed
Signed by: AYESHA ROUTby the District Magistrate within whose local jurisdiction such property is
Reason: Authentication
found.
Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack
Date: 06-Aug-2026 20:26:36
Page 9 of 9
CRLREV No. 647 of 2013
