Orissa High Court
Rabindra Kumar Jena vs Sankarshan Jena …. Opposite Party on 31 March, 2026
Author: V. Narasingh
Bench: V. Narasingh
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
CRLREV No.454 of 2003
Rabindra Kumar Jena .... Petitioner
Mr. M. Chand, Advocate
-versus-
Sankarshan Jena .... Opposite Party
Mr. S. Panigrahi, ASC
CORAM: JUSTICE V. NARASINGH
ORDER
31.03.2026
Order No.
05. 1. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner and
learned counsel for the Opposite Party.
2. This Criminal Revision has been filed assailing
the judgment dated 03.05.2003 passed by the
learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Kendrapara, in
Criminal Appeal No.5 of 2002, affirming the
judgment of conviction dated 31.07.2002 passed by
the learned J.M.S.C, Kendrapara in I.C.C Case No.89
of 2000 (Trial Case No.63 of 2002) whereby the
Petitioner was convicted under Section 323 IPC and
directed to be released under Section 3 of the
Probation of Offenders Act, 1958.
3. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the
Petitioner that, considering the perverse appreciation
of evidence, the Petitioner ought not to suffer the
Page 1 of 3
stigma of conviction under Section 323 of IPC and it
is further asserted that since the appreciation of
evidence by the learned Courts below are ex facie
perverse, there is no embargo for this Court to
examine the same in exercise of its revisional
jurisdiction.
4. Learned counsel for the State on the other
hand submits that on a bare perusal of the order
passed by the Appellate Court as well as the Trial
Court, in the light of the evidence on record, the
order of conviction does not merit interference and
more so in a criminal revision.
5. This Court carefully examined the evidence on
record more to the limited extent to test the veracity
of submission of the learned counsel for the
Petitioner that the appreciation of the evidence by
the learned Courts below are perverse so as to
warrant interference.
6. On going through the evidence of the
complainant P.W.4 and its analysis thereof by the
learned Courts below, this Court cannot be
persuaded to accept the submission of the learned
counsel for the Petitioner that the order of conviction
under Section 323 IPC is perverse. This Court also
does not find any infirmity in the order passed by the
learned Magistrate in extending the provisions of
Page 2 of 3
Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, as rightly held by
the learned Appellate Court.
7. In this context, it may not be out of place to
refer to Section 12 of the Probation of Offenders
Act,1958 which reads as under:
“12.Removal of disqualification
attaching to conviction.-
Notwithstanding anything contained
in any other law, a person found
guilty of an offence and dealt with
under the provisions of section 3 or
section 4 shall not suffer
disqualification, if any, attaching to a
conviction of an offence under such
law:
Provided that nothing in this
section shall apply to a person who,
after his release under section 4, is
subsequently sentenced for the
original offence.”
In the light of the same, the apprehension that
the Petitioner’s release under the P.O. Act entails
stigma, is found to be misconceived.
8. Hence, the criminal revision is devoid of merit
and accordingly disposed of.
(V. NARASINGH)
Judge
Signature Soumya
Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: SOUMYA RANJAN SAMAL
Designation: Jr. Stenographer
Reason: Authentication
Location: High Court of Orissa
Date: 01-Apr-2026 11:52:42
Page 3 of 3
