Orissa High Court
(1) Pravat Kumar Sutar vs State Of Orissa on 22 May, 2026
THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
CRLA No. 308 of 2004
(In the matter of an application under Section 374 of Criminal Procedure
Code)
(1) Pravat Kumar Sutar
(2) Harish Singh ....... Appellants
-Versus-
State of Orissa ....... Respondent
For the Appellants : Mr. Manoj Mishra, Senior Advocate
For the Respondent : Mr. Sobhan Panigrahi, ASC
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE SHRI JUSTICE SIBO SANKAR MISHRA
Date of Hearing: 12.05.2026 : Date of Judgment: 22.05.2026
S.S. Mishra, J. The present Criminal Appeal is preferred by the
appellants assailing the judgment of conviction and the order of sentence
dated 03.09.2004 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge-cum-
Special Judge, Jeypore in T.R. Case No.71 of 2001 (T.R. Case No.63 of
2001) arising out of G.R. Case No.185 of 1994, whereby the appellants,though acquitted of the charges under Sections 452/323/34 of the Indian
Penal Code and Section 3(1)(x) of the S.C. & S.T. (P.A.) Act, were
convicted under Section 451/34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced
to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two months each and to pay a fine
of Rs.200/- each, in default, to undergo R.I. for fifteen days each.
2. Heard Mr. Manoj Mishra, learned Senior Advocate appearing for
the appellants and Mr. Sobhan Panigrahi, learned Additional Standing
Counsel appearing for the State.
3. The prosecution case, in brief, is that the informant was residing in
Quarter No. L/137 at Sunabeda. It is alleged that on 28.03.1994, during
the Holi festival, accused Pravat Kumar Sutar along with three of his
associates came to the informant’s quarter and behaved indecently by
whistling at the informant’s wife. When she objected, the accused
allegedly attempted to forcibly apply colour on her person. However,
upon intervention by the informant, they left the place. It is further
alleged that on 30.03.1994 at about 8.30 P.M., while the informant was
Page 2 of 12
watching television with his family members, both the accused persons
came to his house and knocked at the door. When the informant opened
the door, they allegedly abused him and his wife in filthy language and
picked up a quarrel. On protest being made, accused Pravat allegedly
entered into the drawing room and attempted to assault the informant.
During the altercation, the informant was pushed to the ground, as a
result of which he sustained a bleeding injury on the little finger of his
right foot. Hearing the cries of the informant’s daughter, neighbours
rushed to the spot, whereupon the accused persons fled away on a Hero
Honda motorcycle after allegedly threatening the informant with dire
consequences.
On the basis of the written report lodged on the same day, Sunabeda P.S.
Case No.28 of 1994 was registered under Sections 452/294/323/506/34
of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 3(1)(x) of the S.C. & S.T.
(P.A.) Act. During investigation, the informant was medically examined
and the motorcycle bearing registration No. OSK-9839 was seized and
kept in the zima of its owner, namely P.W.4. Upon completion of
investigation, charge-sheet was submitted under Sections
Page 3 of 12
452/294/323/506/34 I.P.C. read with Section 3(1)(x) of the S.C. & S.T.
(P.A.) Act. However, during trial, charges under Sections 452/323/34
I.P.C. read with Section 3(1)(x) of the S.C. & S.T. (P.A.) Act were
framed against the accused persons.
4. The plea of the accused persons was one of complete denial and
no evidence was adduced on their behalf.
5. In order to establish its case, the prosecution examined six
witnesses in total. Among them, P.W.2 is the informant, P.W.3 is his
wife and P.W.5 was the Medical Officer who examined the injured
informant. P.Ws.1, 4 and 6 were examined as corroborative witnesses,
while P.W.4 is also the owner of the motorcycle seized during
investigation.
6. The learned trial Court, upon an extensive discussion and analysis
of the evidence of the victim witnesses, found their testimonies to be
consistent and mutually corroborative, and further supported by the
evidence of the independent witness as well as the medical evidence. On
Page 4 of 12
such appreciation of evidence, the learned trial Court arrived at the
following conclusion:
“10. Taking the totality of the materials on record and the
facts and circumstance of this case into consideration it will
led to the irresistable conclusion that in the occurrence night
the accused persons had entered into the house of the
informant with intention to cause hurt to the informant as well
as abuse and threatened him which would come under the
ambit of sec. 451 I.P.C. Although the accused persons were
charged under sec. 452, I.P.C. but as punishment prescribed
for the offence u/s.451 I.P.C. is lesser than that of 452 I.P.C.,
if the accused persons would be convicted under sec. 451
I.P.C. in my opinion it would not cause any prejudice to them.
11. On the above backdrop I am led to hold that the
prosecution has miserably failed to establish its case against
the accused persons under sec.452/323, 34 I.P.C. read with
sec.3(1)(x) of the S.C. & S. T. (P.A.) act and as such I acquit
them therefrom as per sec. 248(1) Cr.P.C. On the other hand
it has well established its case under sec.451/34 I.P.C. against
the accused persons beyond reasonable doubts accordingly, I
hold the accused persons guilty of the offence under sec.
451/34 I.P.C. and convict them thereunder.”
7. Aggrieved by such Judgement of conviction and order of sentence,
the present appellants have preferred the appeal.
8. While analyzing the evidence on record, this Court finds no reason
to disagree with the findings recorded by the learned trial Court. Hence,
this Court affirms the conviction recorded against the appellants for the
offence under Section 451/34 of the Code. Moreover, Mr. Mishra,
Page 5 of 12
learned Senior Advocate for the appellants after having strenuously
argued the case on merit by taking this Court to the evidence on record
submitted that keeping in view the procrastinated judicial process
undergone by the appellants in this case and the ordeal of trial faced by
the appellants; he would rather confine his argument to the quantum of
sentence. He submitted that the incident pertains to the year 1994. The
appellants have undergone the rigors of trial for about ten years.
Thereafter, the appeal was preferred in the year 2004. The appeal has
been prolonging to be heard for about 22 years. The appellants who were
in their early thirties at the time of incident are now in their mid-fifties
and therefore, sending them to custody for fulfilling their remaining
sentence at this belated stage would serve no penological purpose. The
learned Senior Counsel further submitted that the appellants have no
criminal antecedents and no other case of a similar nature or otherwise is
stated to be pending against them. Over the years, they have led a
dignified life, integrated well into society, and are presently leading a
settled family life. Incarcerating them after such a long delay, it is
argued, would serve little penological purpose and may in fact be
Page 6 of 12
counter-productive, casting a needless stigma not only upon them but
also upon their family members, especially when there is no suggestion
of any repeat violation or ongoing non-compliance with regulatory
norms. Therefore, in the fitness of situation, the appellants may be
extended the benefit of Probation of Offenders Act read with Section 360
Cr.P.C.
9. The record reveals that the incident relates back to the year 1994
and at that point of time the appellants were in their early 20s. They have
been convicted by the impugned judgment and order dated 03.09.2004.
The present appeal is pending since 2004 and at present the appellants
are in their mid-fifties. Much water has been flown under the bridge by
now. Therefore, this is a fit case where the learned trial court ought to
have been given the treatment under the Probation of Offenders Act. 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 apply the provisions of Probation of
1
2025 INSC 540
Page 7 of 12
Offenders Act and non-granting of the benefit should be supported by
reasoning.
In the facts scenario of the present case, the prayer made by Mr.
Mishra, learned Senior Counsel for the appellants for extending the
benefit of the P.O. Act deserves merit to be considered.
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
underscored that the legislative intent behind the enactment of the
Probation of Offenders Act is essentially reformative in nature, aiming to
provide an opportunity to first-time or less serious offenders to reform
themselves rather than subjecting them to incarceration. It has been
emphasized that the provisions of the Act are intended to prevent the
deleterious effects of imprisonment on individuals who can otherwise be
rehabilitated as responsible members of society. The Court has further
highlighted that Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act confers a
Page 8 of 12
wide discretion upon the courts to release an offender on probation in
appropriate cases and that the said provision has a broader and more
expansive ambit than Section 360 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,
1973.
While discussing the interplay between the aforesaid provisions,
the Hon’ble Supreme Court has also clarified that courts are duty-bound
to consider the applicability of the Probation of Offenders Act in cases
where the circumstances justify such consideration, and if the court
decides not to extend the benefit of probation, it must record special
reasons for such refusal. The relevant observations of the Hon’ble
Supreme Court are reproduced hereunder:
“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 4Page 9 of 12
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. ”
Page 10 of 12
Regard being had to the facts of the present case, particularly the
long lapse of time since the occurrence, the absence of criminal
antecedents of the appellants and the overall circumstances emerging
from the record, this Court is of the considered view that the case of the
appellants deserves consideration under the beneficial provisions of the
Probation of Offenders Act. The said view also finds support from the
decisions of this Court in Pathani Parida & another vs. Abhaya Kumar
Jagdevmohapatra2 and Dhani @ Dhaneswar Sahu vs. State of Orissa3
wherein in somewhat similar circumstances the benefit of probation was
extended to the convicts. In view of the aforesaid legal position and the
peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is inclined to
extend to the appellants the benefit contemplated under Section 4 of the
Probation of Offenders Act.
11. In such view of the matter, the present Criminal Appeal in so far
as the conviction is concerned is turned down. But instead of sentencing
the appellants to suffer imprisonment, this Court directs the appellants to
2
2012 (Supp-II) OLR 469
3
2007 (Supp.II) OLR 250
Page 11 of 12
be released under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act for a
period of two months on his executing bond of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five
Thousand) each within the period of one month with one surety each for
the like amount to appear and receive the sentence when called upon
during such period and in the meantime, the appellants shall keep peace
and good behavior and they shall remain under the supervision of the
concerned Probation Officer during the aforementioned period of two
months.
12. Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal is partly allowed.
(S.S. Mishra)
Judge
The High Court of Orissa, Cuttack
Dated the 22nd of May, 2026/Subhasis Mohanty
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: SUBHASIS MOHANTY Page 12 of 12
Designation: Personal Assistant
Reason: Authentication
Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack.
Date: 25-May-2026 20:33:05
