Orissa High Court Releases Convict Under Probation Of Offenders Act In '30 Yrs Old' Attempt To Murder Case

"…it is seen that the occurrence undoubtedly took place more than 30 years back. The Petitioner was a young man at that point of time, but is now aged nearly 60 years. No criminal antecedents are reported against him. Therefore, in the considered view of this Court, ends of justice would be best served if the Petitioner is released as per the provision of Section 4 of the P.O. Act instead of serving the remaining part of the sentence in jail."

Factual Background:

The petitioner was convicted for the offence under Section 307 of IPC by the Assistant Sessions Judge, Udala by a judgment passed on 18th December, 1991 and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of five years and to pay fine of Rs. 2000/-, in default, to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for a period of three months. The said judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the Trial Court was confirmed in appeal by the Sessions Judge, Mayurbhanj by a judgment dated 9th May, 2000. Challenging the aforementioned judgments, the petitioner filed the present revision.

Contentions of the Petitioner:

Mr. S.D. Das, Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioner, contended that both the Courts below did not take into account the Station Diary Entry made by the ASI marked as Ext. A, wherein the name of the petitioner has not been mentioned. Thus, he argued that the petitioner was falsely implicated. It was further contended that the co-accused was acquitted for want of evidence, so it also suggests that a false case was instituted because of previous enmity.

He alternatively submitted that the incident took place more than 30 years back. The petitioner is currently aged nearly 60 years. He has also no criminal antecedent. Therefore, instead of directing him to serve the remaining part of the sentence in prison, he should be released as per the provisions of the P.O. Act.

Contentions of the Respondent:

Mr. P. Tripathy, Additional Standing Counsel for the State, argued that the essential ingredients of the offence under Section 307 of IPC were duly established. Again, he suggested that the evidence regarding prior enmity shows that the petitioner had a 'definite motive' and intention to kill the injured. Further, the injuries found on the body of the injured were fully consistent and compatible with the oral evidence of the injured.

Thus, he contended that there is absolutely no reason to interfere with the concurrent findings of fact at this advanced stage. As regards the contention regarding release of the petitioner under P.O. Act, it was submitted that since minimum sentence was imposed, there is no necessity of releasing him under the P.O. Act.

Court's Observations:

After perusing the document marked Ext. A, the Court noted that the same relates to issuance of injury report. Thus, it held that it is unclear as to how the same can help the defence. Further, it observed that the particular entry being relatable to issuance of injury report, the name of the accused is not necessary to be mentioned.

The Court also rejected the next ground urged that one of the co-accused persons being acquitted for want of evidence, that falsifies the prosecution case. It held, that is also not an acceptable argument because the evidence against the present accused being clear, consistent and trustworthy, lack of evidence against a co-accused will be of no consequence. Indubitably, lack of evidence against the co-accused cannot wipe away the positive evidence adduced against the present accused, the Court added.

Consequently, the criminal revision was allowed in part. The order of conviction passed by the Trial Court and confirmed by the Lower Appellate Court was ordered to be maintained. However, the sentence imposed by the Trial Court was modified to the extent that the petitioner shall be released as per provisions of Section 4 of the P.O. Act.

Case Title: Chinta Marandi @ Chintamani Marandi v. State of Orissa

Case No.: CRREV No. 393 of 2000

Judgment Dated: 14^th July 2022

Coram: Justice Sashikanta Mishra

Counsel for the Petitioner: Mr. S.D. Das, Senior Advocate

Counsel for the Respondent: Mr. P. Tripathy, Additional Standing Counsel

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ori) 114