Back
2024 Supreme(Ori) 368
THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
SIBO SANKAR MISHRA, J.
Prafulla Kumar Pattanaik - Petitioner
Versus
State of Orissa – Respondent
CRLREV No.302 of 2012
Decided on : 16-07-2024
For the Petitioner:Mr. A.K. Swain, Advocate Mr. J.K. Mohapatra, Amicus Curiae
For the Respondent:Mr. B. K. Ragada, Addl. Government Advocate
The court upheld the conviction under Section 448 IPC for house-trespass, stressing the importance of context over retribution and granting probation after 24 years.
Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 448 - Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 401 - Criminal Revision - Conviction under Section 448 for house-trespass confirmed with modified sentence; the accused entered the residence with intent to intimidate the officer. The appellate court observed the need for a lesser punishment. The court's view emphasized the change in circumstances over 24 years. (Paras 3, 5, 9)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner forcibly entered the house of a public officer to demand a signature, leading to charges under Sections 457/294/506, with conviction on the lesser charge of Section 448 confirmed initially, but sentenced to six months. The petitioner argued against the conviction based on witness contradictions. (Paras 2, 4)
Findings of Court:
The trial court acknowledged the evidence but limited conviction to Section 448, concluding it lacked support for Sections 294/506. The appellate court reduced the sentence but denied probation initially. (Paras 3, 5)
Issues: The critical issues included the justification for upholding the conviction for house-trespass and whether the probation benefit should be granted. (Paras 5, 7)
Ratio Decidendi: The court maintained that contradictions in witness testimonies did not undermine the conviction and deemed the probation option suitable given the elapsed time since the incident, supporting a rehabilitative approach. (Paras 8, 9)
Result: Criminal Revision allowed; the petitioner is released under probation for six months.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. jurisdiction and nature of the revision petition. (Para 1) |
| 2. facts leading to fir and charges. (Para 2) |
| 3. evidence and conviction analysis. (Para 3) |
| 4. court's finding on evidence and charges. (Para 4) |
| 5. appellate court's decision on conviction and sentence. (Para 5) |
| 6. petitioner challenges prior judgments. (Para 6) |
| 7. review of contradictions in witness testimonies. (Para 7) |
| 8. consideration of time lapse since the incident. (Para 8) |
| 9. order for probation instead of incarceration. (Para 9) |
| 10. final disposition of the criminal revision. (Para 10) |
JUDGMENT :
S.S. Mishra, J.
1. The present Criminal Revision filed by the petitioner under Section 401 of Cr.P.C. is directed against the judgment and order dated 21.03.2012 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Nayagarh Circuit at Daspalla in Criminal Appeal No.40/2 of 2007, whereby the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the learned J.M.F.C., Daspalla in G.R. Case No.14 of 2000 (T.R. No.295 of 2000) has been confirmed while modifying the sentence.
2. The case of the prosecution in brief is that on 28.01.2000 at about 9.15 P.M. accused-petitioner forcibly entered into the house of the then Tahasildar, Daspalla by breaking the entrance door. At that time, one Gopinath Nayak, R.I. Sadar and Pradip Kumar Behera were present in Tahasildar’s house. They tried to restrain the petitioner. But notwithstanding their objection, the accused-petitioner straightway went to the bed room, where the Tahasildar was present, by throwing some papers on the bed he asked the Tahasildar to sign on it. It was also alleged that the petitioner threatened the Tahasildar with dire consequences if he would not sign on the papers. When the Tahasildar asked him to meet him in his office on the next day, the petitioner got annoyed and allegedly abused the Tahasildar in obscene languages. Thereafter, the accused-petitioner left the place and while going away again threatened the Tahasildar with dire consequences. After the incident, the Tahasildar lodged an F.I.R. against the petitioner before the Daspalla Police.
On the basis of such allegation, F.I.R. was lodged at Daspalla Police Station. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet was submitted against the accused/petitioner under Sections 457 /294/506 of I.P.C. and charges were framed against him under those Sections. The petitioner was put to trial.
3. To bring home charges, the prosecution had examined altogether five witnesses and exhibited one document. P.Ws.1 & 3 were the eye witnesses whereas P.W.4 was the informant in the case whereas P.W.5 was the I.O. of the case. F.I.R. was exhibited as Ext.1, i.e., the sole document relied upon by the prosecution. P.Ws.2 & 3 those who were independent witnesses, had resigned from their earlier statements and did not support the prosecution case. Therefore, solely relying upon the testimony of the P.W.4, the learned Trial Court convicted the petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 448 of the IPC and sentenced him to undergo S.I. for a period of six months and to pay a fine of Rs.500/-, in default, to undergo further S.I. for a period of one month.
4. The learned Trial Court after analyzing the evidence brought on record by the prosecution arrived at the conclusion that the petitioner was not guilty for the offences punishable under Sections 294 /506 of the IPC and accordingly, acquitted him of the said charges. The learned Trial Court returned the following findings:
“9. Section 457 I.P.C. deals with lurking house trespass or breaking by night in order to commit an offence punishable with imprisonment. House breaking is described in Section 445 I„P.C. This section emphasizes that if any person commits house trespass by effecting his entrance into the house or any part of it in any of the six ways described under this Section or if being in the house or any part of it for the purpose of committing an offence or having committed an offence there-in, who quits the house or
