Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
SIBO SANKAR MISHRA
Maniram Saha @ Dhrub @ Majhi – Appellant
Versus
State of Orissa – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
S.S. Mishra, J.
This Criminal Appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 20.07.2009 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nuapada in Sessions Case No. 27 of 2007 [arising out of Jonk P.S. Case No. 94/2006 corresponding to G.R. Case No. 357/2006 (TR 310/2007)], whereby the learned trial court convicted the appellant under Section 498 -A IPC and sentenced him to undergo R.I. for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default to further suffer R.I. for one month.
2. This appeal is pending since 2009 and none appeared for the appellant on several dates of hearing. Therefore, vide order dated 19.02.2026, this Court requested Mr. Tukuna Kumar Mishra, who was in Court, to assist the Court in the capacity of Amicus Curiae and he has readily accepted the same and after obtaining the entire record, assisted the Court very effectively. He has also filed a detailed written note of submission along with relied upon judgments.
3. Heard Mr. Tukuna Kumar Mishra, learned Amicus Curiae for the appellant and Mr. Sobhan Panigrahi, learned Additional Standing Counsel for the State.
4. The prosecution case, in nutshell, is that on 21.11.2006
The court held that under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, first-time offenders guilty of lesser crimes may be granted probation, taking into account their conduct post-offense.
The court affirmed convictions for offenses related to obscene acts and outraging modesty while granting probation based on the absence of prior offenses and reformative principles underlining the Pr....
The Court emphasized the reformative purpose of the Probation of Offenders Act, allowing convicted individuals to benefit from probation over imprisonment due to the long delay in proceedings and lac....
Conviction under Section 498-A IPC for cruelty affirmed; testimony of related witnesses deemed credible, and delayed FIR not sufficient for acquittal. Probation granted due to significant time lapse ....
The need for conclusive evidence in criminal conviction is paramount, and rehabilitative measures may be preferable for lesser offenses.
The court affirmed the conviction under Sections 332 and 34 IPC for assaulting a public servant, prioritizing probation due to judicial delay and the appellant's reformed character.
Court emphasized rehabilitation over punishment for first-time offenders under probation regulations, granting the appellant probation due to the lengthy trial and lack of prior offenses.
The court emphasized the necessity for trial courts to consider the application of probation laws for first-time offenders and the requirement to provide reasons for not applying such provisions.
The court emphasized the necessity of considering probation for first-time offenders and the requirement for special reasons when denying such benefits, particularly under the Probation of Offenders ....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
