Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Ori) 212

THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
Sibo Sankar Mishra, J.
Maniram Saha @ Dhrub @ Majhi - Appellant
Versus
State of Orissa - Respondent
CRLA No. 358 of 2009
Decided On : 17-03-2026

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr. Tukuna Kumar Mishra, Amicus Curiae
For the Respondent: Mr. Sobhan Panigrahi, ASC

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.

Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 498-A - Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act - Appeal against conviction under cruelty - Conviction confirmed but sentence modified in light of Probation Act; the appellant allowed to be released on probation owing to good conduct over the years and absence of criminal antecedents. (Paras 1, 10, 15)

(B) Conviction - Nature of offence under Section 498-A - Although convict was found guilty of subjecting the wife to cruelty, the court recognized the statutory provisions of probation as beneficial for first-time offenders. (Para 10)

Facts of the case:
The appellant was accused of cruelty leading to his wife's suicide after enduring ten years of torment. His conviction was based on the finding that he was guilty of cruelty but not of abetment to suicide. (Paras 4, 7, 8)

Findings of Court:
The court confirmed the conviction but modified the sentence, allowing probation instead of imprisonment due to the substantial time elapsed since the crime and the appellant's clean record. (Paras 13, 15)

Issues: Whether the appellant's conviction should stand and if the benefit of probation could be extended given the circumstances.

Ratio Decidendi: The court highlighted the reformative intent of the Probation of Offenders Act and noted the importance of considering the context and conduct of the appellant over the years. (Paras 12-13)

Result: Criminal appeal partly allowed; probation granted with conditions.

Table of Content
1. overview of facts and prosecution case. (Para 1 , 4 , 5 , 6)
2. court analysis on the applicability of the probation of offenders act. (Para 7 , 12)
3. arguments regarding the appellant's sentence and character. (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 11)
4. legal interpretations of the probation of offenders act. (Para 13 , 14)
5. conclusion on appeal and direction for probation. (Para 15 , 16 , 17)

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 at 8.00 A.M. the informant Narayan Dhrub lodged a written report at Beltukuri Outpost to the effect that about ten years back his daughter Gayatri married to the accused Maniram at village Bhaleswar. After one year of her marriage the accused subjected her to physical and mental torture. To settle their dispute, meetings were held at different times but the accused continued to torture her. It is alleged that on 20.11.2006 at about 4.00 P.M. one of the villagers of accused informed that Gayatri died. The informant and other relatives rushed to Bhaleswar and came to know that the deceased had consumed poison. The elder brother of Maniram abused them in obscene language and threatened them to assault.

5. On the basis of the written report of the informant (P.W.11), police registered the case and investigation was conducted and charge sheet has been filed in the present case against the accused for the alleged commission of offence u/s.498-A/306 of I.P.C. The accused took a stance of complete denial and claim trial. Accordingly, he was put to trial on the charges, as mentioned above.

6. The prosecution in order to bring home the charges examined as many as nineteen witnesses and exhibited eleven documents. Out of nineteen witnesses, P.Ws.1 and 2 were the witnesses to the seizure; P.Ws.3, 4, 5 and 6 were the independent witnesses; P.W.7 informed the fact of death of deceased to the informant; P.Ws.8 and 10 are the niece of the deceased; P.W.9 was the nurse who took zima of bedhead ticket; P.W.11 was the informant; P.W.12 was the autopsy doctor; P.W.13 is the brother of the deceased; P.W.14 was the headman of Dhrub Samaj; P.W.15 was the President of Dhrub Samaj; and P.Ws.16 to 19 were the I.Os of the present case.

7. Although the appellant stood charged for the offence punishable under Sections 498 -A/306 of the IPC , but the learned trial Court relying upon the evidence of the prosecution, arrived at a conclusion that the appellant is not guilty of offence punishable under Section 306 of and the appellant is only convicted under Section 498 -A and was sentenced to undergo R.I. for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/-, in default to further suffer R.I. for one month.

8. Aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 20.07.2009 passed by the learned trial court, although the appellant has filed the present appeal, but Mr. Mishra, after strenuo