Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
V.NARASINGH
Ashok Mandal – Appellant
Versus
State Of Odisha – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. conviction details and factual context. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. court's observations on the proceedings. (Para 5 , 8) |
| 3. arguments regarding the p.o. act application. (Para 6 , 7) |
| 4. guidance on the applicability of the p.o. act. (Para 9 , 10 , 11) |
| 5. conclusion and disposal of the revision. (Para 12 , 13) |
JUDGMENT :
V. Narasingh, J.
1. This Criminal Revision has been filed assailing the Judgment dated 27.12.2025 passed by the learned Addl. Dist. & Sessions Judge, Umerkote in Criminal Appeal No.02 of 2022, affirming the order of conviction dated 05.07.2022 of the Petitioner passed by the learned J.M.F.C., Umerkote in G.R. Case No.121 of 2007 (T.R. No.695 of 2007) under Sections 354 /511 of IPC and imposing a sentence of R.I. for a period of one year and fine of Rs.500/- (Rupees Five hundred only), and in default to undergo R.I. for period of 3 months, further U/s 451 to undergo R.I. for a period of one month and fine of Rs.300/-(Rupees three hundred only)and, in default to undergo R.I. for a period of Eight days. Substantive sentences were directed to run concurrently. It was further directed that on the recovery of fine, the same shall be paid to the victim Laxmirani
The court affirmed conviction under IPC for attempted modesty outrage and house trespass, allowing probation benefits based on the offender's age and significant delay post-offence.
The appellate court affirmed the trial court's conviction, emphasizing limited scrutiny of evidential assessments, and extended probation based on the Petitioners' ages and lack of subsequent offense....
Denial of probation under the P.O. Act must be supported by evidence of criminal proclivity; mere age does not justify the refusal.
The court upheld the trial court's convictions for outraging modesty and arson, confirming that decisions on evidence were sound and legal.
The court upheld the conviction for kidnapping despite claims of contradictions in evidence and released the petitioner on probation due to his societal integration and lack of reoffending.
The Court held that it was appropriate to grant probation to the convicted individuals based on their long-standing conduct and the nature of the offenses under the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958.
Probation may be granted under the Probation of Offenders Act considering age and lack of criminal history despite prior convictions for violent offenses.
The court maintained the conviction under Section 307 IPC while allowing benefits under the Probation of Offenders Act based on age and conduct.
The court upheld the conviction under IPC Sections 354 and 448 while allowing probation, affirming that delay in FIR lodging was adequately explained and enmity did not undermine credible testimony.
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
