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.

Judgment :

SIBO SANKAR MISHRA, J.

Two appellants have jointly filed the present appeal assailing the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 10.08.1999/28.08.1999 passed by the learned Judge, Special Court, Sambalpur in T.R. Case No. 52 of 1997, whereby the learned trial court convicted the appellants under Sections 332/34 of IPC and sentenced them to undergo R.I. for six months each.

During pendency of the appeal, the appellant no.1 (Dhrubadutta Patel) has expired. Therefore, the present appeal qua him stood abated vide order dated 10.10.2025 in the absence of any motion under Section 394 Cr.P.C. either on behalf of the legal heirs or the next friend of the deceased appellant to press this appeal. Therefore, the appeal for consideration is confined to appellant no.2 only.

2. This appeal is pending since 1999 and none appeared for the appellants on several dates of hearing. Therefore, vide order dated 17.03.2026, this Court requested Mr. Purna Chandra Das, who was present 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.

3. Heard Mr. Purna Chandra Das, learned Amicus Curiae for the appellant and Mr. Sobhan Panigrahi, learned Additional Standing Counsel for the State.

4. The prosecution case, in brief, is that one Gobinda Ram Patel (P.W.6) had filed a suit bearing Title Suit No. 22 of 1996 against the accused Dhrubadutta Patel. He prayed for injunction in that suit, which was granted, The Process Server (P. W. 4) was ordered to serve the injunction order on the case land and accordingly on 31.10.97 the Process Server (P.W.4) went to the case land to serve the injunction order passed in Misc. Case No. 14 of 1997 arising out of Title Suit No. 22 of 1996. He took the assistance of the plaintiff (P. W.6) to identify the case land. When he reached near the case land, the accused Sanjay was found sitting on the ridge. Some villagers had also accompanied with him. While the Process Server was going to serve the notice by placing flags, the accused Dhrubadutta came behind him and gave a slap on the back side of his head catching hold of his hair and he also threatened the Process Server. The other accused Sanjaya, who was sitting on the ridge also came there and caught hold of his right hand and the other accused caught hold of his left hand and dealt kicks blows on his back. Both the accused persons dragged the Process Server to their house where he was forced to write a document on a plain paper. He refused but when he was threatened, he gave a writing on a separate paper putting his signature thereon. In spite of his request, none came forward to save him from the clutches of the accused persons. The accused persons also matched away the red banners numbering five which were taken with him to fix in the case land as token of service of injunction order.

5. On the basis of the aforementioned, a report was made on 24.10.1997, as the Process Server (P.W.4) had to serve notices in other villages; hence there was delay in lodging the F.I.R. On receipt of the written report, which was forwarded by the Judge-in-charge, Nizarat, Civil Courts, Kuchinda, police registered the case and investigation was conducted and charge sheet was filed against the accused persons for the alleged commission of offence u/s.341/332/426/379/34 of IPC read with Section 3(1)(x) of the S.C. & S.T. (PoA) Act. The appellants took a stance of complete denial and claimed trial. Accordingly, they were put to trial on the charges, as mentioned above.

6. The prosecution in order to bring home the charges