The Court upheld convictions for rioting but emphasized rehabilitation over punishment, allowing probation for accused instead of imprisonment due to the minor nature of injuries and the time elapsed since the incident.

Judgment :

SIBO SANKAR MISHRA, J.

Both the aforementioned Criminal Appeals arise out of the common judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 11.01.2010 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Kendrapara in S.T. Case No.26/2005, whereby the accused persons were acquitted of the charges under Section 148 IPC and Section 3 of the SC & ST (P.A.) Act, but found guilty under Sections 147, 323 and 337 read with Section 149 IPC. The learned trial Court sentenced each of the convicted persons to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months on each count, with the sentences directed to run concurrently, along with the benefit of set-off under Section 428 Cr.P.C. Since the impugned judgment is common, both appeals were heard together and are disposed of by this common judgment.

2. In CRLA No.44 of 2010, as per the report dated 16.03.2026 received from the IIC, Kudanagari Police Station after verification that appellant nos.1, 2 and 11 have already expired. Hence, the present appeal qua appellant nos.1, 2 and 11 stands abated in absence of any application under Section 394 of the Cr. P.C. either by the legal heirs of appellant nos.1, 2 and 11 or by their next friend. So far as appellant nos.3 to 10 are concerned, they are alive and maintaining their livelihood by doing business. Therefore, the present appeal survives qua appellant nos.3 to 10.

Similarly, in CRLA No.47 of 2010, appellant nos.2, and 5 have already expired. Hence, the present appeal qua appellant nos.2 and 5 stands abated in absence of any application under Section 394 of the Cr. P.C. either by the legal heirs of appellant nos.2 and 5 or by their next friend. As per the report dated 16.03.2026, the whereabouts of appellant No.7- Buna Das could not be ascertained. So far as appellant nos.1, 3, 4 and 6, 8 and 9 are concerned, they are alive and maintaining their livelihood by doing business. Therefore, the present appeal survives qua appellant nos.1, 3, 4 and 6, 8 and 9. The said report has already been taken on record.

3. Heard Mr. Pritam Kumar Mallick and Mr. M. Routray, learned counsels appearing for the appellants and Mr. A.K. Apat, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State.

4. The prosecution of the accused persons arises out of an occurrence dated 10.11.1999 at about 9:30 A.M. at village Kalabuda under Patkura Police Station in the district of Kendrapara. The informant, Padmacharan Das, while proceeding to his office in the Irrigation Department, was allegedly intercepted by the accused persons, who had assembled in a group and were armed with weapons like crowbars and bhujalis. It is alleged that they abused him in filthy language, referring to his caste in public view, and attempted to assault him. On hearing his alarm, his wife, nephew, brother and other family members rushed to the spot, whereupon the accused persons allegedly pelted stones and brickbats towards the house of the informant and his family members in a rash and negligent manner, resulting in injuries to some of them, particularly Pravakar Mallik and Tapan Mallik. The prosecution further alleged that taking advantage of the situation, especially in the aftermath of the super cyclone when household articles were lying outside, the accused persons committed acts of mischief and removed certain household articles and wooden logs. On the same day in the evening, the informant lodged the written report at Patkura Police Station, whereupon the case was registered and investigation was taken up.

5. Upon completion of investigation, charge-sheet was submitted against 20 accused persons for offences u