The court reinforced the credibility of evidence in criminal convictions and mandated consideration for probation under the Probation of Offenders Act for non-heinous offences.

JUDGMENT :

SIBO SANKAR MISHRA, J.

1. The present Criminal Appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 20.08.2005 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Bhawanipatna in Sessions Case No. 20/13 of 2005, arising out of G.R. Case No.472/2004, whereby the accused persons were acquitted of the charges under Sections 452/34, 394/398 IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act, but were convicted under Sections 385/34 and 427/34 IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year with fine of Rs.200/- (Rupees two hundred) only in default, to undergo R.I. for further period of one month on each count.

2. As the written instruction received from the I.I.C., Town P.S., Bhawanipatna, dated 25.07.2025 indicates that the appellant No.1-Murali Chhatrapal has expired on 29.07.2011, the present appeal qua the appellant No.1 stands abated in the absence of any application under Section 394 of Cr. P.C. In so far as the appellant No.2 is concerned, he is alive. Accordingly, consideration of the present appeal is confined to the appellant No.2-Susant Mahanand only.

3. The present appeal has been pending since 2005. When the matter was called for hearing consistently, none appeared for the appellants. Therefore, on 24.03.2026, this Court requested Mrs. Shuvra Mohapatra, learned counsel, who was present in Court to assist in the matter as Amicus Curiae. She has readily accepted the same and after obtaining entire record, assisted the Court very effectively. This Court records appreciation for the meaningful assistance rendered by Mrs. Mohapatra.

4. Heard Mrs. Shuvra Mohapatra, learned Amicus Curiae for the appellants and Mr. Sobhan Panigrahi, learned Additional Standing Counsel for the State.

5. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 27.10.2004 at about 6.00 P.M., the accused persons allegedly demanded a sum of Rs.2000/- from the son of the informant and, upon his refusal, assaulted him and thereafter entered the house of the informant, damaged the roof tiles and caused injuries to the informant. On the basis of the written report, investigation was taken up and charge-sheet was submitted under Sections 452/427/394/398/34 of the IPC read with Section 27 of the Arms Act. The accused took a stance of denial of charges and claim trial.

6. To substantiate the charges, the prosecution examined eight witnesses including the informant (P.W.1), his family members (P.Ws.2, 3 and 4), an independent witness (P.W.6), the doctor (P.W.7) and the Investigating Officer (P.W.8). The defence examined two witnesses and took the plea that the incident arose out of a dispute relating to collection of festival subscription (chanda).

7. The learned trial court, upon appreciation of evidence, disbelieved the prosecution case in so far as the allegations relating to house trespass, robbery and use of deadly weapon are concerned, mainly due to inconsistencies between ocular and medical evidence and lack of reliable corroboration. However, it held that the prosecution succeeded in establishing that the accused persons had put the informant and his son in fear of injury for the purpose of extortion and had caused damage to the house, thereby committed the offences under Sections 385/34 and 427/34 IPC. The relevant portion of the aforesaid judgment is extracted herein below for ready reference:-

“12. The plea of the accused persons is that they had been to the house of P.W.3 to collect the balance amount of Dasara Puja chanda and P.W.3 alongwith his family members picked up quarrel with them and have foisted a case. To substantiate their plea, they hav