IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK CRLREV NO.728 of 2024 (An application U/S. 397 r/w. Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973)

Krushna Chandra Raula … Petitioner -versus-

The State of Odisha … Opposite Party For Petitioner : Mr. B. Sarangi, Advocate For Opposite Party : Mr. A.K. Apat, Addl. PP CORAM:

JUSTICE G. SATAPATHY F DATE OF HEARING & JUDGMENT:21.02.2025(ORAL)

G. Satapathy, J.

1. This criminal revision is directed against the confirming the judgment dated 14.03.2024 passed by learned 1^st Addl. Sessions Judge, Ganjam, Berhampur, in Criminal Appeal No. 67 of 2022, confirming the Judgment dated 27.08.2022 passed by learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Ganjam, Berhampur in ST Case No. 25 of 2017, convicting the revision-petitioner and one Kuna Panda for commission of offence punishable under Section 341/324/34 of IPC and sentencing each of them to undergo simple imprisonment (SI) for one month with payment fine of Rs.500/- in default whereof, to undergo SI for further seven days for offence under Sections 341/34 of IPC; to undergo SI for one year with payment fine of Rs.10,000/- in default whereof, to undergo SI for further six months for offence under Sections 324/34 of IPC with benefit of set off of the pretrial detention against the substantive sentence.

By the impugned judgment passed in Appeal, the learned Appellate Court has also confirmed the sentenced of the revision-petitioner, but out of the two convicts, only the present petitioner has preferred this revision on various ground inter alia on the question of sentence.

2. Heard, Mr. Bhagaban Sarangi, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner virtually and Mr. A.K. Apat, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor in the matter and perused the record.

3. At the threshold, Mr. Sarangi, learned counsel for the revision petitioner does not press the revision on merit, but he confines his submission only to the quantum of sentence. Accordingly, Mr. Sarangi submits that since the occurrence took place in the year 2013 and that too, for a petty matter relating to repayment of hand loan of Rs.1,500/-, but the revision- petitioner having detained in custody for more than eight months, some leniency in sentence may kindly be extended to the convict-petitioner.

3.1. On the other hand, Mr. A.K. Apat, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor by producing the custody certificate of the two convicts submits that the revision-petitioner as well as the other convict namely Kuna Panda has already suffered incarceration for a period of 268 days, but no adverse report has been received against any of the convicts from the jail authority.

4. Since the conviction of the revision-petitioner has not been under challenge, this Court, therefore, only recapitulate the necessary part of the facts in precise to address the contention of the revision- petitioner. The relevant facts as it appears are that on 16.01.2013 at about 08.30 AM in the morning while the injured was returning home after taking tiffin, on the way, the revision-petitioner and one Kuna Panda met him and demanded Rs.1,500/- from him which he had taken as hand loan from the revision-petitioner about two days before, but when he later expressed his inability to pay the same immediately, the convict- Kuna Panda caught him tightly and the revision- petitioner assaulted him by one kati and as the injured tried to ward off the blow by showing his hands, he sustained cut injury on his both hands and the injured was accordingly shifted to hospital.

On this incident, FIR was lodged, investigation ensured and charge sheet was submitted. Accordingly, the convict faced the trial before the learned Asst. Sessions Judge for commission of offence under Sections 341/323/324/307/34 of IPC, but the convicts were found guilty of the offences punishable under Sections 341/324/34 of IPC. However, both the convicts were sentenced to the punishment indicated in the previous paragraph.

4.1 Being aggrieved with the conviction, both the convicts preferred an appeal