THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

CRA No.117 of 1999

(In the matter of an application under Section 374(2) of the Criminal

Procedure Code, 1973)

Jatia @ Krushna ……. Appellant

Chandra Moharana

-Versus-

State of Orissa ……. Respondent

For the Appellant : Mr. D. P. Dhal, Senior Advocate

For the Respo ndent : Mr. S.J. Mohanty,

Additional Standing Counsel

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE SHRI JUSTICE SIBO SANKAR MISHRA Date of Hearing: 30.10.2025 :: Date of Judgment: 27.11.2025

S.S. Mishra, J. The present Criminal Appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 23rd April, 1999 passed by the learned District

Judge-cum-Special Judge, Berhampur, Ganjam, in G.R. Case No. 110 of 1995, whereby the appellant, Jatia @ Krushna Chandra Maharana, was convicted under Section 326 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/-, in default to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for two months. The learned trial Court, however, acquitted the appellant of the offences under Sections 341, 294, 506 of the IPC and Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities)

Act, 1989.

2. Heard Mr. D. P. Dhal, learned Senior Advocate, for the appellant and Mr. S.J. Mohanty, learned Additional Standing Counsel for the State.

3. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 10.05.1995, while the injured, Budhinath Patra, a boy belonging to the Scheduled Caste community, was sitting on the verandah of his house, the accused came there armed with a sword (locally called kati) and dealt a blow on his right shoulder, causing a grievous bleeding injury. It is alleged that after inflicting the injury, the accused threatened to kill the entire family of the victim. The father of the injured lodged a written report at Digapahandi Police Station, on the basis of which Nuagan P.S. Case No. 48 of 1995 was registered, and after investigation, Charge-Sheet was submitted against the accused.

4. The plea of the accused persons is of complete denial and according to them, due to land dispute with the complainant and his brother, this case has been falsely foisted against them. On the claim of trial, the case proceeded on framing of charges.

5. The prosecution examined six witnesses in support of its case, including the doctor (P.W.1), the injured (P.W.2), the informant and father of the injured (P.W.3), and the investigating officers (P.Ws. 4 to

6). The defence did not adduce any evidence.

6. Upon evaluation of the evidence, the learned trial Court found that there was no material to establish the offences under Sections 341, 294, or 506 IPC, or under Section 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST (P.A.) Act, as the necessary ingredients of those offences are absent. However, the learned trial Court held that the prosecution had successfully proved that the accused had voluntarily caused grievous hurt to the injured by means of a sharp cutting weapon, thereby attracting Section 326 IPC. Consequently, the appellant was convicted and sentenced as indicated above. The relevant portion of the aforesaid judgment is extracted herein below for ready reference: -

“9. xxx xxx xxx The occurrence took place on 10.5.95 evening and the report was lodged on 11.5.95. The police station is situated 12 K.Ms. away from the place of occurrence. The evidence shows that P.W.2 was seriously wounded and was in unconscious condition and was carried to the hospital where he regained his senses. Under such a tense situation one cannot expect the father of the injured to leave the injured son and lodge a report immediately at the P.S. So, there is no abnormal delay in lodging the F.I.R. and whatever delay has been caused, has been explained by the surrounding circumstances. Judicial pronouncements are clear that delay in lodging the F.I.R. is not always fatal for the prosecution case and that in appropriate circumstances, such delay can be ignored (See 1994(1) Crims-233, S. Bheemappa Kaligonnavar & others Vrs. State of Karnatak, 80(1995)