Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Online)(Ori) 3091

THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

CRA No.74 of 1994

(In the matter of an application under Section 374(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973)

Puria @ Purusottam Jena ……. Appellant
-Versus-
State of Orissa ……. Respondent

For the Appellant : Mr. B. B. Mohanty, Advocate
For the Respondent : Mr. Sobhan Panigrahi, ASC

CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE SHRI JUSTICE SIBO SANKAR MISHRA

Date of Hearing: 07.04.2026 :: Date of Judgment: 16.04.2026

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: B. B. Mohanty
For the Respondents: Sobhan Panigrahi

The Probation of Offenders Act serves a reformative purpose, mandating that courts prioritize rehabilitation over incarceration for suitable offenders. When factors like lack of prior antecedents and significant passage of time exist, courts must proactively consider probation to prevent the long-term deleterious effects of imprisonment on individuals.

Headnote:(A) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 360 and 361 - Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 - Section 4 - Penal Code - Section 304 Part-II - Conviction for culpable homicide - Benefit of probation to an offender - Legislative intent behind probation is reformative to prevent deleterious effects of incarceration - Courts are duty-bound to consider applicability of probation and must record special reasons if refusing the benefit - Exercise of discretion depends on surrounding circumstances, nature of offense, and character of the offender. (Paras 10, 12, 14)

(B) Appellate Jurisdiction - Scope and Ambit - A court sitting in appeal should not substitute its view for that of the trial court unless the decision is tainted by perversity or illegality - Evidence consistently corroborated by medical expert reports is reliable. (Paras 6, 8, 9)

Facts of the case:
The appellant was convicted for an offense causing death by the forceful hurling of a wooden object. An appeal was filed challenging the conviction and subsequent sentence. Over three decades had passed since the incident, during which the individual maintained a stable family life and possessed no prior criminal record.

Findings of Court:
The ocular testimony was consistent with medical evidence, supporting the guilt of the accused. Given the significant lapse of time relative to the occurrence, the lack of prior criminal history, and the rehabilitative objective of the relevant legislation, the court concluded that the benefit of probation should be extended instead of imposing further imprisonment.

Issues: Whether the trial court's conviction was sustainable given the evidence and whether the court should exercise its discretion to grant the benefit of the probation statute.

Ratio Decidendi: The legal framework governing probation is reformative and intended to rehabilitate individuals. When an offender lacks criminal antecedents and a significant duration has passed since the offense, the court must balance punitive measures against the goal of societal reintegration. The conviction was upheld based on consistent evidence, but the punitive sentence was substituted with probation supervision combined with a requirement to pay compensation to the victim's legal heirs.

Result: Appeal partly allowed; conviction affirmed, but sentence modified to grant benefit of probation.

S.S. Mishra, J. The present Criminal Appeal, filed by the appellant is directed against the judgment and order dated 22.02.1944 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jajpur in S.T. No.190/25 of 1993, whereby the appellant has been convicted for the offence under Section 304 Part-II of I.P.C. and on that count, he has been sentenced to undergo R.I. for six years.

2. Heard Mr. B.B. Mohanty, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Sobhan Panigrahi, learned Additional Standing Counsel for the State.

3. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 23.09.1991, Jugal Pradhan (P.W.2), a servant of Gundichabihari Pal (P.W.5), along with P.W.5 and his son Sangram (since deceased), was returning from their Janhi field. Upon reaching in front of the house of the accused, the mother and sister of the accused allegedly began to abuse them, which was protested by P.W.5 and the deceased. At that juncture, the accused suddenly came out of his house, armed with a wooden piece resembling a log of a cot, and, shouting to kill Sangram, rushed towards him and forcefully hurled the same. The wooden piece struck Sangram on his chest and the right side of his neck near the ear, as a result of which he fell down. When P.W.5 attempted to apprehend the accused, he was obstructed by Maheswar Rout (P.W.4). Thereafter, the accused fled from the spot with the wooden piece and is alleged to have thrown it into a nearby river. The injured Sangram was immediately shifted to the hospital, where he was declared dead. Subsequently, at the instance of P.W.5, Akshya Pal (P.W.1) lodged a written report before the I.I.C., Dharmasala Police Station, which was registered as Ext. 1.

During the course of investigation, the Investigating Officer held inquest over the dead body and sent it for post-mortem examination. P.W.7, the Doctor conducted the post-mortem examination over the dead body of the deceased Sangram and opined that the cause of death was subdural haemorrhage and shock resulting from injury to the right temporal region, which was ante-mortem in nature. Upon completion of investigation, charge-sheet was submitted against the accused for the offence under Section 302 of I.P.C. On the stance of complete denial and claim of trial, the appellant was put to trial.

4. In order to substantiate its case, the prosecution examined eight witnesses. Out of whom, P.W.1 was the informant and a post-occurrence witness. P.W.2 was an eye-witness to the occurrence and a servant of P.W.5. P.W.3 is the mother of the deceased, victim. P.W.4 was an independent eye-witness to the occurrence. P.W.5 was both an eye-witness to the occurrence and the father of the deceased. P.W.6 was a hostile witness. P.W.7 was the doctor, who conducted the post-mortem examination over the dead body of the deceased, and P.W.8 was the Investigating Officer.

On behalf of the defence, D.W.1 was examined, who is a relative of the victim and was alleged to have been present at the time of occurrence.

5. The appellant stood charged for commission of offence under Section 302 of I.P.C. However, after analysing the evidence adduced by the prosecution as well as the defence put forth by the accused, the learned trial Court found the appellant not guilty of the offence he was charged but arrived at the conclusion that the prosecution could prove its case beyond all reasonable doubt against the appellant for commission of offence under Section 304 Part-II of I.P.C. On that count, he has been sentenced to undergo R.I. for six years.

The aforementioned judgment of conviction and order of sentenced dated 22.02.1994 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jajpur in S.T. No.190/25 of 1993 is under challenge in the present appeal.

6. In the present case, the prosecution has examined P.Ws.1, 2, 4 and 5 as the eye witnesses to the occurrence. All of them have supported the prosecution case and sustained elaborate cross-examination by the defence. However, their testimony remained unsh

Click Here to Read the rest of this document