Raghunath Asha vs State of Orissa

R.K. Dash, J.—The accused, petitioner herein, stood charged under Sections 307 and 324, IPC. Upon trial, the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Athagarh, convicted and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six years for the offence u/s 307, IPC and one year for the offence u/s 324, IPC and ordered both the sentences to run concurrently. The accused then challenged the judgment and order of the Assistant Sessions Judge in appeal and upon hearing the learned First Additional Sessions Judge, Cuttack, while setting aside the conviction u/s 307, IPC upheld the conviction u/s 324 and reduced the sentence to rigorous imprisonment for five months. It is against this judgment the accused has preferred the present revision.

Facts of the case lie in a narrow compass. On 5-11-1989 at about 3 p.m. PW 1 Rajkishore Rout and his brother Chandra Sekhar Rout, PW 9 while returning from Nuapatna Spinning Mill, the accused obstructed them near Chandi Bazar Chhak of Nuapatna and abused in filthy language and thrust a Muna, a pointed iron weapon, into the belly of Chandrasekhar. PW 1 Rajkishore Rout and PW 5 Susanta Kumar Rout when intercepted they were not spared. The accused assaulted them with Muna and caused injuries on their person. The incident was reported to the Police and after usual investigation charge-sheet was laid. Upon trial, the accused was found guilty and convicted as hereinbefore stated.

Learned counsel appearing for the accused though assailed the judgment of the appellate Court on several grounds, but he only confined his submission that the learned appellate Court committed grave error in not extending the benefit of the provisions of the Probation of Offenders Act to the accused. Elucidating the point he urged that considering the genesis and origin of the incident, nature of injuries sustained by PW 9, the learned appellate Court should have released the accused on probation, particularly when he was a first offender.

The incident as alleged in the FIR was trivial in nature; inasmuch as the accused on seeing Chandrasekhar PW 9 near Chandi Bazar Chhak questioned as to why he dashed cycle to his mother. To this when Chandrasekhar denied, the accused being annoyed assaulted him with a pointed iron rod. From this it is evident that there was no premeditation or pre-plan to assault PW 9. Everything happened at the spur. Added to it, there is also no evidence that there was bad blood between PW 9 and the accused. Further more, the injuries sustained by PW 9 were simple in nature. It is borne out from the report of the first treating physician (Ext. 3) that PW 9 received two stab injuries of which one was on the left side of chest wall 5" below the left nipple and it was simple in nature, the size being 1/2" x 1/4" The second stab injury was on the right upper arm and it was also simple in nature. The other two injured, namely, PWs 1 and 5 who according to the prosecution received injuries at the hand o f the accused were sent for medical examination. Their injury reports marked Exts. 4 and 6 reveal that they only sustained two superficial abrasion. The learned First Additional Sessions Judge, Cuttack, on re-appraisal of the evidence came to hold that the offence u/s 307, IPC could not be brought home and on such finding he set aside the conviction. He, however, maintained the conviction u/s 324, IPC but reduced the sentence to five months rigorous imprisonment. He completely over-looked the beneficial provision of the Probation of offenders Act and failed to extend its benefit to the accused. It is well known a proposition of law that it is obligatory of the Court to apply the provisions of Probation of Offenders Act where it is permissible and extend the benefit thereof to the accused. If the Court declines to give such benefit, in that case it is incumbent upon it to assign good reasons. Reference in this context may be made to Section 361, Cr. PC. A similar case like the present one came up for consideration before this Court in the case of Ranka Sahu Vs. State of Orissa, , where it is observed that the Criminal Courts instead of discharging their sentencing function in a mechanical manner should assign special reasons, if they decline to extend the benefits of the provisions of the Probation of Offenders Act to the accused.

Sections 360 and 361 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 and the Children Act, 1960 and other similar laws are indicative of the intention of the Legislature that rehabilitation of offenders and not mere deterrence are amongst the objects of administration of criminal justice in our country. While determining the question whether deterrent punishment should be awarded or humanistic approach should be made to reform and rehabilitate the offender, it is necessary for the Court to take into consideration amongst others the personality of the offender, his age, character, antecedent and above all the nature and seriousness of the offence as well as the motive for the crime. Court should not feel complacent by saying that it has complied with the statutory requirment merely by observing that it is not a fit case to extend the benefit of the provisions of the Probation of Offenders Act. It should be kept in mind that sentence is not a routine or mechanical exercise. An offender should not be treated as an outcast of the society after finding him guilty of the offence. An onerous duty is cast on the Court to see whether the law demands to keep him confined in the prison bar or a humanistic approach should be made to reform him. This duty should not be discharged light-heartedely and in a mechanical manner without looking as to what the Legislature mandates in the various provisions of the Probation of Offenders Act and other Acts.

In the case in hand admittedly the incident occurred at the spur of the moment. As the evidence goes, for trivial matter the accused assaulted Chandrasekhar PW 9 with a pointed iron rod causing injuries which are simple in nature. So keeping in view the genesis and origin of the incident and nature of injuries, I am of the considered opinion that it is a fit case where the accused should be released under the Probation of Offenders Act.

In the result, while maintaining the conviction of the accused u/s 324, IPC, sentence of five months rigorous imprisonment awarded to him is suspended. He be released on probation of good conduct by entering into a bond of Rs. 2,000/- with one surety for a period of one year to the satisfaction of the trial Court to appear and receive sentence when called upon and during the said period he shall keep peace and be of good behaviour.

Ordered accordingly.