MANGULI MAJHI Vs. STATE OF ODISHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This criminal revision is directed against the impugned judgment dtd. 22/4/2024 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Kendrapara in criminal appeal no. 10 of 2022 confirming the judgment of conviction of the appellant (revision Petitioner) for commission of offences punishable U/S. 323 of IPC, but modifying his sentence to undergo Simple Imprisonment for three months and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000.00 in default whereof, to undergo SI for further period of seven days.

(2.) The short facts involved in this case are that due to some dissension and land dispute regarding construction of house by the present revision-Petitioner, on 5/7/2017 at about 10:30 AM, the revision-Petitioner and five others assaulted PW4-Sasmita Majhi. Accordingly, PW4 lodged an FIR before the IIC, Rajnagar, who registered Rajnagar PS case No. 118 of 2017 paving the way for investigation in this case and accordingly, the revision-Petitioner and five others have been charge sheeted in the aforesaid case for commission offences punishable U/Ss. 341/323/427/34 of IPC resulting in trial in the present case, when the revision-Petitioner and other accused persons denied to plead guilty to the charge. Accordingly, the learned trial Court examined seven witnesses and exhibited three documents under Exts. 1 to 3 and after hearing the the parties upon analysis of evidence, the learned trial Court returned with a finding that the revision-Petitioner and five others are guilty of the offences U/Ss. 323/34 of IPC. Accordingly, the learned trial Court had sentenced the revision-Petitioner and other convicts to undergo Simple Imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000.00 in default whereof, to undergo Simple Imprisonment for one month.

(3.) In the course of hearing, Mr.Sukanta Kumar Nayak, learned counsel for the revision-petitioner while pressing the revision not on merit, but on the question of sentence, submits that the revision-Petitioner is in custody since 25/2/2025 and in the meanwhile, more than two months has been elapsed and thereby, the revision-Petitioner has already undergone substantial period of his substantive sentence and the Petitioner being an innocent Scheduled Caste Person, he may kindly be released from the custody by reducing his sentence to the period already undergone. Accordingly, Mr. Nayak has made a limited prayer to reduce the sentence of the revision-Petitioner to the period already undergone.