LAKHA URMA vs STATE OF ODISHA

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
CRLREV NO.733 of 2026

CNR NO. ODHC010744642026

(In the matter of application under Section 442 read
with Section 438 of BNSS).

Lakha Urma and others Petitioners
…
-versus-
State of Orissa Opposite Party
…



For Petitioners : Mr. S. Dwibedi, Advocate

For Opposite Party : Mr. S.K. Rout, Addl. PP

CORAM: JUSTICE G. SATAPATHY



DATE OF HEARING & JUDGMENT:31.10.2026(ORAL)

G. Satapathy, J.

CRLREV No.733 of 2026 & IA No.1139 of 2026
1. This judgment shall not only dispose of the
present Criminal Revision on merit, but also the IA
No.1139 of 2026 filed U/S.5 of the Limitation Act to
condone the delay of 5268 days in preferring the Criminal
Revision against the impugned judgment of conviction and
sentence passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Boudh
in CRA No.28 of 2011 against the revision-petitioners
upholding their conviction for offences U/Ss.341/324/34 of
IPC and sentencing each of them to undergo Simple
CRLREV No.733 of 2026 Page 1 of 6

Imprisonment (SI) for one month for offences
U/Ss.341/34 of IPC and to undergo Rigorous
Imprisonment (RI) for one year for offences U/Ss.324/34
of IPC, while setting aside their conviction and sentence
for offence U/Ss.307/34 of IPC.
2. The revision-petitioners were in fact convicted and
sentenced by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge; Boudh
vide judgment dated 02.11.2011 passed in ST Case No.2
of 2010 for offences U/Ss.341/324/307/34 of IPC and they
were, accordingly, sentenced to undergo RI for five years
with fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default whereof, to undergo RI
for six months for offences U/S.307/34 of IPC, in addition
to the sentence for offences U/Ss.341/324/34 of IPC as
indicated supra.
3. Heard, Mr. Suryakanta Dwibedi, learned counsel
for the revision-petitioners and Mr. S.K. Rout, learned
Additional Public Prosecutor in the matter and perused the
record.
4. Admittedly, the present revision has in fact been
filed with a delay of 5268 days, but it has been advanced
for the revision-petitioners that they are not interested to
CRLREV No.733 of 2026 Page 2 of 6

challenge their conviction and their only prayer is confined
to modification of sentence by liberally condoning the
delay. It is, however, not in dispute that the revision-
petitioners had in fact faced the trial, got convicted and
also partly suffered some amount of sentence as a pre trial
detention and the detention after their conviction in
appeal, but subsequently, they were released on bail
during the pendency of the appeal on 24.11.2011. It is
specifically contended that since the revision-petitioners
are poor villagers and they had been to outside State for
earning of their livelihood and thereby, they were ignorant
about the confirmation of their conviction and sentence for
offences U/Ss.324/34 of IPC in the Appeal and, therefore,
they could not appear before the Court concerned to suffer
the sentence, however, they have been subsequently
taken into custody since 04.09.2026 and they are in
custody since then.
5. Indisputably, the revision-petitioners have
approached this Court with a huge delay, but they are
right now in custody and, thereby, their personal liberty
has been curtailed, but the same is in accordance with law.
CRLREV No.733 of 2026 Page 3 of 6

Besides, the conviction and sentence of the petitioners are
already confirmed only for offences U/Ss.341/324/34 of
IPC and they have already suffered incarceration for a
period of 98 days as a cumulative detention in trial, appeal
and thereafter. On the other hand, it has already been
made clear that the revision-petitioners do not intend to
challenge their conviction, but they are praying for
reduction in sentence. It is not in dispute that the
occurrence took place on 08.10.2009 and in the
meantime, 17 years have already elapsed. In addition, the
occurrence took place probably on a spur of moment as
evident from the evidence of injured witness-PWs.2 & 3,
since PW2 had testified in the Court that the revision-
petitioners assaulted them by abusing them for the land in
question, in which PW2 was ploughing. It was no doubt
stated by PWs.2 & 3 that they had suffered some injuries
on their heads, but the medial evidence as tendered by
PW1 discloses that PWs.2 & 3 had suffered one injury each
and PW1-the Doctor had also admitted in cross-
examination that no force was applied for causing the
injuries on PWs.2 & 3. Besides, PW1 had opined that the
injuries sustained by the PWs.2 & 3 were simple in nature.
CRLREV No.733 of 2026 Page 4 of 6

6. The intention of legislature in enacting the
penal law is not to finish the criminal, but to finish the
crime and whenever there is chance of reformation, the
Court instead of imposing substantive sentence on the
offender should explore the possibility of reforming him. It
is also not in dispute that the petitioners had in fact land
dispute with the injured-PW2 and the occurrence had
taken place when PW2 was ploughing the disputed land.
Further, Section 324 of IPC provides punishment for
voluntarily causing hurt by dangerous weapons or means.
Be that as it may, the petitioners have already suffered
incarceration for a period of near about 100 days and they
must have felt the rigor of law in remaining in custody for
not appearing before the Court to receive the sentence or
challenging the judgment passed by the appellate Court in
revision within the time, but the liberty of a person is in
fact dearest to him.
7. In the aforesaid facts and situation and taking
into consideration the totality of evidence on record by
keeping in view the conviction and sentence of the
revision-petitioners for offences U/Ss.341/324/34 of IPC
CRLREV No.733 of 2026 Page 5 of 6

and the revision-petitioners having not intended to
challenge their conviction, but confine their prayer limited
for reduction in sentence, this Court considers that interest
of justice would be best served, if the delay of 5268 days
in preferring this Criminal Revision is condoned and the
sentence of the revision-petitioners for offences
U/Ss.341/324/34 of IPC is considered to be sufficient for
the period already undergone. Accordingly, the sentence of
the revision-petitioners is modified to the period already
undergone.
8. In the result, the CRLREV stands dismissed with
confirmation of the conviction of the revision-petitioners
for offences U/Ss.341/324/34 of IPC, but their sentence
stands modified to the period already undergone. The IA
No.1139 of 2026 for condonation of delay is accordingly
disposed of.


(G. Satapathy)
Judge



Orissa High Court, Cuttack,
Digitally Signed
st
Signed by: SUBHASMITA DAS
Dated the 31 day of October, 2026/Subhasmita
Designation: Sr. Stenographer
Reason: Authentication
Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack
Date: 02-Nov-2026 16:36:43
Signature Not Verified
CRLREV No.733 of 2026 Page 6 of 6