After 20 Years, Orissa HC Upholds Simple-Hurt Conviction In Stick Assault, Places Appellant On 3-Month Probation

On 18 October 2006, following a dispute over cattle damaging paddy, Daya Rout allegedly assaulted Dhruba Majhi with a goad stick, causing head injuries.

The trial court acquitted Rout’s co-accused and acquitted Rout of the charges under Sections 324, 307 and 34 IPC, but convicted him under Section 323 IPC and sentenced him to the period already undergone—53 days—with a direction to pay Rs. 1,000 compensation.

Rout appealed.

The High Court considered both the sustainability of the conviction and whether he should receive the benefit of probation.

Section 323 IPC applies to voluntarily causing hurt.

Section 4(1) of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 permits release on probation where the offender is found guilty of an offence not punishable with death or imprisonment for life.

In Chellammal and Another v. State represented by the Inspector of Police, 2025 INSC 540, the Supreme Court held that, where Section 4 may apply, the court must consider probation and give reasons if it declines to grant it; the offender has no automatic right to probation.

Section 361 CrPC requires special reasons to be recorded where a court could have applied the Probation of Offenders Act but does not do so.

The High Court found the injured informant’s account materially corroborated by the medical evidence, which showed simple injuries caused by a hard and blunt object.

The post-occurrence evidence of P.Ws. 2 and 3 also supported the account of the immediate aftermath; the conviction under Section 323 IPC was therefore sustainable.

On sentence, the Court considered that the offence involved simple hurt arising from a sudden quarrel, without premeditation or a deadly weapon, and noted the absence of criminal antecedents, the appellant’s 53 days already served, and the considerable lapse of time since the incident.

It concluded that probation was appropriate under Section 4.

The Court substituted probation for the sentence, directing the appellant to execute a bond of Rs. 5,000 with one surety for the like amount, within one month, to appear and receive sentence if called upon during a three-month period, maintain peace and good behaviour, and remain under the supervision of the concerned Probation Officer.

The appeal was accordingly partly allowed.