After 27 Years, Orissa HC Upholds Two Men’s Assault Convictions But Releases Them On Probation

In brief

The question

Whether the convictions of appellants Nos. 2 and 3 under Sections 323/325 read with Section 34 IPC warranted interference.

The court held

The appeal was partly allowed. The convictions of appellants Nos. 2 and 3 under Sections 323/325 read with Section 34 IPC were left undisturbed.

It also directed

They were directed to be released under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act for three months, on executing a bond of Rs. 5,000 each with one surety for the like amount. During that period, they were required to keep the peace, maintain good behaviour and remain under the supervision of the concerned Probation Officer.

The appeal had already abated as to appellant No. 1.

01Facts

The prosecution alleged that, following a dispute over the flow of water between adjoining lands, the appellants assaulted the informant on 25 July 1999, causing injuries, including one medically classified as grievous.

p. 2

The trial court acquitted the accused of charges under Sections 341/294 read with Section 34 IPC and Section 3(x) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, but convicted them under Sections 323/325 read with Section 34 IPC and imposed six months’ rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 500 each.

pp. 4–6

The appeal was abated as to appellant No. 1, who had died; counsel for appellants Nos. 2 and 3 confined the appeal to sentence and sought probation.

pp. 3, 7–8

02Issues

i.Whether the convictions of appellants Nos. 2 and 3 under Sections 323/325 read with Section 34 IPC warranted interference.

pp. 8–9

ii.Whether, in view of the nature of the offences, the appellants’ circumstances and the passage of time, they should be released on probation under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, instead of undergoing imprisonment.

pp. 8, 10–12

03Law Applied

Sections 323 and 325 read with Section 34 IPC apply to the proved offences of voluntarily causing hurt and grievous hurt by persons acting with common intention. Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 permits release on probation where the offence is not punishable with death or imprisonment for life.

pp. 10–12

As explained in Chellammal and Another v. State represented by the Inspector of Police, 2025 INSC 540, a court must consider probation where Section 4 may apply; if it declines probation, it must give reasons. Section 361 CrPC similarly requires special reasons where the court could have dealt with an offender under the Probation Act but does not do so.

pp. 10–12

The Court also referred to Pathani Parida & another v. Abhaya Kumar Jagdevmohapatra, 2012 (Supp-II) OLR 469, and Dhani @ Dhaneswar Sahu v. State of Orissa, 2007 (Supp.II) OLR 250.

p. 13

Provisions in the judgment · 12 · Linked ones open on LawLens

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 Section 235 Section 360 Section 361 Section 374 Section 394

Indian Penal Code, 1860 Section 34 Section 294 Section 323 Section 325 Section 341

Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 Section 3

Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 Section 4

04Reasoning

The Court found no basis to disturb the convictions: the informant’s and his son’s evidence was corroborated by other witnesses and the medical evidence, and the delay in lodging the FIR and prior enmity did not, without more, undermine the prosecution case.

p. 9

On sentence, it considered that the offences were not punishable with death or life imprisonment, more than 27 years had elapsed since the occurrence, the appellants were approximately 53 and 62 years old, and they were stated to have no criminal antecedents and to be leading settled lives.

pp. 10–12

Applying Section 4 and the principles in Chellammal, the Court concluded that probation was appropriate rather than requiring the appellants to undergo the substantive imprisonment.

pp. 11–13