After 5,268-Day Delay, Odisha HC Cuts Land-Dispute Convicts’ Jail Term To 98 Days Already Served, Upholds Conviction

The petitioners were convicted by the Assistant Sessions Judge, Boudh, of offences under Sections 341, 324, 307 and 34 IPC. On appeal, the Additional Sessions Judge set aside the conviction under Section 307/34 IPC but affirmed the convictions under Sections 341/324/34 IPC, sentencing each petitioner to one month’s simple imprisonment for the former offences and one year’s rigorous imprisonment for the latter.

The petitioners filed a criminal revision 5,268 days late, seeking no challenge to their convictions but a reduction in sentence. They attributed the delay to poverty, work outside the State and ignorance of the appellate outcome. They had been taken into custody on 4 September 2026 and had cumulatively undergone 98 days’ detention.

The incident arose from a land dispute in 2009; the medical evidence described one simple injury to each injured witness.

The Court considered Section 5 of the Limitation Act, under which delay may be condoned where sufficient cause is established, and Sections 341, 324 and 34 IPC, concerning wrongful restraint, voluntarily causing hurt by dangerous weapons or means, and common intention, respectively.

In sentencing, the Court invoked the principle that punishment should address the crime while allowing for the offender’s reformation where appropriate; it also treated the nature of the injuries, the period already served and the passage of time as relevant considerations.

No precedent was cited.

Although the revision was filed after a substantial delay, the petitioners were in custody, had already served approximately 98 days, and confined their challenge to sentence rather than conviction.

The Court considered that the incident arose from a land dispute, the injuries were simple, the doctor stated that no force had been applied, and approximately 17 years had elapsed since the occurrence. Taking those circumstances together, the Court considered the period already undergone sufficient and condoned the delay to determine the sentence-related request.

The criminal revision was recorded as dismissed, with the sentence modification granted, and the application for condonation of delay was disposed of.