CUTTACK, India, May 16 -- Orissa High Court issued the following order on April 15:

Heard Mr. Patel and Mr. Mahapatra, learned counsel for the Petitioners and Mr. Panigrahi, learned counsel for the state.

1. Since both the revisions relate to the judgment passed by the Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sundargarh dated 01.08.2022 in Criminal Appeal No.26/10 of 2014-2016, on the consent of parties, they are taken up together for consideration.

2. These Criminal Revisions have been filed assailing the Judgment dated 01.08.2022 passed by the learned Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Sundargarh in Criminal Appeal No. 26/10 of 2014-16, affirming the order of conviction qua the Petitioners dated 22.08.2014 passed by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Sundargarh in S.T. Case No. 140/12 of 2006-2007 (G.R. Case No. 224 of 2004) under Sections 3411 /342 of I.P.C. and imposing a sentence of S.I. for one month each, and further convicting under Section 3263 of I.P.C. and sentencing them to undergo R.I. for a period of two years and a fine of Rs. 5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand only), and for the offence under Section 3254 I.P.C. to undergo R.I. for a further period of six months.

All the sentences were directed to run concurrently.

3. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 24.07.2004 at about 8:10 PM, the informant, Ramesh Soni, along with his father Gopal Soni, was returning home on a scooter when, near the Railway Fatak at Rajgangpur, they were intercepted by three unknown persons who abused them and assaulted the informant with a lathi and iron rod, causing injuries to his head and hand; on the basis of the report, Rajgangpur P.S. Case No. 100 dated 24.07.2004 was registered, and during investigation the I.O. visited the spot, examined witnesses including the injured, arranged medical examination, seized bloodstained clothes, the weapon of offence and Rs. 7,500/-, conducted a T.I. parade through the then J.M.F.C., Rajgangpur, and on completion of investigation submitted charge-sheet under Sections 3411/2945 /3263/3076 /342 IPC.

4. To drive home the charge the prosecution relied on 9 witnesses of whom P.W.5, the injured, P.Ws.1, 2, 3 and 7, the eye witnesses to the occurrence, P.W.6, the medical officer and P.W.8, the investigating officer are material, and several documents were also exhibited, of which Ext.7, the FIR, Ext.9, T.I. parade report and Ext.10, the injury report are of significance. Neither oral nor documentary evidence was adduced on behalf of defense.

*Rest of the document can be viewed at: (https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/ecourtindiaHC/cases/display_pdf.php?filename=I1mmm2bl4r4EREhYK63Kv%2B3xxEOnhmxVsqdOANbtTzYgvYRvZXLW0Yb4pzCnZblZ&caseno=BLAPL/1067/2026&cCode=1&cino=ODHC010057542026&state_code=11&appFlag=)

Disclaimer: Curated by HT Syndication.