Orissa High Court Modifies Sentencing Order
The Orissa High Court has held that Concurrent sentences same transaction is the normal rule when an accused is convicted of multiple offences arising from a single incident. The Court observed that sentencing must follow reformative principles and consider mitigating circumstances. It modified the sentencing orders passed by the Trial Court and the Appellate Court, directed the sentences to run concurrently, and granted the petitioner the benefit of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958.
Justice V. Narasingh delivered the judgment on 30 June 2026 in CRLREV No. 305 of 2026, Ramesh Chandra Behera v. State of Orissa. The revision petition challenged the appellate judgment dated 20 March 2026 passed by the District & Sessions Judge, Kandhamal, Phulbani. Mr. A.K. Sahoo represented the petitioner, while Mr. C.R. Swain, Additional Government Advocate, appeared for the State.
Background of the Case
The prosecution alleged that on 17 March 2023, the petitioner trespassed into the victim’s house while she was alone and attempted to rape her. When the victim raised an alarm, her son intervened. The petitioner allegedly assaulted both of them with a crowbar and had earlier threatened to kill the victim. Police registered FIR No. 76 of 2023 at Phulbani Town Police Station. After completing the investigation, they filed a charge sheet under Sections 451, 341, 323, 354, and 506 of the Indian Penal Code.
After the trial in C.T. Case No. 171 of 2023 (T.R. No. 5 of 2024), the Trial Court convicted the petitioner under Sections 451 and 323 IPC. It sentenced him to one year’s simple imprisonment and a fine of ₹1,000 under Section 451 IPC. It also imposed six months’ simple imprisonment under Section 323 IPC. The Trial Court ordered both sentences to run consecutively.
The Appellate Court upheld the conviction. It reduced the sentence under Section 451 IPC to six months’ simple imprisonment but retained the direction that both sentences should run consecutively. It also refused to extend the benefit of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958.
Submissions Before the Court
The petitioner’s counsel raised a limited challenge to the appreciation of evidence. He mainly sought the benefit of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958. The State opposed any interference with the conviction. However, it submitted that the Court could consider probation in light of the facts of the case.
Court Upholds Conviction but Modifies Sentencing
The High Court found no error in the appreciation of evidence and upheld the conviction. However, Justice Narasingh found it “indeed baffling” that both the Trial Court and the Appellate Court directed consecutive sentences even though the offences arose from the same transaction.
The Court examined Section 31 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, which corresponds to Section 25 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. It relied on the Supreme Court’s Larger Bench decision in O.M. Cherian alias Thankachan v. State of Kerala, which confirmed that courts have the discretion to order concurrent or consecutive sentences depending on the facts of each case.
The Court also relied on Mohd. Akhtar Hussain v. Collector of Customs, where the Supreme Court held that Concurrent sentences same transaction generally applies when a single transaction gives rise to multiple offences. It further referred to Nagaraja Rao v. CBI, Mohammad Giasuddin v. State of Andhra Pradesh, Neera Yadav v. Central Bureau of Investigation, and Sunil Kumar v. State of Uttar Pradesh. These decisions emphasise that courts should consider mitigating circumstances and adopt a reformative approach while imposing sentences. Quoting Justice V.R. Krishna Iyer in Mohammad Giasuddin, the High Court reiterated that modern sentencing should prioritise rehabilitation over harsh punishment.
Benefit of Probation Extended
The Court also examined Section 235(2) CrPC, which corresponds to Section 258(2) BNSS. It observed that courts must not impose sentences mechanically. Instead, they should consider the circumstances of the offence and all relevant mitigating factors.
Relying on the Supreme Court’s decision in Chellammal v. State represented by the Inspector of Police, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 870, the Court held that the petitioner qualified for the benefit of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958. The punishment imposed did not attract the disqualifications under Section 4(1) of the Act. The Court also observed that trial courts must record reasons whenever they decline to grant the benefit of probation.
Final Directions
The High Court partly allowed the revision petition. It directed that the substantive sentences under Sections 451 and 323 IPC run concurrently instead of consecutively. The Court also set aside the fine of ₹1,000 and treated it as compensation under Section 5 of the Probation of Offenders Act.
The Court ordered the petitioner’s release on probation under Section 4 of the Act, subject to conditions fixed by the Trial Court. It directed the petitioner to deposit the compensation amount within six months. If he fails to do so, the authorities may recover the amount under Section 5 of the Probation of Offenders Act and the relevant provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The Court then disposed of the criminal revision.
