The Orissa High Court upheld the conviction of a man under Section 307 IPC for stabbing a woman in 1992, but reduced his sentence to the period already undergone while enhancing the fine from ₹1,000 to ₹20,000.
The Orissa High Court has upheld the conviction of a man under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code for stabbing a woman in 1992. However, it reduced his sentence to the period of imprisonment already undergone.
Justice Sibo Sankar Mishra held that the conviction deserved affirmation. At the same time, the Court modified the sentence due to the long pendency of the appeal and other mitigating circumstances.
The judgment was delivered on April 16, 2026, in Mir Chuna @ Mir Safik v. State of Orissa, CRA No.218 of 1995.
The appellant filed the criminal appeal under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
He challenged the judgment of conviction and sentence dated August 1, 1995, passed by the Assistant Sessions Judge, Kendrapara, in S.T. No.15/276 of 1994.
The Trial Court had convicted him under Section 307 IPC. It sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment for ten years and imposed a fine of ₹1,000. In default of payment, it directed him to undergo a further sentence of six months.
According to the prosecution, the incident took place on February 9, 1992, at about 8 p.m.
The informant was returning home when he saw the accused lifting his daughter, Rosi Bibi, to a nearby place. When the informant protested, the accused pushed him.
Thereafter, the accused gave a knife blow on the victim’s belly. The injury caused her intestine to surge forward.
Her family first shifted her to Kendrapara Hospital. Doctors later referred her to S.C.B. Medical College & Hospital, Cuttack, due to the seriousness of her condition.
The prosecution examined nine witnesses.
P.W.1 was the informant and father of the victim. P.W.4 was Rosi Bibi, the injured victim. P.W.6 was the Investigating Officer. P.W.7 was the doctor who treated the victim at S.C.B. Medical College & Hospital, Cuttack.
Rosi Bibi stated that she worked as a maid servant. She was returning home at night when the accused confronted her while she crossed the road in the basti.
She alleged that the accused dragged her to a lonely place. He then stabbed her on her neck, back and belly.
After the attack, she returned home while pressing her belly, as her intestines were coming out. She then narrated the incident to her family members.
Advocate B.K. Ragada, appearing as Amicus Curiae for the appellant, argued that the prosecution failed to produce the injury report. Advocate Chetana Prakash assisted him.
The appellant submitted that the prosecution did not prove the injuries through adequate oral or documentary evidence. According to him, this defect went to the root of the case.
He argued that the conviction under Section 307 IPC was unsafe. He also pointed to alleged contradictions in the evidence of P.W.4, P.W.1 and other witnesses.
The appellant also challenged the recovery of the weapon. He argued that contradictions and procedural irregularities surrounded the alleged recovery.
Another contention was that the prosecution did not examine any independent witness. This argument rested on the victim’s statement that around 200 to 250 persons had gathered at the spot.
Relying on Raju and another v. State of Uttarakhand, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 622, the appellant submitted that a conviction under Section 307 IPC requires proof of intention along with an overt act.
He argued that the prosecution failed to establish motive or intention in the case.
Justice Mishra noted that some contradictions appeared on record. However, those contradictions were not material enough to discard the evidence of the injured victim.
The Court found that P.W.4 had sustained injuries at the hands of the accused. It also noted that post-occurrence witnesses supported her version.
P.W.1 also supported the prosecution narrative. The High Court therefore declined to interfere with the Trial Court’s finding on conviction.
The High Court also considered the evidence of P.W.7, the doctor.
The doctor stated that P.W.4 was admitted to hospital and underwent surgery. On that basis, the Court held that the injuries were grievous in nature.
Justice Mishra held that non-production of the injury report could not erase the doctor’s evidence. The Court agreed with the Trial Court’s reasoning and found the evidence of P.Ws.1, 3, 4, 6 and 7 cogent, unimpeachable and worthy of reliance.
At the sentencing stage, the Amicus Curiae urged the Court to take a lenient view.
The High Court noted that the Trial Court had imposed ten years’ rigorous imprisonment and a fine of ₹1,000. It also recorded that the appellant had already undergone custody for one year, seven months and five days.
The incident dated back to 1992. At that time, the appellant was around 22 years old. He would now be about 55 years old.
Justice Mishra considered the submission that the appellant had settled with his family. He also noted that the appellant had lived peacefully over the years.
The Court recorded that the appellant had integrated into society and was leading a stable family life.
Sending him back to prison after such a long gap, the Court observed, would have a serious cascading effect on his entire family.
For these reasons, the High Court accepted the plea for leniency while maintaining the conviction under Section 307 IPC.
The Orissa High Court upheld the conviction under Section 307 IPC. However, it modified the sentence to the period already undergone by the appellant.
To balance the scales of justice, the Court enhanced the fine from ₹1,000 to ₹20,000.
The appellant must deposit the enhanced fine within four weeks. If he fails to pay, he shall undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months.
The Court further directed that the fine amount be disbursed to P.W.4 as compensation under Section 357 CrPC.
Accordingly, the criminal appeal was partly allowed.
The Court recorded appreciation for the effective and meaningful assistance rendered by Advocate Bijay Kumar Ragada and Advocate Chetana Prakash as Amicus Curiae.
It directed payment of ₹5,000 each to them as honorarium.
