JOGI NAHAK V/S THE STATE , AIR 1965 SC 106

JOGI NAHAK V/S THE STATE , AIR 1965 SC 106

Facts of the Case

Jogi Nahak was a boy whose age was 15 years was convicted by the session judge of Ganjam Boudh on the grounds of Section 394 IPC and was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for 1 year by an order dated on 7 December 1963. Hence was appealed in the higher court i.e. High Court.

Kumuda was a girl whose age was 4 years and her father’s name was Gourhari Naik. Kumuda was wearing a golden Khasumali (necklace) on her neck and was also wearing two golden ear rings on her ears. The value of all things was Rs.100 at that time.

The girl was found missing from home on the date 13 March 1963.Her father Gourhari Naik searched her daughter everywhere but could not find her. On that date, at around 1 p.m., the pujari of Radhakanto Mohapravu Temple of that village found the girl in an injured condition in the premises of the temple with several injuries on her head and body. The pujari brought the girl to her father and father found that the ornaments were missing. Gourhari and some people went to the temple where they found blood stains on the ground and on a big stone. Also they found some broken bangles in the temple. Raghunath Bastia who was running a threshing floor near the temple informed them that he had seen the accused running away in a suspicious manner. Two people (prosecution witnesses 5 and 6) were deputed to search for the accused. Gourhari went to Purusottampur Police Station with his daughter and registered the F.I.R against an unknown person. In the meantime, P.W. 5 and 6 caught the accused with the gold ornaments while he was running away. The S.I. of police who was present there confiscated the ornaments from the accused and took the accused to the Police Station.

Also after the occurrence of the incident, the Medical Officer of Purusottampur as a doctor examined the girl and found that there were around 11 injuries on her body including lacerated wounds on her fore –head. Further the doctor stated that the injuries were 24 hours old and were caused by some hard and rough substance. But the doctor in defence stated that those injuries can also be caused by a fall. 

Afterwards, police arrested the accused and after the process, he was placed under trial before the Court of Session. The charges which were framed against the accused were Section 394 and Section 397 of Indian Penal Code, but the session judges convicted him only under section 394 of Indian Penal Code and sentenced him for rigorous imprisonment of 1 year.

Jogi Nahak appealed in the High court.

Issues

1. Whether the appellant is liable for both the crimes under Sec. 394 and Sec. 397 of I.P.C.?

2. Whether the appellant is entitled to benefits of the Probation of Offenders Act (Act 20 of 1958)?

Arguments from Appellants

Appellant contended that the sentences provided under the Section 394 is alternative in nature and cannot be said that the offence punishable under the same is punishable for life imprisonment. Also there is no bar for the court to exercise jurisdiction under Section 4 or 6 of The Probations of Offenders Act, 1958.

The offender should be released under Section 4 of The Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 which state that where a person is found guilty of an offence but not punishable with death or life imprisonment, the court may release on the grounds of probation of good conduct under few circumstances.

Also Section 6(1) of The Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 makes an obligation on the court to not to pass a sentence of imprisonment if the offender is under the age of 21 years and the offence committed is punishable with imprisonment but not with life imprisonment.

Prosecution Witnesses of the Case

Main witnesses by which the case was decided.

Judgement

There were various witnesses against the appellant. Kumuda (P.W.2) was the only witness to actual assault. She stated that the accused induced her to accompany him by saying that he will give her Mangoes and took her to the temple and assaulted on her head. Although the judge did not rely upon her evidence, the session judge was satisfied that she was capable of understanding the questions that were asked though she could not quite express herself. 

The judge also took the aspect of the medical officer who examined the girl who stated that the injuries can be caused by a big stone and there was blood stained on that.

Also there were witnesses who caught the accused running away from the temple through the broken portion of the compound wall on the south-east.

Prosecution witnesses 5, 6 and 9 caught the accused red handed and confiscated the gold ornaments from him.

The judge stated that there is no doubt that the accused has committed Robbery of the gold ornaments which belongs to the girl and committing for such offence, he himself is liable under Section 394 of Indian Penal Code as he caused hurt to her.

The Judge further states that the appellants claim under The Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 is not acceptable as the Section 4(1) and 6(1) of the act states that the person found guilty of serious offence could not claim benefits under such acts. There were cases like Emperor vs. Bakhsha (AIR 1934 Lah 131) or Chetti vs. State of Madhya Pradesh (AIR 1959 Madh Pra 291) where the accused was convicted under Section 394 of I.P.C and also the benefits of the Probation of Offenders Act were not given.

The court held that the appellant cannot claim the benefits of the provisions of the Probation of Offenders Act but the accused is the young boy of 15 years and if he stay longer with the criminals then he will only turn him to be a hardened criminal, thus reduced his sentence to the period already undergone and direct that he will be set at liberty forthwith.

References

https://indiankanoon.org

https://www.casemine.com/

This article is written by Akshat Sharma of Department of Law, Prestige Institute of Management and Research, Intern at Legal Vidhiya.

Admin