Orissa High Court Upholds Conviction for Trespass and Outraging Modesty, Reduces Sentence for Octogenarian

Considering the appellant's age and reformed life, the court reduces the sentence to time already served for offenses under Sections 448, 354, and 509 IPC.

In a significant ruling, the Orissa High Court, under the auspices of Justice Sibo Sankar Mishra, has upheld the conviction of G. Krutibasa Patra, also known as Gudla Krutibas Patra, for offenses under the Indian Penal Code (IPC) Sections 448, 354, and 509. This decision stems from a case initiated in 1995, where the appellant was charged with trespass, assault, and outraging the modesty of the informant's wife. However, in light of the appellant's advanced age, lack of criminal history, and demonstrated reformation, the court has reduced his sentence to the period he has already served.

The case, originally tried in the Special Judge's Court at Koraput, Jeypore, resulted in Patra's conviction for entering the informant's residence without consent and misbehaving with the informant's wife. The trial court had initially sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment (R.I.) for two months under Sections 448 and 354, and simple imprisonment (S.I.) for one month under Section 509, with all sentences to run concurrently.

The defense, represented by Mr. Biswa Kumar Mishra, did not contest the conviction but appealed for leniency in sentencing. The defense highlighted Patra's current status as a senior citizen who has maintained a respectable life since the incident, emphasizing the absence of any further criminal allegations.

The court, while affirming the conviction, noted the appellant's age and societal reintegration as compelling reasons to adopt a compassionate approach. Justice Mishra acknowledged that further incarceration would not serve any substantial penological purpose and might unnecessarily stigmatize both the appellant and his family.

This judgment underscores the judiciary's balanced approach, considering both the gravity of the offense and the personal circumstances of the convict. The ruling sends a clear message about the importance of rehabilitation and societal reintegration while maintaining the integrity of legal accountability.

Bottom Line:

Conviction under Sections 448, 354, and 509 IPC affirmed, but sentence reduced considering the appellant's advanced age, lack of criminal antecedents, and reformed life since the incident.

Statutory provision(s): Indian Penal Code, 1860 Sections 448, 354, 509

G. Krutibasa Patra @ Gudla Krutibas Patra v. State of Odisha, (Orissa) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2800494