The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK CRA No.390 of 1992 In the matter of an Appeal under Section 374 and 382 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and from the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 7th November, 1992 passed by the learned Sessions Judge-Cum-Special Judge, Balangir in Sessions Case No.50 of 1992. …. Appellants ---- 1. Rudranarayan Singh Samant; 2. Laxman Panda; 3. Bideshi Behera; 4. Rabindra Sahu; and 5. Lakhindra Sethi -versus- State of Orissa …. Respondent Appeared in this case by Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual/Physical Mode): For Appellants -
Legal Reasoning
Mr.N.C. Patnaik & R. Sahoo (Advocates) For Respondent - Mr.P.K. Mohanty Additional Standing Counsel CORAM MR. JUSTICE D.DASH Date of Hearing : 21.06.2024 : Date of Judgment : 01.07.2024 D.Dash,J. The Appellants, by filing this Appeal, have called in question the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 7th November, 1992 passed by the learned Sessions Judge-Cum- CRA No.390 of 1992 Page 1 of 5 Special Judge, Balangir in Sessions Case No.50 of 1992 arising out of G.R. Case No.78 of 1991 on the file of the learned Sub- Divisional Judicial Magistrate (S.D.J.M.), Biramaharajpur. By the impugned the judgment of conviction and order of sentence, the Appellants (accused persons), namely, Rudranaraya, Laxman and Rabindra have been convicted for commission of the offence under section 3(1)(v) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short, ‘the SC & ST (POA) Act’). Accordingly, they have been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six (6) months for commission of the the said offence, accused persons, namely, Bideshi and Lakhindra have been convicted for commission of the offence under section 4 of the Protection of Civil Rights Act, 1956 (for short, ‘the PCR Act’) and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six (6) months for commission of the said offence. 2. Prosecution case is that a tube-well used by the general public is situated by the side of the village school of Doleswar. Some of the members of the Harijan Basti used the said tube-well and, therefore, these accused persons, who are caste Hindus, took exception to the same and they, having held meeting, imposed fine on them which was paid by the members of Scheduled Caste of the said village. It is further stated that those members of the Scheduled Caste of the village have been socially boycotted for CRA No.390 of 1992 Page 2 of 5 which they have been deprived of purchasing goods from the village shop, cross the river by ferry ghats and so on. They were made outcaste by the accused persons. 3. Learned counsel for the Appellants submitted that the charge framed for commencement of the Trial, being wholly defective, which is not at all curable and thus the accused persons, having been highly prejudiced, the outcome of the trial resulting the conviction of the accused persons for the above offences cannot be sustained. 4. Learned Additional Standing Counsel for the Respondent- State, refuting the submission of the learned counsel for the Appellants, invited the attention of this Court to the charge framed against three accused persons, namely, Rudranarayan, Laxman and Rabindra for the offence under the SC and ST Act and against all the accused persons for the offence under the PCR Act and submitted that the same does not carry any such illegality or infirmity so as to cause prejudice to the accused persons in the Trial. 5. Keeping in view the submissions made, I have carefully read the impugned judgment of conviction as also the relevant orders. 6. The Trial Court has framed the charge against accused Rudranarayan, Laxman and Rabindra for commission of the Page 3 of 5 CRA No.390 of 1992 offence under section 3(1) of the SC & ST (PAO) Act. In fact section 3 of the said Act being read, it is seen that the same contains two sub-sections. When sub-section (1) contains clauses (a) to (ja) with the explanations to clause (g), sub-clause (2) of clause (l)(w) and (Ja), the charge framed simply refers to section 3(1) of the SC and ST Act and it has not been indicated as to which of the particular clause or sub-clause of the clause contained in sub-section (1) of section-3 is the offence that the accused persons are said to have been committed and the Trial thus commenced against them for commission of the said offence. Therefore, in my considered view, the charge framed, as above, is highly misleading/confusing and the said defect is not a curable one to be ignored. For that reason, the prejudice is writ large as the accused persons can be said to have been prejudiced in their defence being in a quandary to know as to what are the ingredients and attract said offence for being defended. Same is the position in respect of the charge under the PCR Act. Section 4 of the Civil Rights Act contains eleven (11) clauses and each clause takes care of one such factual situation and the disability, which is enforced against any person on the ground of untouchability. The charge framed here simply refers to section 4 of the PCR Act, which makes no meaning as it does not invite the attention of the accused persons to any of such clauses for having CRA No.390 of 1992 Page 4 of 5 been enforced as a disability against those victims on the ground of untouchability. The above defect is also uncurable. 7. For all the aforesaid discussion, the judgment of conviction and order of sentence impugned in this Appeal cannot be sustained.. Since in the given case, it is found that the offence, being said to have been committed on 25.07.1991, the trial stood concluded on 07.11.1992 and as by now, there has been lapse of 33 years, accordingly, in my considered opinion; it would not serve the interest of justice, after this distance of time to pass an order for retrial in meeting its end. 8. In the result, the Appeal stands allowed. the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 7th November, 1992 passed by the learned Sessions Judge-Cum-Special Judge, Balangir in Sessions Case No.50 of 1992, are hereby set aside. (D. Dash), Judge. Basu Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BASUDEV NAYAK Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA : CUTTACK Date: 04-Jul-2024 14:56:15 CRA No.390 of 1992 Page 5 of 5