The High Court
Case Details
THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK CRA No.68 of 2000 (In the matter of an application under Section 374(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973) Chakradhar Chinda and others ……. Appellants -Versus- State of Odisha ……. Respondent For the Appellants : Mr. D. K. Mishra 1, Advocate For the Respondent : Mr. Raj Bhusan Dash, ASC CORAM: THE HONOURABLE SHRI JUSTICE SIBO SANKAR MISHRA Date of Hearing: 05.08.2025 :: Date of Judgment: 09.09.2025 S.S. Mishra, J. The three appellants consolidately preferred this appeal assailing the judgment and order dated 25.02.2000 passed by the learned Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge, B0langir in G.R. Case No.358 of 1998 arising out of T.R. Case No.1 of 1999, whereby the learned trial Court while acquitting the appellants of the charges under Sections 3(1)(x) of SC & ST (PoA) Act read with Section 307/34 of I.P.C., convicted the appellants for the offence punishable under Section 324/34 of I.P.C. The appellants were sentenced to undergo R.I. for four months and to pay a fine of Rs.500/-, in default, to undergo further R.I. for two months on that count. 2.
Legal Reasoning
Heard Mr. D. K. Mishra-1, learned counsel for the appellants and Mr. Raj Bhusan Dash, learned Additional Standing Counsel for the State. 3. When the matter was taken up for hearing on 05.08.2025, it was brought to the notice of the Court that during pendency of the present appeal, the appellant No.1-Chakradhar Chinda and the appellant No.2- Rohit Chinda have expired. Therefore, the present appeal qua the appellant Nos.1 and 2 stood abated in the absence of any application under Section 394 Cr.P.C. by the legal heirs or next friend of the deceased-appellants. Hence, the appeal is considered only in respect of appellant No.3-Harisankar Chinda. 4. The prosecution case in terse and brief is that one Krushna Nag, the injured (P.W.1) had purchased some landed properties from the pre- decessor in interests of the appellants more than forty years back and has Page 2 of 13 been in possession over the same as the owner thereof. It is alleged that on the date of occurrence, i.e. on 23.06.1998 at about 12.30 P.M., while Krushna Nag (P.W.1) was sitting near the shop of one Durjan Seth, the accused persons came there, being armed with axe and iron-rods and assaulted him by means of the said weapons on his head, neck and hand, as a result of which, he sustained severe injuries. On being assaulted, the injured fell down, and the appellants fled away. It is also alleged that they had threatened the injured (P.W.1) to take away his life. Giridhari Nag (P.W.7), the son of the injured saw the occurrence from a distance. After investigation, charge-sheet was filed for the alleged commission of offences punishable under Sections 307/34 of I.P.C. read with Section 3(1)(x) of the SC & ST (PoA) Act. On their stance of denial and claim of trial, they were put to trial, after the charges were framed. 5. The prosecution in order to bring home charges, examined as many as thirteen witnesses. Out of whom, P.W.1 was the injured whereas P.W.2, was the eye-witness to the occurrence and has turned hostile. P.Ws.3, 4 and 6 were the seizure witnesses, who have also not supported the prosecution case. P.W.5 is the wife of the injured and said Page 3 of 13 to be eye-witness to the occurrence. P.W.7 is the informant, who is the son of the injured. P.Ws.8, 9 and 10 were the witnesses to prove the circumstances. P.W.11 was the A.S.I. of Dungripali Out Post and the first Investigating Officer, whereas P.W.12 is the Medical Officer, who examined the injured on police requisition. P.W.13 is the second I.O. of the case. 6. The learned trial Court found the testimonies of the injured witness (P.W.1), his wife (P.W.5), and his son (P.W.7) credible and corroborated by medical evidence and the seizure of bloodstained articles, despite hostile independent witnesses and minor discrepancies in weapon attributions. It concluded that the assault was carried out with dangerous weapons but caused only simple hurt, with no intention to cause death, thus not attracting Section 307 I.P.C. The learned trial Court arrived at a conclusion that the accused persons are not guilty for the offences under Sections 307/34 of I.P.C. read with Section 3(1)(x) of the SC & ST (PoA) Act rather they are held guilty for the offence under Section 324/34 of I.P.C and on that count, sentence has been awarded. Page 4 of 13 The following is the passage of the impugned judgment, which sums up the conclusion is reproduced below:- “Thus, on a scrutiny of the evidence of P.Ws. 5 and 7 find the same credible. Their evidence with regard to the assault on P.W.3 has also been corroborated by medical evidence. The I.O. P.W.11, had seized blood stained earth and sample earth from the spot under seizure list Ext, 1/2, blood stained banian of the injured under seizure list-Ext.2/2 and one axe and two iron rods from the house of the accused persons under seizure list Ext.3/1. Admittedly, the seized materials have not been sent for chemical examination and, therefore, the tangia which has been marked M.O.I and the two 1on-rods which are marked M.Os. II and III, cannot be said to have been stained with blood. The independent turned hostile. witnesses Therefore, the M.Os. I, II and III may not be incriminating, but that by itself will have no adverse impact on the prosecution case, P.W.11 has stated about seizures. P.W.1 has also stated that his banian had been stained with blood from his head injury and the police had seized the same. He has also identified the said banian in Court, which is marked M.O.IV. P. W. 11 has no axe to grind against the accused persons. Having proved the seizure of the blood stained banian of P.W.1, the seizure corroborates the oral evidence about the assault on P. W. 1. to seizure have Independent eye-witnesses namely, P.Ws.2 and 10 have turned hostile but their omission to support the prosecution case does not affect the Page 5 of 13 credibility of P.Ws.1, 5 and 7. On a close scrutiny, I find the evidence of P.Ws.1, 5 and 7 quite clear, cogent and trustworthy. There is also corroborative medical evidence and seizure of the blood stained banian of the injured and blood stained earth from the spot. The conclusion, therefore, deducible is that, all the three accused persons in furtherance of their common intention caused simple hurt to P.W.1 by means of tangia and iron-rods. As revealed from the medical evidence, the blunt side of the tangia was used and all the three accused persons dealt one blow each. From this it is quite clear that the accused persons had no intention to cause the death of P.W.1 or to cause such injury as well as likely to cause death in ordinary course of nature. Simple hurt was caused by means of tangia and iron- rods, which are dangerous weapons. The accused persons, therefore, are liable U/S/ 324/34 I.P.C. and not U/S. 307/34 I.P.C.” 7. Being aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the learned Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge, Bolangir, the present appeal has been preferred by the appellants. 8. Although initially the appellants were charged under Section 307/34 of I.P.C. read with Section 3(1)(x) of the SC & ST (PoA) Act, however, the learned trial Court has acquitted all of them from all charges while finding them guilty for the offence under Section 324/34 Page 6 of 13 of I.P.C. The learned trial Court while recording an acquittal for the offence under Section 3(1)(x) of SC & ST (PoA) Act and Section 307/34 of I.P.C. not only appreciated the evidence in that regard but also relied upon Rule 7 of the SC & ST (PA) Rule, 1995 which came into force on 31.03.1995. The learned trial Court has arrived at a conclusion that in the instant case, the Investigating Officer i.e. P.Ws.11 and 13 were working as A.S.I. and S.I. of Police and they were well below the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police. Hence, the entire investigation is vitiated. Accordingly, the appellants were acquitted from the offence under the 3(1)(x) of SC & ST (PoA) Act. The learned trial Court has concluded inter alia stating as under:- “Further under Rule-7 of the S.C. & S.T. (P.A.) Rules, 1995 investigation into an offence under the S.C. & S.T. (P.A.) Act is to be conducted by the rank of D.S.P. an Officer not below Interpreting the scope and submit of Rule-7, the Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of Ramallinga Reddy @ D. Babu vrs. State of A.P., 1999 (2) Crimes 343), held that investigation of an offence under the S.C. & S.T. (P.A.) Act by an Officer below the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police is illegal, which vitiates the trial of the said offence and, therefore, the accused cannot be instant case, admittedly convicted. the In Page 7 of 13 investigation was conducted by P.Ws.11 and 13, who are respectively A.S.I. and S.I. of Police. There is, therefore, a clear violation of the provision of Rule-7 of the S.C. & S.T. (P.A.) Rules, 1995, Investigation of the offence U/S. 3 (1)(x) of the Act being illegal, the accused persons cannot be held guilty for the same. 10. In the light of the discussions made above, I hold the accused persons not guilty U/S/ 3(1)(x) of the S.C. & S.T. (Prevention of Atrocities) Act and U/S. 307/34 IPC and assault them of the said charges. Instead, the accused persons having been found guilty for an offence punishable U/S. 324/34 I.P.C., I convict them thereunder.” 9. I find no reason to disagree with the conclusion arrived at by the learned trial Court in so far as recording of acquittal in favour of the appellants of the charges under Sections 307/34 of I.P.C. as well as Section 3(1)(x) of SC & ST (PoA) Act. Hence, I need not advert to the evidence in that regard, particularly, the State has not questioned the acquittal. The only question to be decided in this case is; whether from the evidence on record, the offence under Section 324/34 of I.P.C. against the appellants are made out or not. In that regard, the evidence of P.Ws.1, 3, 5, 7 and 11 is relevant. P.W.1 was the injured in the present case, who has narrated the incident by deposing as under:- Page 8 of 13 “xxx xxx…On the date of occurrence at about 12.00 noon my wife and my son Hadu were ploughing the said land. The accused persons came there, unyoked the plough and abused saying “SALA GANDA TAME KAHINIKI AMA JAMIN CHASUCHA”. I was then sitting near the shop of Durjan Seth in order to purchase Bidi as Durjan had gone to his house. The three accused persons then came running towards me. Accused Harisankar was holding a tangia and the other two accused persons were armed with iron rods. They abused me saying “MAA GIHA GANDA TORA BOPAR JAMIN KI HALFANDI ASICHU”. The accused persons then assaulted me by their weapons on my head, neck and hand. I sustained bleeding injuries and fell down and became unconscious.” The said witness (P.W.1) was subjected to extensive cross- examination at the hands of the defence counsel but to no avail. P.W.5, who is the wife of P.W.1 and eye witness to the occurrence has also narrated the incident in the similar way by deposing as under:- “2. The occurrence took place at about noon on a Tuesday, in the month of Jesta about a year back. On the date of occurrence my son Hadu and myself were ploughing our land, which we had purchased since 40 to 50 years. At that time the accused persons came to our land, abused me in filthy languages and also threatened to kill us saying “GANDA KU HANI DEBU’ claiming that the land belongs to them. They were armed with an axe and two iron rods. Then they came towards the village and I followed them. My husband was sitting near the shop of Durjana. The Page 9 of 13 accused persons assaulted my husband by weapons and then ran away. While following the accused persons from my land I saw the assault on my husband from near a date-palm tree. When I came near the spot I found my husband lying unconscious with bleeding injuries.” 10. P.W.7, the son of the injured has also deposed regarding the incident in the similar way by stating as under:- “xxx xxx….At the time of occurrence my father was sitting near a shop. The accused persons came and assaulted him by means of tangia and iron-rod and then ran away. While I was preparing to go to the Police Station for reporting the matter, the A.S.I. of Dunguripali Out Post reached at the spot of occurrence. I reported the matter before him orally which was reduced into writing by him. The contents of the F.I.R. were read over and explained to me and finding the same to be correct I put my L.T.I.” 11. P.W.12, the doctor, who was examined the injured (P.W.1) has found the following injures on the body of the injured, which reads as under:- (1) Lacerated wound on left side of head towards back obliquely placed and of size 2” x 1/3” x 1/2. The injury was simple in nature and possibly caused by blunt impact. Page 10 of 13 (2) Bruise on left side of shoulder of the size 5” x 1” with a haematoma of size of 5” x 6”. The injury was simple in nature, caused by blunt weapon. (3) Bruise on right fore-arm on the outer-side near elbow. The size of the wound was 4” x 3” and it was simple in nature, caused by blunt weapon.” The said witness has, however, deposed that the injuries are simple in nature and caused by blunt weapon. From conjoint reading of all the evidence, this is apparently come on record that the accused persons have used tangia, iron-rod etc. to assault P.W.1, causing various injuries as has been narrated by the doctor (P.W.12). The injuries although was simple but have been caused by deadly weapons. The learned trial Court came to the conclusion that although the appellants have assaulted the P.W.1, however, they had no intention to kill the injured (P.W.1). Therefore, the learned trial Court has rightly acquitted all of them for the offence under Section 307 of I.P.C. and rightly convicted the appellants for the offence under Section 324/34 of I.P.C. The learned trial Court sentenced the appellants to undergo R.I. for four months and to pay a fine of Rs.500/-, in default of payment, they were also sentenced to undergo R.I. for two months. It reveals from the record Page 11 of 13 that the appellants were arrested on 23.06.1998 and were enlarged on bail on 21.07.1998. Therefore, the surviving appellant No.3 has already undergone sentence for about a month. The appellant No.3 was 36 years of age at the time of incident i.e. in the year 2000. 12. Mr. Mishra, learned counsel for the appellants at this stage submitted that by taking into consideration the age of the appellant No.3 and the social status of the appellant No.3 as of today and the fact that he has clean antecedent, the sentence so awarded against the appellant No.3 may be reduced down to the sentence he has already undergone. 13. Regard being had to the fact that the appeal is pending since 2000 and the incident relates back to the year 1998, sending the appellant No.3 back to the custody to serve out the remaining period of sentence would be harsh because the appellant No.3 is at present about in his sixties. He has no criminal antecedents. Over the years, he has led a dignified life, integrated well into society, and is presently leading a settled family life. Incarcerating him after such a long delay, it is argued, would serve little penological purpose and may in fact be counter-productive, casting a needless stigma not only upon him but also upon his family members, Page 12 of 13 especially when there is no suggestion of any repeat violation or ongoing non-compliance with regulatory norms. Therefore, I am of the view that the sentence awarded by the learned Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge, Bolangir is liable to be modified. 14. The prayer made by the appellant deserves merit. Accordingly, while confirming the conviction recorded by the learned trial Court for offence under Section 324/34 of I.P.C., I modify the sentence of four months to that of the period the appellant No.3 has already undergone, however, I enhance the fine amount from that of Rs.500/- to Rs.5,000/- (rupees five thousand) and in the event of default of making payment, the appellant No.3 shall undergo R.I. for fifteen days. The amount to be deposited shall be disbursed to the injured (P.W.1) in accordance with the provision under Section 357 Cr.P.C. 15. Accordingly, the CRA is partly allowed. The High Court of Orissa, Cuttack. Dated the 09th September, 2025/ Swarna (S.S. Mishra) Judge Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SWARNAPRAVA DASH Designation: Senior Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa Date: 15-Sep-2025 13:17:44 Page 13 of 13