The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK CRA No.210 of 1998 (In the matter of an application under Section 374(2) read with Section 382 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973) Karunakar Behera ……. Appellant -Versus- State of Orissa ……. Respondent For the Appellant : Mr. Anshuman Ray, Advocate For the Respondent : Mr. Sarathi Jyoti Mohanty, Additional Standing Counsel CORAM: THE HONOURABLE SHRI JUSTICE SIBO SANKAR MISHRA Date of Hearing: 12.08.2025 :: Date of Judgment: 19.08.2025 S.S. Mishra, J. The present criminal appeal is directed against the judgment dated 25th August, 1998 passed by the learned Special Judge, Balasore in Special Case No. 42 of 1995 convicting the appellant under Section 3(1)(xi) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short “the SC/ST Act”) and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 200/-, in default to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for fifteen days. The learned trial court acquitted the appellant of the charges under Sections 341, 294 and 506 of the IPC. 2.
Legal Reasoning
Heard Mr. Anshuman Ray, learned Advocate, for the appellant and Mr. Sarathi Jyoti Mohanty, learned Additional Standing Counsel for the State. 3. The prosecution case, in brief, is that the appellant was running a grocery shop in village Sibapura within Khantapada Police Station limits. It is alleged that the victim, P.W.2, a woman belonging to the Kandara community (a Scheduled Caste), had purchased grocery items from the appellant on credit. On 11.06.1995 (Sunday), the appellant went to her house to demand payment of the outstanding dues. Upon her request for time, the appellant allegedly abused her in caste-related derogatory terms (“Sali, Kanduruni”), caught hold of her hair, dragged her, threw her onto his bicycle, and dealt her two to three blows with a stick. 4. The FIR was lodged by P.W.2, leading to registration of Khantapada P.S. Case No. 61 of 1995 under Sections 448, 341, 294, 323, 506 IPC read with Section 34 IPC and Section 3 of the SC/ST Act. On Page 2 of 7 completion of investigation, the appellant alone was sent up for trial for offences under Sections 341, 294, 506 IPC and Section 3(1)(xi) of the SC/ST Act. 5. The defence plea was one of denial, alleging false implication due to prior enmity. It was suggested that a village dispute had arisen when the son of P.W.2 allegedly eloped with a girl from the Oilman community, resulting in a grudge against the appellant. It was further suggested that P.W.2 was a habitual debtor in his shop and had foisted the case when pressed for payment. Two defence witnesses were examined to support this version. 6. The prosecution examined six witnesses, including the informant as P.W.2, two claimed eyewitnesses (P.W.1 and P.W.5), and police officials (P.Ws.3, 4 and 6). The trial court, on appreciation of evidence, acquitted the appellant under Sections 341, 294 and 506 IPC, holding that the essential ingredients of those offences were not established beyond all reasonable doubt. However, it convicted the appellant under Section 3(1)(xi) of the SC/ST Act, finding that the evidence of P.Ws.1, 2 Page 3 of 7 and 5 was consistent regarding the assault and caste-related insult. The relevant portion of the aforesaid judgment is extracted herein below:- “17. Coming to the allegation under section 3(1)(xi) of S.C. & S.T. (Prevention of Atrocities)Act, it needs mention that P.Ws.1, 2 and 5 make emphatic and consistent statements that the accused caught the hair of P.W.2, dragged her out and threw her on his cycle; at the same time, abusing her saying "Sali Kanduruni". The abuse coupled with his action amply reveals that the accused had an intention to dishonour and so also to outrage the modesty of P.W.2, a Woman. It is evident from the statement of these witnesses including those of D.Ws. 1 and 2 that the accused is oil-man by caste; as such, a non- scheduled caste and non-scheduled tribe person. P.W.2 makes unassailed and unchallenged statement that she is Kandara, a scheduled caste person. So, the evidence on record amply establishes that the accused used force, so also assaulted P.W.2, a scheduled caste woman with intent to dishonour her and also to outrage her modesty. Hence, the act of the accused squarely falls within the ambit of section 3 (1) (xi) of S.C. & S.T. (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.” 7. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and upon careful scrutiny of the evidence on record, it is clear that the conviction of the appellant under Section 3(1)(xi) of the SC/ST Act is primarily based on the testimony of P.Ws.1, 2 and 5, who have stated that the appellant demanded money from P.W.2, abused her in caste-related derogatory terms, caught her hair, dragged her, and threw her onto his bicycle. Page 4 of 7 While the learned trial court acquitted the appellant under Sections 341, 294 and 506 IPC for want of proof of essential ingredients, it accepted these witnesses’ accounts as sufficient to sustain a conviction under the SC/ST Act. 8. However, a perusal of the trial court record reveals that the investigation in the present case was not conducted in compliance with Rule 7(1) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Rules, 1995. This provision mandates that an offence under the Act shall be investigated by a police officer not below the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police, appointed by the competent authority after considering his experience and ability to deal with such sensitive matters. The Investigating Officer in the instant case was below the rank of DSP, and there is no material to show that any superior officer took over the investigation or otherwise cured the defect. 9. The criminal law was put in motion against the appellant on the incident dated 11.06.1995. After investigation, charge-sheet in the present case was filed on 11.01.1996. The I.O. of the case, i.e. P.W.6, being an A.S.I. was not an Officer of the rank of D.S.P. The SC & ST Page 5 of 7 (Prevention of Atrocities) Rules, 1995 came into force on 31.03.1995 mandating the prosecution to get every offence investigated under the Act by an Officer not below the rank of D.S.P. On record, it is clear that the I.O. i.e. P.W.6, being not an Officer of the rank of D.S.P. has filed the charge sheet after 31.03.1995, the investigation is vitiated. Accordingly, due to want of statutory non-compliance of the procedure, the appellant is entitled to acquittal. 10. Once the conviction under Section 3(1)(xi) of the SC/ST Act is rendered unsustainable for this procedural illegality, the Court must examine whether the facts proved attract any other offence under the IPC. The trial court has already recorded a finding of acquittal in respect of Sections 341, 294 and 506 IPC, noting the absence of the requisite elements of wrongful restraint, utterance of obscene words in a public place, and criminal intimidation. There is no charge for voluntarily causing hurt under Section 323 IPC, and there is no medical evidence to prove injury. 11. In addition, the defence version that the appellant was falsely implicated due to previous enmity, arising from an alleged elopement Page 6 of 7 incident involving the son of P.W.2, cannot be entirely brushed aside. The omission of the names of P.Ws.1 and 5 from the FIR, coupled with contradictions in P.W.2’s testimony, introduces doubt about the veracity of the prosecution case. 12. Accordingly, the conviction and sentence of the appellant under Section 3(1)(xi) of the S.C. & S.T. Act cannot be sustained and are liable to be set aside. The appellant is acquitted of all charges. Bail Bond furnished by appellant stands discharged. 13. The Criminal Appeal is allowed. (S.S. Mishra) Judge The High Court of Orissa, Cuttack. Dated the 19th August, 2025/ Subhasis Mohanty Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SUBHASIS MOHANTY Designation: Personal Assistant Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack. Date: 20-Aug-2025 18:18:01 Page 7 of 7