The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK CRA No.219 of 1996 (In the matter of an application under Section 374(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973) Rama Hari Sahu ……. Appellant State of Orissa ……. Respondent -Versus- For the Appellant : Mr. Sudipto Panda, Amicus Curiae For the Respondent : Mr. Ashok Kumar Apat, AGA CORAM: THE HONOURABLE SHRI JUSTICE SIBO SANKAR MISHRA Date of Hearing: 12.08.2025 :: Date of Judgment: 09.09.2025 S.S. Mishra, J. The present criminal appeal is directed against the judgment dated 03.08.1996 passed by the learned Special Judge, Koraput, Jeypore in T.R. Case No. 23 of 1994, whereby the appellant has been convicted under Section 341 IPC and Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and sentenced him to pay a fine of Rs.100/- in default to undergo simple imprisonment for seven days for the offence under Section 341 IPC, and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and pay a fine of Rs.200/- in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for fifteen days for the offence under Section 3(1)(x) of the said Act.
Legal Reasoning
caste-based utterances were not squarely put to him. It is well settled that failure to put all incriminating circumstances to the accused causes prejudice and renders such material unusable against him. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sujit Biswas vs. State of Assam, reported in (2013) 12 SCC 406, held thus:- “20. It is a settled legal proposition that in a criminal trial, the purpose of examining the accused person under Section 313 CrPC, is to meet the requirement of the principles of natural justice i.e. audi alteram partem. This means that the accused may be asked to furnish some explanation as regards the incriminating circumstances associated with him, and the court must take note of such explanation. In a case of circumstantial evidence, the same is essential to decide whether or not the chain of circumstances is complete. No matter how weak the evidence of the prosecution may be, it is the duty of the court to examine the accused, and to seek his explanation as regards the incriminating material that has surfaced against him. The circumstances which are not put to the accused in his examination under Section 313 CrPC, cannot be used against him and must be excluded from consideration. The said statement cannot be treated as evidence within the meaning of Section 3 of the Evidence Act, Page 6 of 9 as the accused cannot be cross-examined with reference to such statement.” 9. Another important aspect is the proof of caste of the informant. While P.W.6 has stated that he belongs to Kandara caste, which is a Scheduled Caste, no caste certificate or documentary proof has been placed on record. The prosecution has also not examined any official witness to establish his caste status beyond doubt. In an offence under Section 3(1)(x) of the SC & ST Act, strict proof of the caste of the victim is mandatory, and oral assertion is insufficient in the absence of corroboration. 10. In light of the above, this Court is not satisfied that the essential ingredients of the offence under Section 3(1)(x) of the SC & ST Act have been proved beyond all reasonable doubts. The conviction of the appellant under the said provision cannot be sustained and is accordingly set aside. 11. Coming to the charge under Section 341 IPC, the evidence of P.W.6, corroborated by P.Ws.3 and 7, clearly indicates that the appellant obstructed the informant on the road by stopping his motorbike in front Page 7 of 9 of him, thereby preventing him from proceeding further. This constitutes wrongful restraint within the meaning of Section 341 IPC. To that extent, the conviction is well founded. 12. On the question of sentence, it is urged that the appellant is aged about 75 years, has already undergone custody for about one month, and has suffered the ordeal of criminal proceedings since 1992. He was about 46 years old at the time of the occurrence and is now more than 75 years old. Considering his advanced age, the trivial nature of the offence under Section 341 IPC, and the period already undergone, this Court is of the view that further incarceration would serve no purpose. 13. Accordingly, as mentioned in the preceding paragraph, the conviction and sentence of the appellant under Section 3(1)(x) of the SC & ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 are set aside, and he is acquitted of the said charge. However, the conviction of the appellant under Section 341 IPC is maintained. Considering his age and the period of custody already undergone, the sentence under Section 341 IPC is reduced to the period the appellant has already undergone. Page 8 of 9 14. This Court records appreciation for the effective and meaningful assistance rendered by Mr. Sudipto Panda, learned Amicus Curiae. He is entitled to the honourarium of Rs.7,500/- (Rupees seven thousand five hundred) as a token of appreciation. 15. The Criminal Appeal is partly allowed. (S.S. Mishra) Judge The High Court of Orissa, Cuttack. Dated the 9th Day of September, 2025/ Subhasis Mohanty Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SUBHASIS MOHANTY Designation: Personal Assistant Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack. Date: 12-Sep-2025 15:56:55 Page 9 of 9
Arguments
2. Mr. Sudipto Panda, learned counsel, states he lacks power and adequate papers for this case. He further submitted that the case file belongs to his late senior Brahmananda Panda. Nonetheless, he is willing to argue as Amicus Curiae to assist the Court on the request of the Court. 3. Heard Mr. Sudipto Panda, learned Amicus Curiae, for the appellant and Mr. Ashok Kumar Apat, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State. 4. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 14.02.1992 at about 9:00 A.M., the informant, P.W.6, Arjuna Mallik, a Junior Engineer of Kudumulugumma Panchayat Samiti belonging to Scheduled Caste (Kandara), was returning from the market when, at P.W.D. Road Page 2 of 9 Chhaka, the appellant, a member of the general caste, arrived on a motorbike, stopped in front of him and shouted abusive words referring to his caste, threatened that he had damaged his reputation, distributed pamphlets against him, and warned him to leave the place or else he would be killed. It is alleged that many persons were present and heard the abuse. The informant lodged a written report, leading to registration of the case and subsequent investigation. 5. The appellant’s defence was one of complete denial and false implication, alleging that due to his disputes with other contractors and opposition to illegal acts, he was victimised by the informant. He claimed that on the relevant day he had merely asked the informant to process a file relating to a work order, and no such caste-based abuse was ever uttered. 6. The prosecution examined nine witnesses, including the informant (P.W.6), eyewitnesses P.W.3 and P.W.7, and P.Ws.5 and 9 are the Investigating Officers. The defence examined none. The learned Special Judge, on appreciation of evidence, found the testimony of P.W.6 fully Page 3 of 9 corroborated by P.Ws.3 and 7, and held the occurrence proved beyond reasonable doubt. Accordingly, conviction and sentence as above were imposed. The relevant portion of the aforesaid judgment is extracted herein below:- “10. P.W.6, the informant, has vividly narrated about the incident of that date and also of previous dates. He has also filed the pamphlet marked 'x' which had been distributed making allegations against him and on that day the accused also abused him telling that he damaged his reputation and distributed pamphlets against him. P.Ws 3 and 7 have admitted this fact. P.W.6 states that he is a Kandara belonging to Scheduled Caste. No denial suggestion has been given to him that he is not a member of Scheduled Caste. He states that the accused abused him 'Kandara Magyan" and shouted at him to seek a transfer and leave that place or else he would murder him. This has also been stated by P.Ws 3 and 7. The occurrence took place on a public road and this has been heard by many persons. P.W.6 felt humiliated and insulted. The evidence of P.W.6 regarding the occurrence of 14.2.92 gets full corroboration from P.Ws 3 and 7. There is no material contradiction in their evidence. Both of them are local persons and I find nothing on record to disbelieve their version on any ground. So taking into consideration the evidence of these three witnesses, I am satisfied that the prosecution has proved its case and the accused is liable under section 341 I.P.C. and section 3(1)(x) of the S.C.& S.T. Act.” Page 4 of 9 7. Mr. Panda, learned Amicus Curiae for the appellant contended, at the threshold, that the investigation in the present case stands vitiated for non-compliance of Rule 7(1) of the SC and ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Rules, 1995, since the investigation was carried out by an officer below the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police. It is urged that Rule 7(1) specifically mandates that only an officer of the rank of DSP or above, duly appointed by the State Government or competent authority, is authorised to investigate offences under the Act, and any investigation by a lower rank officer would nullify the entire proceedings. This argument, however, cannot be accepted for the reason that the alleged occurrence took place on 14.02.1992, charge-sheet was submitted in the year 1994, and the Rules of 1995 came into force thereafter on 31.03.1995. Procedural rules ordinarily do not operate retrospectively to nullify investigations already concluded. Hence, the contention of the learned counsel, though attractive, cannot be accepted in the present case. Page 5 of 9 8. On careful scrutiny of the record, it also appears that all the incriminating circumstances forming the basis of conviction have not been properly put to the accused in his examination under Section 313 Cr.P.C. The statement recorded under Section 313 shows a general denial, but specific questions regarding the distribution of pamphlets and