The High Court
Case Details
THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK CRA No. 149 of 2000 (In the matter of an application under Section 374(2) of Criminal Procedure Code) Krushnapada Sen ……. Appellant -Versus- State of Orissa ……. Respondent For the Appellant : Mr. Tirth Kumar Sahu, Amicus Curiae For the Respondent : Mr. S.J. Mohanty, ASC CORAM: THE HONOURABLE SHRI JUSTICE SIBO SANKAR MISHRA Date of Hearing: 22.07.2025 : Date of Judgment: 25.09.2025 S.S. Mishra, J. The present Criminal Appeal filed by the appellant under Section 374 (2) of Cr.P.C. is directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 30.06.2000 passed by the learned Special Judge, Mayurbhanj, Baripada in T.C. No. 6 of 1999 (G.R. Case No. 399 of 1998), whereby the learned trial Court has convicted the appellant under Section 294 of IPC read with Section 3 (1) (x) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act,
Legal Reasoning
1989. The learned trial court sentenced him to pay a fine of Rs.100/-, in default, to undergo R.I. for 15 days for commission of offence under Section 294 IPC and sentenced him to undergo R.I. for six months and to pay a fine of Rs.100/-, in default, to undergo R.I. for 15 days for commission of offence under Section 3 (1) (x) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. 2.
Legal Reasoning
Heard Mr. Tirth Kumar Sahu, learned Amicus Curiae for the appellant and Mr. S.J. Mohanty, learned counsel for the State. 3. This appeal is pending since 2000. When the matter was called up, none appeared for the appellant consistently. Therefore, on 08.07.2025, Mr. Tirth Kumar Sahu was appointed as Amicus Curiae to assist the Court. 4. Argument was heard on 22.07.2025 and the parties were directed to file their written notes of submission. Pursuant thereto, the written Page 2 of 10 notes of submission has been filed by Mr. Tirth Kumar Sahu, learned Amicus Curiae on 24.07.2025. 5. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 25.04.1998 at about 1.30 P.M. the staff meeting was going on in Rasgovindapur Block Office under the Chairmanship of the informant, Saroj Kumar Sethy, the then Block Development Officer of Rasagovindapur Block. In that meeting, P.Ws.1, 2, 3, 4 and other members of the Block Office staff were present. The accused was working as Stipendary Engineer in Rasagovindapur Block Office and he had also attended the staff meeting. The informant Saroj Kumar Sethy, who presided over the staff meeting is „Dhoba‟ by caste and he is a member of the Scheduled Caste. The accused belongs to General Caste. In course of the staff meeting, the accused abused the informant by saying “SHALA DHOBAR AME KOANA DHARICHHE”. Thereafter, the informant felt humiliated and his prestige was at stake in the meeting. On that day, after the meeting was over, the informant lodged the written report at Rasagovindapur Police Station. Page 3 of 10 6. On the basis of the aforesaid allegations, Rasagovindapur P.S. Case No. 34 dated 25.04.1998 was registered for the offence punishable under Sections 294 of IPC read with Section 3(1) (x) of SC & ST (PoA) Act, 1989. After investigation, charge sheet was filed and then charges were framed against the appellant for the offences as mentioned above and on his stance of denial, he was put to trial. 7. The prosecution in order to bring home the charges, examined as many as six witnesses. The defence examined none and took a stand of complete denial and claimed trial. P.W.5, was the informant; P.Ws. 1, 2, 3 and 4 were the eye witnesses; and P.W.6 was the Investigating Officer of the present case. 8. Taking into consideration the entire evidence on record brought by the prosecution through the six witnesses and other documents, the learned trial court framed two questions for determination:- “(i) Whether the accused uttered obscene words in a public place to the annoyance of informant Saroj Kumar Sethy at the time of occurrence; and Page 4 of 10 (ii) Whether the accused intentionally insulted or intimidated with intent to humiliate informant Saroj Kumar Sethy, a member of the Scheduled Caste within public view at the time of occurrence ?” 9. The learned trial court has relied upon the testimony of P.Ws.1, 2, 3 and 4, those who were the eye witnesses to the occurrence so also the evidence of the informant (P.W.5) and answered the aforementioned two questions in affirmative, which led to the conviction of the appellant for offence under Section 294 of IPC read with Section 3 (1) (x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. 10. The learned Amicus Curiae appearing for the appellant so also the counsel for the State has taken me to the evidence of the witnesses in detail. P.W.5, the informant in his testimony has stated that on 25.04.1998, he was posted as Block Development Officer of Rasgovindapur Block Office. At 11.30 A.M. a staff meeting was conducted in his office. In the said meeting, P.Ws. 1, 2, 3, 4 and others were present. When he invited to highlight the personal grievances of the Page 5 of 10 members present there, the accused stood up and claimed that his T.A. bill has not been paid, despite he worked in the Gram Panchayat Election. On this, P.W.5 stated that his T.A. bill would be looked into by the newly appointed Gram Panchayat Officer. At this, the accused fade up and by aiming his fingers towards P.W.5 told that he borrowed from the washerman (Dhoba) and would not get his T.A. bills. P.W.5 is admittedly belongs to washerman (Dhoba) caste, hence he felt insulted. This witness subjected to very extensive cross examination by the defence but his testimony remained intact without any variation. The said testimony was directly supported by the evidences of P.Ws.1 to 4, those who stated to have participated in the said meeting. All of them in unison have stated that on 25.04.1998 at 11.30 A.M. staff meeting was held and in the said meeting the accused had stated that he had borrowed from the washerman and did not get his dues. The altercation had taken place between the accused and the B.D.O. (P.W.5). All the witnesses have narrated the incident in a parrot like manner. They were although cross-examined, but to no way for the defence. Page 6 of 10 11. In the light of the aforesaid evidences on record, the first question, as framed by the learned trial court, is required to be analyzed. To attract the offence under Section 294 IPC, the following essential ingredients are necessary to be established on record:- (i) Use of obscene words; (ii) In or near a public place; and (iii) To the annoyance of others 12. In the present case, neither the complainant nor any witness has deposed that the appellant used any obscene language, as defined under law to show the conduct of the appellant would come under the mischief of Section 294 IPC. Although it has come on record that the appellant has used the word “Dhobara ame kana dharichu”, the said utterances may be insulting or offensive, but in in no stretch of imagination that could be brought in the category of obscene. Therefore, even if the evidence adduced by the prosecution is taken as it is, no offence under Section 294 of IPC is made out. Accordingly, the finding of the learned trial court regarding the guilt of the appellant and consequently sentencing him for offence under Section 294 IPC is set aside. Page 7 of 10 13. Coming to the second question regarding the offence under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, the evidence of P.W.6 assumes importance. P.W.6 is the Investigating Officer. He has stated that on 25.04.1998 he was posted as Officer-in- Charge of Rasgovindpur Police Station and he received a written report Ext.1 from the B.D.O. (P.W.5) and registered the case. He also stated that the investigation has been carried out by him. He had examined the informant and the witnesses, visited the spot and received the caste certificate of P.W.5 and after completion of the investigation, filed the charge sheet. P.W.6 was a Sub-Inspector of Police and he was the Officer-in-Charge of Rasgovindpur Police Station. 14. Rule-7 of S.C. & S.T. (PoA) Rules, which came into force on 31.03.1995, mandates that any offence committed under the Act needs to be investigated by a police officer not below the rank of a Deputy Superintendent of Police. Violation of such Rule would vitiate the entire proceeding. This position of law has already been settled. The Hon‟ble Supreme Court in State of Madhya Pradesh Vrs. Chunnilal @ Chunnu Lal Damor, reported in (2009) 12 SCC 649, held that where the Page 8 of 10 investigation of a case registered under the S.C. & S.T. (PoA) Act is conducted by an officer below the rank of Dy. Superintendent of Police, the proceedings are vitiated to that extent and cannot be sustained in law. 15. On the sole ground of not complying the statutory safeguard under the Act, while investigating the offence, the second question framed by the learned trial court needs to be answered negatively. Therefore, even if the evidence in the instant case regarding making out a case under Section 3 (1) (x) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 is made out, but due to lack of procedural compliance under Rule-7 of the S.C. & S.T. (PoA) Rules, the appellant is entitled for an acquittal. 16. Accordingly, the judgment dated 30.06.2000 passed by the learned Special Judge, Mayurbhanj, Baripada in T.C. No. 6 of 1999 (G.R. Case No. 399 of 1998), is set aside and the appellant is acquitted of all the charges. The bail bond furnished stands discharged. 17. This Court records the appreciation for the effective and meaningful assistance rendered by Mr. Tirth Kumar Sahu, learned Page 9 of 10 Amicus Curiae. He is entitled to an honorarium of Rs.7,500/- (Rupees seven thousand five hundred) to be paid as token of appreciation. 18. Resultantly, the Criminal Appeal is partly allowed. (S.S. Mishra) Judge The High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Dated the 25th September, 2025/Ashok Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: ASHOK KUMAR JAGADEB MOHAPATRA Designation: Secretary Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa Date: 26-Sep-2025 17:00:06 Page 10 of 10