The High Court
Case Details
THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK CRLA No. 191 of 2004 (In the matter of an application under Section 374 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973) Pramod Hati ……. Appellant -Versus- State of Orissa ……. Respondent For the Appellant : Mr. D.K. Mishra-1, Advocate For the Respondent : Ms. Sarita Moharana, 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 present Criminal Appeal, is filed by the appellant under Section 374 of the Cr. P.C., assailing the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 15.05.2004 passed by the learned Special Judge, Sonepur in Sessions Case No. 124/19 of 2000, whereby the learned trial Court has convicted the accused-appellant under Section 354 of I.P.C. and sentenced him to undergo R.I. for one year. 2.
Legal Reasoning
Heard Mr. D.K. Mishra-1, learned counsel for the appellant and Ms. Sarita Moharana, learned Addl. Standing Counsel for the State. 3. The prosecution case, tersely stated, is that on 04.04.1997 at about 8.00 A.M. P.W.1, the victim returned back from her paddy field with collected mahua flowers. On the way, the accused approached her willingness for quick sex and on her refusal, he caught her neck and throttled her and pushed her to the ground and seeing arrival of witnesses, ran way. The witnesses found her crying and on their query, she explained as to how the accused misbehaved her. Her brother and father, who had gone to plough the land from which she returned back ahead also reached there and then took her to home. Thereafter, a village meeting was convened which yielded no result. Hence, the FIR was lodged by the brother of the victim, who had expired in the meantime. On the basis of the aforesaid allegation, the F.I.R. was registered and after completion of investigation, charge sheet was submitted against the accused person under Sections 354 of IPC read with Section 3(1) (xi) Page 2 of 9 of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (PoA) Act. Charge was framed against the appellant. On his stance of denial and claim of trial, he was put to trial. 4. The prosecution, in order to bring home the charges, examined as many as eight witnesses. P.W.1 was the victim girl, P.W.2 is the father of the victim girl. PW.3, the witness who reached the spot at the time of occurrence and seeing him the accused ran away leaving the victim girl; P.Ws.4 and 5 were the members of the village panch, wherein the matter was deliberated upon. P.Ws.6, 7 and 8 were the Investigating Officers, who conducted the investigation of the case and submitted the charge sheet. 5. Although the appellant was charged for commission of offence under Section 354 of IPC read with Section 3 (1) (xi) of the S.C. & S.T. (PoA) Act, however, the trial court acquitted the appellant of the offence under Section 3 (1) (xi) of the S.C. & S.T. (PoA) Act on the ground that the Investigating Officers in the present case, i.e., P.Ws.6, 7 and 8 were not the competent officer to conduct the investigation as per Rule-7 of Page 3 of 9 the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Rules, 1995. The learned trial court has also relied upon the judgment of this Court in the case of Maheswar Panda vrs. State of Orissa, reported in 2003 (24) OCR 135 and held that an officer not appointed in terms of the provision of law, who has conducted the investigation, is illegal and invalid. 6. The present case is pertaining to an incident happened on 04.04.1997 and subsequently after investigation, charge sheet was filed in the case in the year 1997. The S.C. & S.T. (PoA) Rules came into force on 31.03.1995. Rule-7 of Rules, 1995 mandate 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. Since admittedly the Investigating Officers are not of the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police, the trial court has rightly acquitted the appellant for the offence under Section 3 (1) (xi) of the S.C. & S.T. (PoA) Act. Hence, this part of the judgment being not challenged by the State, the same is affirmed. Page 4 of 9 7. Coming to the offence under Section 354 of the IPC, the evidence of P.W.1, the victim and P.W.2, the father of the victim is apparently clear. The victim in her evidence has deposed that on the day of the occurrence she had gone to their land to collect mahua flower and while she was returning home, on the way, the accused approached her willingness for quick sex uttering “TIKIA DEBUKI” and on her refusal, the accused caught her by neck and throttled her neck and pushed her to ground. She immediately made hulla and hearing the hulla, her father P.W.2 and brother (the informant who had expired in the meanwhile) rushed there and seeing them the accused ran away. P.W.2, the father of the victim by corroborating the evidence of P.W.1 has stated that in the morning he and his eldest son were ploughing their land while P.W.1, his daughter was collecting mahua flower and finding indication of rain, he asked her daughter to go home and accordingly she returned back and then he and his son unyoked the bullocks and came behind her. Hearing her cry on the mid way, they ran near her and found her crying near Ragudibandha and she complained before them that the accused made indecent proposal to her followed by assault, by catching hold of her by Page 5 of 9 neck and pushing her to the ground. The said version further corroborated from the evidence of P.W.3, the co-villager, who deposed that ,in that morning he had to stop ploughing his land as rain approached and then he returned back home and on the way found P.W.1 crying near Ragudibandha and being asked she complained before him that the accused uttered indecent things to her. These witnesses, i.e., P.Ws.1, 2 and 3 have sustained extensive cross examination by the defence. The substantive part of their version regarding the occurrence has not been shaken. Therefore, I have no hesitation to record that the impugned order passed by the learned trial court is culmination of true appreciation of the evidence which came on record. In that view of the matter, the conviction recorded by the learned trial court for the offence under Section 354 of IPC stands affirmed. 8. At this stage, Mr. D.K. Mishra-1, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that at the time of the incident the appellant was of twenty-five years and at present he is in his early fifties and he has a clean antecedent and now leading a happy life with his family. Therefore, sentencing him Page 6 of 9 to custody at the belated stage to serve out the remaining sentence awarded would be harsh. He further submitted that the appellant was arrested on 07.04.1997 and remained in custody for some time. Therefore, it is submitted that in the fact scenario of the present case, due to long pendency of the criminal proceeding against the appellant, the appellant may be treated under the Probation of Offenders Act. 9. Taking into consideration the fact that the appellant was only twenty-five years at the time of incident in the year 1997 and the fact that he has a clean antecedent, I am of the considered view that the submission made by learned counsel for the appellant deserves merit. The appellant was convicted vide judgment and order dated 15.05.2004 and the appeal is pending since 2004. Much has changed in the life of the appellant in between and he has already settled in his life. The appellant has undergone the ordeal of prolonged trial and pendency of appeal for about two decades. 10. In the prevailing scenario, regard being had to the age of the appellant and his clean antecedents and the fact that the incident relates Page 7 of 9 back to the year 1997, I am of the considered view that the appellant is entitled to the benefit of the Probation of Offenders Act read with Section 360 of Cr.P.C. The case of the appellant is also covered by the ratio of the judgment of this Court in the case of Pathani Parida & another vs. Abhaya Kumar Jagdevmohapatra1 and Dhani @ Dhaneswar Sahu vs. State of Orissa2. 11. In such view of the matter, the present Criminal Appeal in so far as the conviction is concerned is turned down. But instead of sentencing the appellant to suffer imprisonment, this Court directs the appellant to be released under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act for a period of one year on his executing bond of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand) within one month with one surety for the like amount to appear and receive the sentence when called upon during such period and in the meantime, the appellant shall keep peace and good behavior and he shall remain under the supervision of the concerned Probation Officer during the aforementioned period of one year. The appellant is 1 2012 (Supp-II) OLR 469 2 2007 (Supp.II) OLR 250 Page 8 of 9 directed to appear before the learned trial court to furnish the bail bond, as mentioned above. 12. Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal is partly allowed. (S.S. Mishra) Judge The High Court of Orissa, Cuttack. Dated the 09th September, 2025/ Ashok Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: ASHOK KUMAR JAGADEB MOHAPATRA Designation: Secretary Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa Date: 12-Sep-2025 10:48:01 Page 9 of 9