The High Court
Case Details
THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK CRA No.125 of 2002 (In the matter of an application under Section 374 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973) Subodhini Patel ……. Appellant -Versus- State of Orissa ……. Respondent For the Appellant : Mr. Kamalakanta Sethi, Amicus Curiae For the Respondent : Mr. Raj Bhusan Dash, ASC CORAM: THE HONOURABLE SHRI JUSTICE SIBO SANKAR MISHRA Date of Hearing: 11.11.2025 :: Date of Judgment: 18.11.2025 S.S. Mishra, J. The sole appellant-Subodhini Patel in the present Criminal Appeal has assailed the judgment and order dated 16.04.2002 passed by the learned Judge, Special Court, Sambalpur in T.R. Case No.16 of 2000, whereby the learned trial Court while acquitting the appellant of the offence under Section 3(1)(x) of the SC & ST (PoA) Act and Section 294 of I.P.C., convicted her for the offence under Section 506 of I.P.C. and on that count she was sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default, to undergo S.I. for thirty days. 2. The present appeal has been pending since 2002. When the matter was called for hearing, consistently none appeared for the appellant.
Legal Reasoning
Therefore, this Court requested Mr. Kamalakanta Sethi, learned counsel, who was present in Court to assist the Court as Amicus Curiae. He has readily accepted the same and after obtaining entire record, assisted the Court very effectively. This Court records appreciation for the meaningful assistance rendered by Mr. Sethi. 3. Heard Mr. Kamalakanta Sethi, learned Amicus Curiae for the appellant and Mr. Raj Bhusan Dash, learned Additional Standing Counsel for the State. 4. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 07.03.2000, one Dayasagar Majhi (P.W.5) was guarding the chilli field belonging to the village Gountia, namely Samitartha Patel (P.W.4). At about noon, while Dayasagar was arranging branches tied with ropes along the ridge of the field to prevent goats from entering, the accused noticed his activity and Page 2 of 11 mistakenly believed that he was setting traps to catch fowls. The accused, under that impression, approached Dayasagar and scolded him, alleging that he had caught, killed, and consumed several of her fowls. She further threatened to cut him into pieces, went to her house, brought a Panki (kitchen knife), and chased him with an intention to assault. Fearing for his life, Dayasagar fled to his house and informed his mother, Sobhagini Majhi (P.W.3), about the incident. Sobhagini thereafter came out and confronted the accused, challenging her to see how she would harm her son. The accused then abused Sobhagini in filthy languages as calling her “Randi, Kesbi, Gandimarijhee, Gand Maijhi,” and further threatened to cut Samitartha into pieces, alleging that he was Sobhagini’s paramour. As the accused continued to shout and threatened, Sobhagini returned to her house. On the following day, Sobhagini Majhi lodged a written report (Ext.1) at the police station, on the basis of which the present case was registered. Upon completion of investigation, the Investigating Officer submitted charge-sheet against the accused for commission of the alleged offences punishable under Page 3 of 11 Sections 294/506 of I.P.C. read with Section 3(1)(x) of the SC & ST (PoA) Act. 5. The prosecution in order to bring home charges examined seven witnesses. Out of whom, P.W.5 is the first victim of the occurrence whereas P.W.3 being the mother of P.W.5 was the second victim of the occurrence. P.Ws.1 and 2 were the witnesses to the occurrence but out of them P.W.1 declared hostile as he did not support the prosecution case. P.W.4 was the aforesaid Gountia-Samitartha Patel. P.W.6 was the S.I. of Kuchinda P.S., who had investigated the case and P.W.7 was the D.S.P., who subsequently took charge of the investigation and submitted the charge-sheet. On the stance of complete denial and claim of trial, the appellant was put to trial. 6. Initially the appellant was charged under Sections 294/506 of I.P.C. read with Section 3(1)(x) of the SC & ST (PoA) Act. However, on the appreciation of the evidence on record and taking into account the fact that investigation was not carried out by the officer above the rank of the Deputy Superintendent of Police, the learned trial Court Page 4 of 11 acquitted the appellant of the charges under Section 3(1)(x) of the SC & ST (PoA) Act inter alia recording as under:- “8. It may be noticed that in the reported case even though the investigation of the offence under the Act by the S.I. of Police was held to be illegal and without jurisdiction and the same was directed to be entrusted to a competent officer, yet there is no observation that because of the investigation made by the S. I of Police the entire trial would be vitiated even in respect of the other offences, besides the offence under the Act. Being asked the learned counsel for the defence could not cite any authority to the effect that when an accused is tried for commission of some offences under the Act as also under the Indian Penal Code and the investigation has been conducted by an officer below the rank of a Deputy Superintendent of Police, the entire trial even in respect of the offences under the Penal Code shall stand vitiated. In such event, in my opinion, the investigation being made by an officer in the rank of S.I. of Police who is competent under the Code of Criminal Procedure to investigate into an offence under the Indian Penal Code, the trial in respect of the offences under the Penal Code will not vitiate through the trial in respect of the offence under the Act may vitiate. So the defence contention that the entire trial in this case vitiates, is not acceptable.” Page 5 of 11 7. Similarly, by analyzing the prosecution evidence regarding the alleged commission of offence under Section 294 of I.P.C., the learned trial Court has arrived at the following findings:- “16. Besides the above nature of evidence of the P.Ws., there is complete absence of evidence that any member of the public or even the witnesses themselves were annoyed by the alleged obscene words hurled by the accused. Thus, when the evidence regarding the obscene words allegedly uttered by the accused are so highly discrepant and contradictory with each other as well as with the F.I.R. version and when there is no evidence of annoyance caused to anybody by utterance of such obscene words, the charge under Section 294 I.P.C. can never be said to have been brought home to the accused.” However, the learned trial Court by emphasizing the evidence of P.W.2 and P.W.5 arrived at a conclusion that the prosecution could successfully bring home the charges under Section 506 of I.P.C. and accordingly recorded a conviction against the appellant. The learned trial Court in that regard gave the following findings:- “17. Now remains the charge under Section 506 of the I.P.C. As regards this charge, the evidence of P. W.5 is that the accused alleging that he was killing her fowls, threatened to cut him by 'Panki' and also brought a 'Panki' and chased him, for Page 6 of 11 which he ran to his house and informed his mother. This evidence has been fully corroborated by the eye witness P.W.2 who has stated that the accused alleging against P.W.5 that he was killing her fowl, threatened to cut him into pieces by "Panki' and chased him holding a 'Panki' and P.W.5 then went and informed his mother. There is absolutely no contradiction or discrepancy in the evidence of these two P.Ws. regarding this part of the occurrence. The learned counsel for the defence had contended that P. W.5 has no where stated that he was alarmed by the alleged threatening. Such alarm is not always required or expected to be brought in evidence through the mouth of the witnesses' but it can also be gathered from the circumstances like effect of such threatening on the person concerned by looking at his conduct immediately after the threatening is given. As reveals from the evidence of P.Ws.2 and 5, the accused not only gave verbal threatening but also brought a 'Panki' and chased to assault P.W:5 and hence P. W.5 ran into his house to save himself. The above oral threatening of the accused followed by her physical act of threatening and that too being armed with a sharp cutting weapon were sufficient to cause alarm to P.W.5, a boy of hardly 12 years of age, that, he would be severely injured if he would not run away and in fact being so alarmed he ran into his house and sought for the protection of his mother. Thus, from the evidence of P.Ws.2 and 5 it is established beyond any doubt that the accused committed giving threatening of injury to Dayasagar Majhi with the requisite intention to cause alarm to him and in fact he was so alarmed. So the prosecution has succeeded to bring home his charge to the accused.” intimidation criminal by Page 7 of 11 8. Being aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the learned Judge, Special Court, Sambalpur, the present appeal has been preferred by the appellant. 9. Mr. Sethi, learned Amicus Curiae appearing for the appellant and Mr. Dash, learned Additional Standing Counsel for the State has taken me to the evidence of all the witnesses in extenso. P.W.5 is the victim of this case. He in his examination-in-chief has stated as under:- the chilly “Soubhagini Majhi is my mother. I know the field of accused, I was watching Samitartha. The accused came there and alleged against me that I was killing her fowl. At that time I was repairing the fence of the Bari. She abused me as "GOND GADSUA BAGDHARA", She threatened me to give cut injury by a paniki. She brought a Paniki and chased me, hence I ran to my house and I informed the matter to my mother. Then my mother came to the accused and challenged her as to how she can give cut injury to me. Then the accused abused Soubhagini as "GOND MAIJHI". The said witness (P.W.5) sustained extensive cross-examination but to no avail to the defence. Similarly, the second victim of the occurrence is the mother of P.W.5, who has been examined as P.W.3. She in her evidence has stated as under:- Page 8 of 11 “The occurrence took place about one and half years back at 12 noon in the chilly field. My son had gone to watch the chilly field of Sanitartha Patel. The goats entered inside the Bari hence he drove them out. Then the accused abused my son Dayasagar. My son informed me about the matter when I was at home. I was not present at the spot during the occurrence. Having heard about the occurrence from Dayasagar, I went to the accused and asked her about the matter. Then she abused me as "GHUDA GHEI, RANDI, BHUSUNDI, GANDEN TUI AMKU KANA KARHU, DAK TOR GHAITAKU." Then I came back, Gobind Naik, Prasanna Majhi, Gokul Majhí, Dilip Kharsel were present during the time when the accused abused me.” The evidences of the victims stood corroborated with the evidence of P.W.2, who has stated in his deposition as under:- “…….The occurrence took place about 1 year, 3 months back. Dayasagar was guarding the Chilly field of Gountia. He was obstructing the entry of Goats inside the field. At that time the accused abused Dayasagar, and alleged against him he was killing the fowl and saying so she threatened him to cut into pieces by Panki and chased him holding a Panki. Then he reported the matter to his mother. Thereupon his mother came and asked the accused as to how she would cut Dayasagar and let her in pieces and then the mother of Dayasagar- the accused abused Sobhagini, Rendi, Keshvi, Daichari and also abused her as GAND MAIGHI and alleged that she is the mistress of Samitartha, the Gountia and other filthy Page 9 of 11 languages. Then Sothagini went home. During the occurrence I was present in my threshing-floor and seen and heard the occurrence.” P.W.6 is the Investigating Officer of this case. He in his evidence has stated as under:- “3. I examined Dilip Kharsel(P.W.1). He stated before me that the accused abused Dayasagar, son of Sribatcha and threatened him to cut into pieces and saying so entered inside the house, brought a Panki and chased him and that subsequently the accused abused the mother of Dayasagar as GANDEL MAIGHI. Ext.4 is the statement of the witness recorded by me.” 10. From the analysis of the evidence of the victims as well as the eye witness, it is illuminating on record that the accused-appellant has not only threatened P.W.5 to kill him but also chased him by holding a “paniki” up till his house. Out of fear, P.W.5 ran away from the spot and entered inside his house and informed the incident to his mother (P.W.3). At that point in time, the accused-appellant has again threatened P.W.3 and P.W.5. This part of the evidence is unshaken and liable to be believed. Learned Amicus Curiae although pointed out the contradictions in the evidence of P.Ws.3 and 5 but those contradictions are not so Page 10 of 11 material to ignore the gist of the allegation and narration of the incident by the prosecution witnesses. That being so, the findings recorded by the learned trial Court as reproduced above regarding the charges under Section 506 of I.P.C. cannot be doubted. 11. In the above view of the matter, I am not inclined to interfere with this appeal. Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal stands dismissed and the conviction under Section 506 of I.P.C. stands affirmed and the sentence to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- awarded by the learned trial Court is also confirmed. 12. This Court acknowledges the effective and meaningful assistance rendered by Mr. Kamalakanta Sethi, learned Amicus Curiae in this case. Learned Amicus Curiae is entitled to an honorarium of Rs.7,500/- (Rupees seven thousand five hundred) to be paid as a token of appreciation. (S.S. Mishra) Judge Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SWARNAPRAVA DASH Designation: Senior Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa Date: 20-Nov-2025 10:36:13 The High Court of Orissa, Cuttack. Dated the 18th November, 2025/Swarna Page 11 of 11