The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK CRA No.246 of 1994 Sathiram Naik and Others … Appellants Mr. B.K. Mishra, Advocate -versus- State of Orissa … Respondent Mr. S.S. Pradhan, AGA CORAM: JUSTICE G. SATAPATHY JUDGMENT 19.07.2023 G. Satapathy, J. 1. This appeal challenges the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed on 14.07.1994 by the learned Special Judge-cum- Sessions Judge, Koraput, At-Jeypore in Sessions Case No.231 of 1993 convicting the appellants for offence punishable under Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (in short ‘the Act’) with the aid of Section 34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short the ‘IPC’) and sentencing each of the appellants to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment (RI) for six months and to pay a fine of Rs.50/- (Rupees Fifty) in default whereof to under RI for five days more. 2. The prosecution case in brief was on 14.10.1992 at about 11.15 to 11.30 A.M. while CRA No.246 of 1994 Page 1 of 6 Jaganath Soren (PW1) was in the room of the BDO, appellant No.1(A1) Sathiram Naik @ Bulu Gouda entered into the said room and abused PW1 by uttering “Tu Desia Kandha Adibasi” and other abusive words, to which PW1 felt insulted and humiliated and came out of the room. It was the further case of the prosecution, appellant No.2(A2) Akshya Kumar Naik @ Tulu Gouda and appellant No.3(A3) Purna Chandra Sahu were present at the door step of the room and verandah attached to it respectively and A1 pushed PW1 against the pillar of the verandah and A2 and A3 threatened him. 3. On
Legal Reasoning
the FIR of PW1, PW8 registered Boipariguda P.S. Case No.84 of 1992 and took up the investigation of the case in the course of which, he examined the witnesses, visited the spot and ascertained the caste of PW1 and that of appellants and placed a charge-sheet against the appellants resulting in trial in the present case. 4. In support of its case, the prosecution had examined altogether 8 witnesses and relied upon only on the FIR(Ext.1) as against no evidence whatsoever by the defence, who took the plea of false implication and innocent of the charge. Besides, A1 also had taken the plea of previous grudge for getting PW1 transferred, whereas A2 and A3 had taken the plea of alibi. CRA No.246 of 1994 Page 2 of 6 5. After appreciating the evidence upon hearing of the parties, the learned trial Court by the impugned judgment convicted the appellants for offence under Section 3(1)(x) of the Act and sentenced them to the punishment indicated supra, while acquitting them for offence under Sections 323/34 of IPC. The learned trial Court has convicted the appellants by mainly relying upon the evidence of PW1 and PW2, but as per the prosecution case PW2 was not an eye witness to the occurrence. 6. The testimony of PW1 transpired that he belonged to Santala by caste and a member of Scheduled Tribe and the occurrence took place in the chamber of BDO in presence of ABDO and the Chairman of the Block. The testimony of PW1 further transpired that A1 abused him in obscene language by saying “Tu Desia Kandha Adibasi Magyan, kuadu Ashi Amaku Gandi Maruchhu Ki, Tu Jemiti Ashithilu Semiti Tini Dina Bhitare Chali Ja, Na Hele Tote Jibanare Mari Debu” and hearing this, he felt bad and came out of the room. The testimony of PW1 did not transpire that either A2 or A3 had abused PW1 by uttering the name of his caste and no overt act had been attributed against A3, whereas A2 was alleged by PW1 to have pushed him on his back to the pillar of the verandah attached to the room. A close scrutiny of the evidence of PW1, it goes without CRA No.246 of 1994 Page 3 of 6 saying that only BDO, ABDO and the Chairman of the Block were present inside the room at the relevant time of occurrence, but BDO, ABDO and the Chairman of the Block being examined as PWs.4, 3 and 7 had not whispered a single word against any of the appellants, rather their evidence transpired that A2 forced PW1 to change his joining date and, thereafter, threatened him. On the other hand, PW2 being the wife of PW1 had stated in her evidence that she found A1 abusing her husband by uttering the word “Adibasi Kandha”. 7. Having reviewed and reassessed the evidence with the assistance of the learned counsel for the parties, it appears that although PWs.1 and 2 had supported the prosecution case and believing them, the learned trial Court had convicted the appellants, but neither PW1 nor PW2 had ever spoken anything against A2 and A3. No allegation had been established by the prosecution against A2 and A3 with regard to their abusing PW1 by uttering the name of his caste. 8. It is, however, argued by the learned AGA that the evidence adduced by the prosecution had clearly established the guilt of A1 for offence under
Legal Reasoning
Section 3(1)(x) of the Act, but Mr. B.K. Mishra, learned counsel for the appellants repels such contention by submitting inter-alia that no offence in CRA No.246 of 1994 Page 4 of 6 fact is made out against A1 as none of the independent witness had stated anything against A1. 9. After careful perusal of the evidence on record, this Court does not find any written document indicating the caste of either PW1 or that of the appellants. No evidence had been brought on record to indicate that PW2 was in fact present at the time of occurrence in the chamber of BDO and on the other hand, all those who were present in the chamber of the BDO were PWs.3, 4 and 7, had never whispered anything about the appellants abusing or assaulting PW1 and, thereby, causing insult or humiliation to him. 10. A brief survey of Section 3(1)(x) of the Act itself indicates that the offence can be stated to be made out, if the same has been committed by the accused by reason of the caste of the aggrieved persons belonging to such caste and that the intentional insult or humiliation must be within public view, which has to be established by the prosecution through independent evidence inasmuch as public view does not constitute the view of the family members of the sufferer or informant. 11. In this case, there was absolutely no evidence on record to indicate that any public had viewed/witnessed any overt act committed by any of the appellants, either by intentionally insulting or CRA No.246 of 1994 Page 5 of 6 humiliating PW1. It is, therefore, very clear that the prosecution evidence was clearly efficient to hold the appellants guilty of offence under Section 3(1)(x) of the Act. Consequently, the appeal deserves to be allowed because none of the appellants was found to have committed the offence for which the learned trial Court had convicted them and in fact, the learned trial Court had fallen in error to convict the appellants for offence under Section 3(1)(x) of the Act. 12. In the result, the appeal is allowed on contest, but in the circumstance, there is no order as to costs. The impugned judgment of the conviction and order of sentence passed on 14.07.1994 by the learned Special Judge-cum-Sessions Judge, Koraput, At-Jeypore in Sessions Case No.231 of 1993 are hereby set aside. The appellants are discharged of their bail bonds. (G. Satapathy) Judge Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SUBHASMITA DAS Designation: Jr.Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa Date: 21-Jul-2023 17:48:29 Orissa High Court, Cuttack, Dated the 19th of July, 2023/Subhasmita CRA No.246 of 1994 Page 6 of 6