The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK CRLMC No.4277 of 2024 Bhikari Swain & others …. Petitioners Mr.Bishnu Prasad Pradhan, Advocate -versus- State of Odisha …. Opp. Party Mr.S.N.Biswal, ASC CORAM: JUSTICE SIBO SANKAR MISHRA
Decision
ORDER 04.03.2025 1. The petitioners are aggrieved by the order dated 30.09.2024 passed by the learned 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Puri in T.R. No.13/41 of 2024/2021, whereby their application praying for discharge from the case has been turned down. 2. The petitioners have been arrayed as accused in the F.I.R. in connection with Satyabadi P.S. Case No.102 of 2016 corresponding to T.R. Case No.13/41 of 2024/2021 for the offences punishable under Sections 448/323/354B/506/294/34 of the IPC r/w Page 1 of 5 Order No. 01. Section 3(1)(xi) of the SC & ST (PoA) Act r/w Section 9(B) of the Explosives Act, 1884. 3. On 31.03.2021, the I.O. filed the charge sheet in the present case against the petitioners for the alleged commission of the offences punishable under Sections 341/323/506/294/34 of the IPC r/w Sections 3(1)(r)(s) (2) (va) of the SC & ST (PoA) Act. 4. The precise allegation against the petitioners is that on 08.05.2016, one Sri Banambar Nayak of Satyabadi filed a written report before the Satyabadi P.S. alleging therein that, on 02.05.2016, the petitioners along with two others being armed with deadly weapons forcibly entered into his house and assaulted his daughter-in-law, as a result of which, she fell down on the floor. Then the co-accused, namely, Pravakar Swain and the petitioner No.2 pulled her saree and misbehaved her. They made attempt to damage the house of the informant by setting fire. The informant raised hulla. All the accused persons tried to kill him by pressing his neck and abused him uttering his caste name. At that time, one of the co-accused threw bomb, which caused serious poisonous in the atmosphere. Hence, the F.I.R. 5. The petitioners moved an application seeking discharge. On verification of the record, it is ascertained that the informant and his family members are not Scheduled Caste, they are “BETRA” Page 2 of 5 by caste, which is not coming under the schedule. 6. Learned trial Court dealt with the contentions raised by the petitioners and recorded the same while observing as under: “On verification of the case record, it is ascertained that, the informant and his family members are not Schedule Caste persons as “BETRA” does not come under the purview of the list given in the constitution (Scheduled Caste Order 1950) and the provisions of S.C./S.T. (PA) Act are not applicable to them. For this, the accused persons may be discharged from the offences as alleged by the I.O. Further, the petitioner has submitted that there is no sufficient ground for presuming that the accused persons have permitted the alleged offences. Hence, this petition. Copy has been served. Ld. Special P.P. has filed his objection denying all the facts stated in the petition. He has further contended that, he has filed the Caste Certificate of the Informant namely Banambar Nayak, which shows that he belongs to Scheduled Caste, which is recognized under the constitution. Tahasildar, Satyabadi has also supplied Caste particulars of the accused persons. They belong to OBC category. So, the petition filed by the Ld. Defence Counsel is not maintainable. On these grounds, Ld. Special P.P. prays for rejection of the petition. Heard, perused the petition, objection as well as the entire case record. After the completion of investigation, the I.O. has submitted charge sheet against the accused persons. On perusal of the documents adduced from the side of the prosecution, it has been clarified that, the informant and victims of this case belong to SC Community and the persons belong to the General Community. At this stage, it can be stated that, there exists grounds of presumption of commission of the offences, which means prima facie case of commission of the alleged offences this Court. The materials available on the record give rise to a strong suspicion regarding the commission of the crime. So, Charge should be framed.” triable by Page 3 of 5 7. Aggrieved by the aforementioned order, the petitioners have filed the present petition. In the present petition, the petitioners have relied upon certain documents placed as Annexure-6 series. By relying upon the said documents, the petitioners have contended in the present petition that the informant and the victim belong to the “BETRA” caste. One of the co-accused has obtained information under the RTI Act from the Tahasildar, Satyabadi to the effect that, “BETRA” Caste is not coming under the category of SC, ST, OBC or SEBC as per the list published vide letter No.7799/L dated 07.06.2023 of Law Department, Government of Odisha. There is no material to show that either the informant or the victim belong to the SC category. From the ROR which stands in the name of the informant, reveals that the informant, namely, Banambar Nayak belongs to “BETRA” Caste. The ROR stands in the name of the father of the informant, namely, Bisi Nayak reveals that the father of the informant belongs to the BETRA caste. The information under the RTI Act supplied by the Tahasildar, Satyabadi indicates that “BETRA” Caste is not coming under the category of SC, ST, OBC or SEBC. From the aforesaid facts, it is very clear that the informant has knowingly implicated the petitioners U/s. 3 of the SC & ST Act although she is not SC. Page 4 of 5 8. It is evident from the record that the documents which have been relied upon by the petitioners in the present petition were not filed before the trial Court while the application for discharge was being dealt with by the trial Court. Therefore, it would be expedient to remit the matter to the trial Court for fresh disposal of the application moved by the petitioners. 9. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 30.09.2024 passed by the learned 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Puri in T.R. No.13/41 of 2024/2021 is set-aside and the matter is remanded back to the trial Court for deciding the application afresh relying upon the documents annexed to the present petition. The petitioners are granted liberty to move fresh application before the trial Court urging all the points as has been raised in the present petition. 10. With the aforementioned observation, the CRLMC is disposed of. Judge (S.S. Mishra) Subhasis Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SUBHASIS MOHANTY Designation: Personal Assistant Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack. Date: 05-Mar-2025 19:51:49 Page 5 of 5