Jagabandhu Juanga & Another vs State Of Odisha & Another
2021 Latest Caselaw 11302 Ori

                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

                             W.P.(C) No.2843 of 2018
                              (Through hybrid mode)

            Jagabandhu Juanga & another             ....          Petitioners

                                                    Mr.C.Pattnaik, Advocate
                                        -versus-

            State of Odisha & another               ....     Opposite Parties
                                       Mr.P.C.Panda, Addl. Govt. Advocate


                      CORAM: JUSTICE ARINDAM SINHA
                                        ORDER

03.11.2021 Order No.

06. 1. Mr. Pattnaik, learned advocate appears on behalf of petitioners, who, being members of a Scheduled Tribe are seeking compensation on having atrocity committed upon them. He submits, sub-section (p) in section 3 of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 stands attracted to his clients' case of having been acquitted under judgment dated 8th August, 2017 delivered by learned J.M.F.C., Keonjhar in 2(b)CC no.49 of 2008/TC no.1004 of 2017 (State v. Jagabandhu Juanga & another). He submits, compensation as provided in sub-rule (4) in rule 12 of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Rules, 1995 should be applied and compensation under appropriate entry in annexure 1 in the Schedule of Rules, 1995 be directed to be paid to his clients.

// 2 //

2. Mr. Panda, learned advocate appears on behalf of State and submits, the case was initiated on detection by forest guard that petitioners were cutting trees in the reserved forest. The guard also belongs to a Scheduled Tribe. As such, the requirement in section 3 is not satisfied.

3. There does not appear to be any dispute regarding the detecting guard belonging to a Scheduled Tribe. As such, requirement in sub-section (1) of section 3 for committing offence of atrocities, does not stand satisfied since the judgment clearly says that on 11th December, 2008 at about 4.30 P.M. complainant Dola Gobinda Munda, Forest Guard, while performing petrolling duty along with forest officials caught petitioners while they are sawing one Harida log at Gajapalhar near Nalapanga reserve forest. It is another thing that there arose doubt in the mind of Magistrate regarding whether the forest being a reserve forest, was duly notified to petitioners for them to know that they could not cut trees. Further doubt also appears to have arisen on appreciation of evidence of prosecution witnesses being that according to the Magistrate, the incident took place outside boundary of the forest.

3. There is no merit in the petition. Hence, the petition is dismissed.

(Arindam Sinha) Judge RKS