[Cites 16, Cited by 0]
Orissa High Court
Arjuna Mahanta And Others vs State Of Orissa on 9 December, 2025
THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
CRA No. 128 of 2002
(In the matter of an application under Section 374 of Criminal
Procedure Code)
Arjuna Mahanta and others ....... Appellants
-Versus-
State of Orissa ....... Respondent
For the Appellants : Mr. Sasanka Sekhar Das, Amicus Curiae
For the Respondent : Ms. Suvalaxmi Devi, ASC
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE SHRI JUSTICE SIBO SANKAR MISHRA
Date of Hearing: 04.12.2025 :: Date of Judgment: 09.12.2025
S.S. Mishra, J. Three convicts have filed the present Criminal
Appeal challenging the judgment of conviction and order of sentence
dated 03.05.2002 passed by the learned Special Judge, Mayurbhanj,
Baripada in C.P. Case No.676/991 T.C. No.12/2001. By the
impugned judgment, the learned trial Court has convicted the
appellants of the charges under Sections 323/341/34 of the IPC read
with Section 3(1)(x) of the S.C. & S.T. (PoA) Act. Accordingly, the
convicts-appellants were sentenced to undergo R.I. for six months for
the offence under Section 3(1)(x) of the S.C. & S.T. (PoA) Act as
well as for Section 323 of the IPC and to pay a fine of Rs.400/-
(Rupees four hundred), in default, to undergo S.I. for fifteen days.
2. During pendency of the appeal, on the direction of this Court,
the IIC, Baisinga Police Station has placed on record the report dated
20.07.2025 intimating this Court that the appellant no.1- Arjuna
Mahanta and the appellant no.2- Ramachandra Mahanta have expired.
Therefore, vide order dated 02.09.2025, the present Criminal Appeal
qua those two deceased appellant nos.1 and 2 stood abated in absence
of any application under Section 394 of the Cr. P.C. by the legal heirs
or the next friend of the appellants. Hence, the present appeal is
confined to the appellant no.3- Rucha Mahanta alone.
3. When the matter was listed for hearing, consistently, none
appeared for the appellants. Therefore, Mr. Sasanka Sekhar Das,
Advocate, who was present in the Court, was requested by the Court
to assist the Court in the capacity of Amicus Curiae. He has readily
accepted the same and rendered effective assistance to the Court.
4. Heard Mr. Sasanka Sekhar Das, learned Amicus Curiae
appearing for the appellants and Ms. Suvalaxmi Devi, learned
Additional Standing Counsel appearing for the State.
5. The Prosecution case in terse and brief is that on 03.07.1999 at
11 a.m., one Gokuli Chandra Senapati of village Janikadeipur found
all the three accused persons were ploughing his land situated at
Mouza- Dageipur. The informant and his two sons, namely, Gajendra
Senapati and Surendra Senapati came to the land and protested the
accused persons not to cultivate that land. All the accused persons got
annoyance at the protest of the informant and his sons and they
abused the informant. Accused Arjuna Mahanta assaulted Gokuli
Chandra Senapati in a stick to his head and left palm. Accused Arjuna
Mahanta assaulted Gajendra Senapati, the elder son of the informant
and accused Bidyadhar and Ruchu Mahanta assaulted Surendra
Senapati with the stick causing bleeding injury. So, the informant and
his sons came to Baisinga hospital for treatment. His sons Gajendra
Senapati and Surendra Senapati went to Balasore hospital for better
treatment. On investigation of the case, the police prima facie found
the complaint to be true, hence filed the charge sheet.
6. The appellants took a stance of complete denial and claimed
trial. Hence, they were put to trial for the offences charged.
7. The prosecution examined seven witnesses to establish its case
apart from relying upon six exhibits. The defence has also led the
evidence independently by examining one witness and relied upon
Ext.A-(ROR).
8. The learned trial Court meticulously appreciated the evidence
to arrive at the following conclusion:
"9. The evidence adduced by P.Ws.1, 2, 3 and 4 show that the
accused persons used stick or lathi to assault P.Ws.1, 2 and 3.
The entire occurrence took place when the injured persons
protested the ploughing of land by accused Arjuna Mohanta.
The accused persons were annoyed when P.W.1 protected
before them and then all the accused persons started
assaulting to the injured persons with stick. Bleeding injuries
were found on the person of these injured persons. According
to the medical evidence adduced by P.W.7 the injury No.2
found on the person of P.Ws.2 and 3 were serious and their
cases were referred to Balasore for better treatment. This
shows that brutal assault took place in order to cause hurt. The
injured persons went to the field where Arjuna Mohanta was
ploughing the land. The accused persons used stick to assault,
but nothing is found in the evidence of P.Ws. that accused
persons wrongfully restrained the injured persons. I do not
find any evidence as to where the injured persons were
proceeding and the accused persons obstructed them on their
way to assaulted or to cause hurt. The word proceed in Sec.
339 I.P.C. is confined to the case of a person who can walk on
his own leg or can move by physical means within his own
power. There was no obstruction to the injured persons so as
to prevent them from proceeding in any direction in which they
had a right to proceed. On the other hand it is the positive
evidence of P.Ws. that these injured persons went so the land
to prove cultivation of the land by Arjuna Mohanta. So no case
is made out for the offence u/s 341/34 I.P.C. against any of the
accused persons.
10. These accused persons assaulted to P.Ws.1, 2 and 3
when protest was made not to cultivate their land. While
cultivating the land the existance of stick in the hands of
accused persons was found to be probable and inaudible. They
used the stick to assault the injured persons and to cause hurt.
The ingredient of intention or that of knowledge must be
essentially present in order to constitute the offence of hart as
defined u/s 321 I.P.C. such burts were accused when protest
was made in the process of cultivation. The accused persons
got once at the protest of injured persons and they used the
stick at the very spot itself. The medical evidence adduced by
P.W.7 goes to show that P.Ws.1, 2 and 3 sustained bleeding
injuries which were possible with hard and blunt object.
Therefore the case of the prosecution is proved against all the
accused persons for the offence u/s 323/34 I.P.C. All the
accused persons participated in common action and they
assaulted in furtherance of their common intention.
11. As regards the offence u/s. 3(1)(x) of S.C. and S.T.
(P.A.) Act is concerned, the injured persons are members of
scheduled caste. Ext.3 is the proof for the same and moreover
it is also admitted case of the defence as per evidence adduced
by D.W.1 Ramachandra Mohanta the accused who has been
examined u/s 318 Cr. P.C. The accused persons first accused
them and then assaulted to cause hurt within public view. This
occurrence took place near agricultural land, the place which
is within the public view. So the accused persons intentionally
intimidated with intent to humiliate the members of scheduled
caste and it is an offence within the meaning of Sec. 3 (1)(x) of
the S.C. and S.T. (P.A.) Act and all the accused persons
participated in assaulting the injured persons like P.Ws.1, 2
and 4.
12. The intention of the accused persons to cause such hurt
is very clear on account of forcible cultivation of land by
Arjuna Mohanta. They might have some ill-feeling or previous
enmity, but there was nothing on the part of P.W.1 to family
file a case against the accused persons. The medical evidence
corroborates the evidence adduced by P.Ws.1, 2, 3 and 4. So
the denial plea taken by the defence is not acceptable."
9. Aggrieved by the aforementioned findings of the learned trial
Court, which led to the conviction and sentence of the appellants, the
present Criminal Appeal has been preferred.
10. Since the present Criminal Appeal qua the appellant nos.1 and
2 has already been abated, I have examined the evidence of the
prosecution as well as the defence vis-à-vis the appellant no.3 only.
11. In this case, except P.W.3, no one has attributed any overt act
against the present appellant. P.W.3 in his evidence has testified that
his father has been cultivating the land in subject being the family
land. On 02.07.1999 at about 11 a.m., the accused persons were
ploughing their land forcibly. At that time, his father asked them not
to plough their land. At this, accused Arjuna, the appellant no.1
assaulted on the head and left hand of the father by lathi causing
bleeding injury. P.W.3 further deposed that accused Ruchu Mohanta
(the present appellant) assaulted on his head with a lathi causing
bleeding injury. Similarly, he has stated that accused Bidyadhar has
also assaulted his brother Gajendra Senapati. He has further deposed
that they belong to Kaibartya by caste and the accused persons belong
to the general caste.
12. P.W.1 and P.W.2 have also narrated the same incident, but
have not attributed anything against the present appellant. Both of
them have stated that appellant no.1- Arjuna Mahanta and appellant
no.2-Ramachandra Mahanta have assaulted them claiming their right
over the disputed land. None of the said witnesses have deposed
anything regarding causing insult or hurling abuse by taking the name
of the caste of the witnesses.
13. P.W.7 was the doctor, who has examined all the three injured.
Since the medical examination of P.W.3 is relevant for the purpose of
the present appeal, his examination by the doctor P.W.7 is reproduced
below for convenience of ready reference.
"3. On that day at 12.35 P.M. I examined Surendra Senapati
S/o Gokula Senapati and found two injuries as follows:-
1. Abrasion over left fore-arm of size ½ x ½ cm.
2. Lacerated wound over scalp of size 5 x 1 x ½ cm.
Injury No.1 is simple in nature. For injury No.2 patient is referred
to Balasore. Opinion is reserved.
All the injuries might have been caused by hard blunt weapon.
The age of injury was within 24 hours of my examination. Ext.6/2
is the injury report and Ext.6/3 is my signature."
14. The doctor was cross-examined by the defence to bring out the
fact that the injury caused to P.W.3 is possible due to fall on the hard
and rough surface.
15. If the evidence of all the witnesses adduced by the prosecution
is considered in unison, only the ingredient of the offence under
Section 323 of the IPC is made out against the present appellant
because in the entire testimonies of P.Ws.1, 2 and 3, no overt act or
intention is attributed by them against the present appellant which
caused insult to the witnesses, as they belong to the S.C. or S.T. caste.
No doubt, by bringing the documentary evidence on record, i.e.,
Ext.3, the caste of the witnesses P.Ws.1, 2 and 3 have been
established, but in their evidence, they have not uttered a single word
regarding the assault being made by the appellant with an intention to
derogate or insult them, as they belong to the S.C. & S.T. Caste.
16. This Court in the judgment dated 20.11.2025 in the case of
Pradeep Sahu vs. State1 has held as follows:
"14. The fact of the present case is quite akin to that of
Dasarath Sahu (supra) case. It is a fact that the evidence has
come on record that the accused has caught hold the hand of
the victim and drag her into the water and tore her frock
from the front side and slapped her, which satisfy the
ingredients of an offence under Section 354 IPC and also
satisfy the part of the ingredients of the offence under 3(1)(xi)
of the S.C. & S.T. (PoA) Act. But from the evidence of P.W.2,
the intention part is not coming to fore to hold that the
appellant is guilty for offence under Section 3(1)(xi) of the
S.C. & S.T. (PoA) Act, particularly for two reasons that
neither the victim herself nor from the evidence of other
witnesses, which is germinating from the record evident the
act complained of committed by the appellant is with an
intention that it was being done on the ground of caste of
P.W.2."
17. The view of this Court is derived from the principle laid down
by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the judgment in the case of
Dashrath Sahu vs. State of Chhattisgarh2.
18. In the instant case as well, there is no evidence brought on
record by the prosecution to show that there was any intention on the
part of the appellant to assault P.W.3, as he belongs to or on the
ground of his caste.
19. Hence, the reasoning recorded by the learned trial Court in
paragraph-11 of the judgment as reproduced above fall short of any
plausible reasoning and against the principle laid down by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court and this Court.
20. Hence, I find no reason to agree with the findings returned by
the learned trial Court finding the appellant no.1 guilty under Section
3(1)(x) of the S.C. & S.T. (PoA) Act. Therefore, the inevitable
conclusion is that the appellant no.3 is entitled to acquittal in so far as
the said charge is concerned.
21. In so far as the offence under Section 323 of the IPC is
concerned, the evidence of P.Ws.3 and 7 are steering on the face of
2024 SCC OnLine 72
record. P.W.3 has deposed that the present appellant has assaulted on
his head with a lathi causing bleeding injury. This part of the
testimony of P.W.3 stood corroborated with the evidence of P.W.7,
who had found a head injury being lacerated wound over the scalp of
size 5 x 1 x ½ cm. The injury opined by P.W.7 to be simple in nature,
hence, the appellant is liable for the offence under Section 323 of the
IPC.
22. Accordingly, the conviction recorded by the learned trial Court
for the offence under Section 323 of the IPC against the appellant is
affirmed. At this stage, Mr. Sasanka Sekhar Das, learned Amicus
Curiae has submitted that the appellant at the time of the incident was
45 years of age. The incident relates back to the year 1999. Therefore,
the appellant must be about 69 years of age by now. There is nothing
coming to the fore on record that the appellant No.1 is otherwise
involved in any other case. Therefore, he is the first time offender.
Much water has already flown under the bridge by now. Hence,
sending the appellant to the custody at this stage would have a
cascading effect in the life of the other members of the family. Hence
he prays that a lenient view may be taken while sentencing the
appellant.
In view of these circumstances, learned Counsel prayed that the
appellant be extended the benefit of Section 360 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure and/or the Probation of the Offenders Act, 1958,
considering the nature of the offences, the long passage of time, and
their personal circumstances.
23. Upon thoughtful consideration of the submissions made and
after perusal of the record, it is apparent that the occurrence took
place over more than two decades ago. The appellant has already
faced the strain and stigma of criminal proceedings for a considerable
length of time. He has no previous criminal antecedents and is
reported to have maintained peaceful conduct ever since. Having
regard to his advanced age, clean background, and the long lapse of
time since the incident, I am of the considered view that this is a fit
case for extending the benefit of probation to the appellant.
Support for this view may be drawn from the decisions of this
Court in Pathani Parida & another vs. Abhaya Kumar
Jagdevmohapatra3 and Dhani @ Dhaneswar Sahu vs. State of
Orissa4 wherein leniency was shown in similar factual circumstances.
24. Accordingly, in the light of foregoing discussion, while
affirming the conviction under Section 323 of the I.P.C. against
appellant no.3, instead of sentencing him to imprisonment, this Court
directs that he be released under Section 4 of the Probation of
Offenders Act, 1958, for a period of three months, upon his executing
a bond of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand) within one month with
one surety for the like amount, to appear and receive sentence when
called upon during the said period and, in the meantime, to maintain
peace and good behaviour. The appellant shall remain under the
supervision of the concerned Probation Officer during the said period
of three months.
25. Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal relating to Section 3(1)(x) of
the S.C. & S.T. (PoA) Act stands allowed and the impugned judgment
of conviction and order of sentence dated 03.05.2002 passed by the
learned Special Judge, Mayurbhanj, Baripada in C.P. Case
No.676/991 T.C. No.12/2001 is set aside to that extent. The impugned
2012 (Supp-II) OLR 469
2007 (Supp.II) OLR 250
judgment of conviction and order of sentence under Section 323 of
the IPC stands affirmed and on that count, the modified sentence is
awarded, as mentioned above.
26. This Court records appreciation of the meaningful and effective
assistance rendered by Mr. Sasanka Sekhar Das, learned Amicus
Curiae. He is entitled to the honourarium of Rs.7,500/- (Rupees seven
thousand five hundred) as a token of appreciation.
27. The CRA is partly allowed.
(S.S. Mishra)
Judge
The High Court of Orissa, Cuttack
Dated the 9th Day of December, 2025/Subhasis Mohanty
Designation: Personal Assistant
Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack.
