V. Venkat Rao Alias Picha Alias vs State Of Orissa
2025 Latest Caselaw 11350 Ori

Orissa High Court

V. Venkat Rao Alias Picha Alias vs State Of Orissa on 16 December, 2025

        THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

                       CRA No. 349 of 1994

(In the matter of an application under Section 374(2) of the Criminal
Procedure Code, 1973)

V. Venkat Rao alias Picha alias
V. Venkat Ramana and another         .......                 Appellants
                                  -Versus-

State of Orissa                   .......                 Respondent

For the Appellants : Mr. Satya Narayan Mishra, Amicus Curiae

For the Respondent : Mrs. Siva Mohanty, ASC

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE SHRI JUSTICE SIBO SANKAR MISHRA

Date of Hearing: 02.12.2025 :: Date of Judgment: 16.12.2025

S.S. Mishra, J. The present Criminal Appeal is directed against

the judgment and order dated 16.09.1994 passed by the learned

Special Judge-cum-Sessions Judge, Koraput, Jeypore Camp at Gunupur in Sessions Case No.358 of 1992. By the said judgment, the

learned trial Court while acquitting the appellants for the offences

under Sections 307/34 of I.P.C. read with Section 3(2)(v) of the SC &

ST (PoA) Act, convicted them for the offence under Sections 3(1)(x)

of the SC & ST (PoA) Act read with Section 323/34 of I.P.C. and

Section 452/34 of I.P.C. and on that count, they were sentenced to

undergo R.I. for one year each. All substantive sentences were

directed to run concurrently.

2. The present appeal has been pending since 1994. When the

matter was called for hearing, consistently none appeared for the

appellants. Therefore, this Court requested Mr. Satya Narayan Mishra

(4), 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. Mishra.

3. Heard Mr. Satya Narayan Mishra (4), learned Amicus Curiae

for the appellants and Mrs. Shiva Mohaty, learned Additional

Standing Counsel for the State.

4. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on the night of

08.09.1992, upon receiving information that certain villagers had

been assaulted by the accused persons, Aswini Kumar Gomango

(P.W.1), who was then the Chairman of Gunupur Block, proceeded to

inquire into the matter. It is alleged that both the accused persons

assaulted him and abused him in filthy language, including caste-

related insults, first at the Bus Stand and again at the Katika Sahi

junction of Gunupur town. P.W.1 reportedly managed to escape and

returned to his residence. However, at around midnight, both the

accused persons allegedly trespassed into his house, assaulted him,

abused him, and attempted to kill him by throttling, threatening that

they would end his life.

Based on these allegations, a report was lodged with the police,

pursuant to which the case was registered, investigation commenced,

and, upon completion of the investigation, charge-sheet was

submitted for the offences under Sections 3(1)(x) of the SC & ST

(PoA) Act read with Section 323/34 and 452/34 of I.P.C. and Section

307 of I.P.C. read with Section 3(2)(v) of the SC & ST (PoA) Act. On

the stance of complete denial and claim of trial, the appellants were

put to trial on framing of charges of the offences as mentioned above.

5. The prosecution, in order to establish its case, examined eight

witnesses. P.W.1 is the injured informant, who testified to the entire

sequence of events. P.W.2 was a witness to the incident, who did not

support the prosecution case and was declared hostile. P.W.3 was an

eye-witness, corroborated the occurrence that took place inside the

house of P.W.1. P.W.4 was the Assistant Surgeon of Gunupur Sub-

Divisional Hospital, who testified the injuries on the person of P.W.1

during his examination on 09.09.1992. P.W.5, another eye-witness,

also supported the prosecution regarding the assault inside the

residence of P.W.1. P.W.6 was a Senior Advocate of the Gunupur Bar

and a post-occurrence witness. P.W.7 did not support the prosecution

and was declared hostile. P.W.8, the then Sub-Inspector of Gunupur

Police Station, was the Investigating Officer. On behalf of the

defence, two witnesses were examined in support of the defence plea.

6. Initially the appellants were stood charged for the alleged

commission of offence under Sections 3(1)(x) of the SC & ST (PoA)

Act read with Section 323/34 and 452/34 of I.P.C. and Section 307 of

I.P.C. read with Section 3(2)(v) of the SC & ST (PoA) Act. However,

the learned trial Court by analyzing and appreciating the evidence of

the witnesses particularly the evidence of the injured (P.W.1), the eye

witness (P.W.3) and the doctor (P.W.4) arrived at a conclusion that

this is not a case under Section 307 of I.P.C. as the prosecution failed

to bring home the charge of intention of the appellants to commit

murder. The reasoning of the learned trial Court is reflecting in

paragraph-16 of the judgment, which reads as under:-

"16. On a careful scrutiny of the facts and circumstances of the case and in a close scrutiny of the evidence, in my considered view the accused persons might not have intended to kill P.W.1 and in course of assault one of the accused, namely, Picha pressed the neck of the P.W.1 causing simple injuries. The opinion of the Doctor that death may occur if force is used in pressing the neck does not come to the aid of the prosecution that they attempted to kill P.W.1. It is in the evidence of P.W.1 that while assaulting the accused were telling to kill him. But these utterances at the time of assault is not sufficient to prove that actually they had intended to kill P.W.1. They might have uttered these words as an abuse or as threatening to P. W. 1. Hence I come to a legal conclusion that the accused persons did not attempt to murder P.W.1 but they have trespassed into his house after making preparation to assault p.W.1 and in fact also they assaulted and voluntarily caused hurt to him."

7. Being aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and order of

sentence passed by the learned Special Judge-cum-Sessions Judge,

Koraput at Jeypore, the present appeal has been preferred by the

appellants.

8. Mr. Mishra, learned Amicus Curiae for the appellants,

submitted that the conviction under Sections 452/323/34 of I.P.C. and

Section 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST (POA) Act is unsustainable, as it rests

almost entirely on the testimony of P.W.1 despite material

inconsistencies and contradictions among the prosecution witnesses.

He contended that the prosecution failed to establish the essential

ingredients of Section 3(1)(x) of the Act as it then stood, namely,

intentional insult or intimidation with intent to humiliate a member of

the Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe in a place within public view.

According to him, the trial Court misapplied the statutory provision

and ignored the absence of evidence supporting the charge. He further

argued that the oral testimony is inherently unreliable. P.W.3 and

P.W.5 materially contradict each other and do not align with P.W.1.

P.W.3 was not named in the FIR or the earliest version, rendering him

a planted witness. P.W.5's evidence is purely derivative, based on

what P.W.1 allegedly told him, and the only person who could

corroborate it, Harekrushna, was not examined. The witnesses whom

P.W.1 claimed were present during the alleged incident (P.W.2,

P.W.7 and others) either turned hostile or did not support the

prosecution. Defence witnesses were discarded without adequate

reasons. P.W.1 also introduced significant improvements at trial, such

as claiming the presence of persons in his house and alleging insults

at the bus stand and Katika Sahi, the matters not mentioned in the

FIR.

9. Mr. Mishra, learned Amicus Curiae further relied upon the

medical evidence which contradicts the prosecution case, as P.W.4

(doctor) expressly admitted that the injuries could have been caused

by falling on rough objects, and that injury numbers 5 and 6 could be

self-inflicted or caused by friendly hands. This casts substantial doubt

on the allegation of a severe physical assault. The learned trial Court

nonetheless accepted PW-1's embellished version without

reconciliation of these inconsistencies. Reliance placed by the learned

trial Court in the case of Inder Singh v. State (Delhi Administration),

AIR 1978 SC 1091 was misplaced, as that decision deals with minor

discrepancies, whereas in the present case the discrepancies strike at

the very root of the prosecution story. It was further argued that the

prosecution was motivated by political rivalry and that P.W.1

attempted to misuse his caste identity to give a colour of atrocity to an

otherwise personal or political dispute. In this regard, reliance was

placed on the observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ravinder

Singh v. Sukhbir Singh & Ors., reported in AIR 2013 SC 1048,

wherein it was held:

"It is a judicial obligation on the court to undo a wrong in course of administration of justice and to prevent continuation of unnecessary judicial process. It may be so necessary to curb the menace of criminal prosecution as an instrument of operation of needless harassment. A person cannot be permitted to unleash vendetta to harass any person needlessly. Ex debito justitiae is inbuilt in the inherent power of the court and the whole idea is to do real, complete and substantial justice for which the courts exist. Thus, it becomes the paramount duty of the court to protect an apparently innocent person, not to be subjected to prosecution on the basis of wholly untenable complaint."

Likewise, in Dr. Subhash Kashinath Mahajan v. State of

Maharashtra, reported in (2018) 6 SCC 454, the Hon'ble Supreme

Court cautioned that:

"there has been an alarming increase in false complaints under the SC/ST Act, particularly against public servants and judicial officers with an oblique motive to settle personal scores or to harass individuals. Such acts cannot be allowed to be perpetuated and need to be stopped at the very outset so that there is no miscarriage of justice."

In view of the above, Mr. Mishra, learned Amicus Curiae,

submitted that the prosecution case suffers from material

contradictions, improvements, hostile witnesses, and lack of

corroboration; that the essential ingredients of the offences,

particularly under Section 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST Act, are not proved;

and that the medical evidence does not support the allegation of

assault. He contended that the learned trial Court erred in relying on

embellished testimony while ignoring significant omissions in the

FIR, and that the possibility of false implication due to political

rivalry cannot be ruled out. Accordingly, it was urged that the

conviction is unsustainable in law and on facts, and the appellants

deserve acquittal.

10. Keeping in mind the submission made by the learned counsel

for the parties, I have gone through the evidence adduced by the

prosecution to establish its case. P.W.1 is the victim and informant of

the case. He in his testimony has narrated three different incidents that

had happened on the fateful evening. He deposed that on 08.09.1992

at about 8 to 9 P.M., he was in his house. One Bhaskar Padhi (P.W.5)

and Hare Krushna Nimalpuri of village Bhimpurguda came running

to his house and informed him that they are being injured by the

accused persons because both of them declined to push the vehicle of

the accused persons. Therefore, they were assaulted. P.W.1 being the

Chairman of Gunupur Panchayat Samiti went to the spot to enquire

into the matter. The situation was pacified there. Thereafter, at about

9.30 to 10 P.M. P.W.1 again went to the town to collect information

about the incident. At Katika Sahi crossing of Gunupur, both the

accused persons upon being confronted by P.W.1 abused him by

stating "Tu Magya Shala Adhika Prasanga Kanhiki, Tote Marile Kia

Rakshya Kariba, Chairman Heichu Boli Bada Loka Hei Galu Ki, Tu

Amaku Pacharibaku Kie". Even after hearing such abuses, he tried to

politely pacify the matter with the accused persons. However, the

accused persons again started abusing and assaulting P.W.1 by fist

blows, slaps and boxing, for which, P.W.1 sustained bleeding injuries

on his mouth. He further deposed that to save life, he ran away

towards his house, although the accused persons chased him. The

third incident happened in the midnight at about 11 P.M. P.W.1

deposed that at about midnight, one Bidika Tukuna (P.W.7) and one

Padhi Nimalpuri and other members of the Panchayat were sitting in

the house of P.W.1 discussing as to whether the incident had

happened earlier should be reported to the police or not, at that point

in time, again both the accused persons forcibly entered inside the

house. Bidika Tukuna (P.W.7) was sitting in the varendah of the

house, who was kicked by the accused persons and entered inside the

house. The appellant No.1 dealt a kick to the chin of P.W.1 by

abusing "Magyan Shala Soura Chairman Tote Aji ranare Mari Debu.

Then both the accused together assaulted by fist blow, kicks on the

face, hand, back and other parts of the body indiscriminately. The

injuries caused profuse bleeding and his condition deteriorated. In the

night, he did not feel to report it to the police.

The said P.W.1 was very extensively cross-examined by the

defence but his testimony regarding narration of these three incidents

could not be diluted rather the said witness made further clarity in the

incident happened on that date.

P.W.2 is one of the eye witnesses to the second incident that

occurred at the bus stand. He was declared hostile by the prosecution,

but in his examination-in-chief, he admitted the fact that he saw

P.W.1 asking the appellant No.1 as to why they were quarreling. He

further stated that since the discussion was in Soura language, he

could not follow it, but he specifically deposed that there was hot

discussion going on. The evidence of the said hostile witness, to the

extent that an altercation was going on between P.W.1 and appellant

No.1, stood corroborated by the evidence of P.W.1.

P.W.3 is the eye witness to the third occurrence. He stated that

at about 11.30 to 12 midnight, he was sitting in the house of P.W.1.

At that time, P.W.1 came to his house with bleeding injuries. He

informed the witness and other P.Ws. present there that the accused

persons have assaulted him at Katika Sahi crossing near the bus stand.

He further stated that while they were sitting in the house of P.W.1,

both the accused persons forcibly entered inside the house, and

appellant No.1 suddenly dealt a kick blow on the chin of P.W.1. He

also abused P.W.1 saying "Soura Magyan Chairman, Ethar Banchi

Galu. The said witness was also cross-examined vividly but to no

help for defence.

P.W.5 is an independent witness. He has deposed that he

himself witnessed the first incident which happened at 9.30 P.M.,

when P.W.1 came to rescue him. He further deposed that the

appellant No.1 asked him to push his van. Since he and others

accompanying him, refused to push the van, the appellant No.1

scolded him saying "Magyan Shala, Kahinki Gadi Theluna". The

appellant No.1 also dealt a lathi blow on his left shoulder and he also

dealt lathi blow on the head of Harekrushna. They started running to

escape from the accused persons. Although they were chased, but

somehow they could manage to escape and entered inside the house

of P.W.1 and narrated the incident. He further stated that when P.W.1

tried to pacify the situation, the accused persons assaulted him. The

said witness also stated that he had seen the accused persons entering

the house of P.W.1. At the veranda (pinda), P.W.7 was kicked by the

accused persons before entering the house, however, he stated that he

did not see what had happened inside the house. The said witness

further stated that the appellant No.1 abused P.W.1 uttering "Soura

Magyan, Ethi Ashi Rajaniti Karuchhi, Aku Ethi Sanki Chipi Mari

Dele Kie Kahibaki".

The evidence of P.W.6 could be used for drawing corroboration

with the evidence of the other witnesses. He stated that the occurrence

took place on 09.09.1992 at the midnight. One Khatu Pattnaik of his

street came and informed him that P.W.1 was assaulted by the

appellant No.1 and requested to inform the incident to the police

station over phone. Accordingly, he informed the incident to the

police. He also deposed that he saw P.W.1 on that night was sitting in

his house with bleeding injuries on his mouth.

P.W.7 was a witness to the third incident. He deposed that both

the accused persons came to the house of P.W.1 in that night. They

dealt him a kick and then entered inside the house but what happened

inside the house, he has not seen. The prosecution declared him

hostile. However, he distinctly deposed that he was present at the

spot, was kicked by the accused persons and then entered the house.

P.W.8 was the I.O. of the case, whose testimony has also lend

corroboration to the testimony of all the witnesses as described above.

11. P.W.4 was the doctor, who was examined P.W.1 on police

requisition. He found nine injuries on the person of P.W.1. The

injuries are:-

"1. Abrasion, size 4" x 1/4" over the right axilla.

2. Contusion, size 1" x 1" over the left scapular region.

3. Abrasion, size 3" x 1/4" over the right chest.

4. Abrasion, size 2" x 1/4" over right shoulder.

5. Linear abrasion 1/2" long on the right side of neck.

6. Contusion, size 1" x 1" on the left side of the neck.

7. Abrasion, size 1/4" x 1/4" on the lower lip.

8. Contusion 1 ½" x 1 1/2 ", on the lower region of the left side of the back.

9. Abrasion ½" x ½" below the left knee."

The doctor opined that all the injuries are simple in nature and

could also be caused by blunt weapon. He further opined that the

injuries are also possible by fist blows, kicks and slaps.

12. Reading of the aforementioned oral testimonies of all the

witnesses coupled with other materials on record in the form of

exhibits and documents, makes it clear that the three incidents as

narrated by P.W.1 occurred on 08.09.1992 in the evening between 8

to 12 midnight in quick succession and all the witnesses have seen the

incident happened at three different places. The appellant No.1 is

projected as an aggressor and the entire overt act is attributed to him.

The appellant No.2 has actively participated by accompanying the

appellant No.1. The defence has made several attempts not only in the

form of cross-examination but also by examining the defence

witnesses; to create a dent in the prosecution's case but these attempts

were unsuccessful. The learned trial Court has very meticulously dealt

with the defence version on both the facts and law and disagreed with

the defence. The learned trial Court has also taken enough pain to

discuss the evidence vis-à-vis every offence and recorded a plausible

reasoning's, which culminate from the evidence. As I have already

discussed the evidence of all the witnesses, which was also done by

the learned trial Court on its own manner, I find no reason to disagree

with the learned trial Court. Hence, finding no fault with the

impugned judgment and order dated 16.09.1994 passed by the learned

trial Court, I affirm the same.

13. At this stage, Mr. Mishra, learned Amicus Curiae appearing for

the appellants submitted that the incident relates back to the year

1994, at that point of time, the appellant No.1 was about 35 years of

age and the appellant No.2 was 24 years of age. At present, the

appellant No.1 is aged about 66 years and the appellant No.2 is 55

years of age. He also submitted that during the trial, the appellant

No.1 was arrested on 10.09.1992 and released on bail on 04.11.1992

and the appellant No.2 was surrender on 04.11.1992 and released on

bail on 19.11.1992. Therefore, he submitted that, a lenient view

should be taken for imposing the sentence. Accordingly, he

vehemently submitted that one year R.I. awarded by the learned trial

Court may be reduced.

14. When the matter was taken up for hearing on 31.07.2025, this

Court wanted to enquire about the whereabouts and wellbeing of the

appellants. Therefore, a direction was issued to the concerned

Superintendent of Police. In pursuance to the said order, the I.I.C.,

Gunupur P.S. produced a report on 18.08.2025. In the said report, the

I.I.C., Gunupur P.S. has stated that the appellant No.1-V. Venkat Rao

@ Picha is presently 63 years of age. On 14.12.2016, he suffered a

massive heart attack and underwent open-heart surgery at Apollo

Hospital, Bhubaneswar. For routine checkup, he has been attending

the hospital every month. His wife is also suffering from severe heart

diseases and is under treatment at Sunrise Hospital, Srikakulam. Due

to financial constraint, he is leading a very difficult life. Similarly, in

respect of the appellant No.2-V. Srinu, who is the brother of appellant

No.1 is concerned, it is stated in the report that although he is 56 years

old, he suffers from chronic blood pressure and diabetes. Due to his

health condition, he is unemployed. His two sons are pursuing their

studies and are staying with their grandfather's house as the appellant

No.2 is not able to support them owing to his financial difficulties.

The medical documents are also enclosed with the report.

15. Taking into consideration the aforementioned report and

keeping in view the fact that the incident had happened in the year

1992, the submission made by Mr. Mishra, learned Amicus Curiae for

the appellants deserves merit to be considered. However, the

minimum sentence prescribed for the offence under Section 3(1)(x) of

the SC/ST (POA) Act is six months. Accordingly, while confirming

the conviction recorded by the learned trial Court for the offence

under Sections 452/323/34 of I.P.C. and Section 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST

(POA) Act, I modify the sentence of one year to R.I. for six months.

However, this Court awards no specific sentence for the offence

under Sections 452/323/34 of I.P.C. The appellants are directed to

surrender before the learned trial Court within one month from today

to serve out the remaining sentence. The undergone period shall be set

off.

16. Accordingly, the CRA is partly allowed.

17. This Court acknowledges the effective and meaningful

assistance rendered by Mr. Sarya Narayan Mishra 4, 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

The High Court of Orissa, Cuttack.

Dated the 16th December, 2025/Swarna

Designation: Senior Stenographer

Location: High Court of Orissa