Orissa High Court
Abani Ku. Rath vs State Of Odisha on 30 May, 2025
Author: Biraja Prasanna Satapathy
Bench: Biraja Prasanna Satapathy
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
CRLA NO.293 OF 2017
I.A. No. 1407 of 2018
An appeal under Section 374 of the Indian Penal Code.
Abani Ku. Rath :::: Appellant
-:: VERSUS ::-
State of Odisha :::: Respondent
For Appellant :::: Mr. J. Bhuyan , Advocate
For Respondent :::: Mr. C.K. Pradhan, Addl. Govt. Advocate
.........
PRESENT:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date of Hearing- 02.05.2025 :: Date of Judgment- 30.05.2025
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Biraja Prasanna Satapathy, J.
The present appeal has been filed inter alia challenging
judgment dtd.29.04.2017 so passed by the learned Sessions Judge-
cum-Special Judge, Kandhamal, Phulbani in S.T. No. 116 of 2016
arising out of G.R. Case No. 327/2015 in the file of learned SDJM,
Baliguda corresponding to Baliguda P.S. Case No. 111
dtd.21.08.2015.
// 2 //
2. Vide the said Judgment the present Appellant was convicted and
sentenced to undergo S.I. for a period of one (1) year each for the
offences punishable under Sec. 292(A)/506 I.P.C. and to undergo
S.I. for a period of 5 years and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- for the
offence under Sec. 509 I.P.C.. In default of payment of fine the
Appellant was to undergo S.I. for a period of three (3) months.
3. It is contended that the Appellant while working as a teacher in
Jakikia U.P. School, F.I.R. was lodged by the Informant who
happens to be a co-teacher in the said school alleging commission
of offence under Sec. 323/294/506/509/354(A)(I)(iii)(iv) of the
I.P.C. and Sec. 3 (1)(x)(xi) of SC & ST (POA) Act.
3.1. It is the case of the prosecution that the accused-Appellant
while working as a co-teacher in the school in question when tried
to get close to the Informant and failed in his attempt, the matter
was reported by the Informant/victim before the villagers. Even
though the Appellant expressed regrets and assured in causing
such act, but few months later, he once again tried to woo the
Informant by other means. The Appellant also tried to put some
// 3 //
written letters into the Informant's hand bag and also tried to mix
something in her drinks.
3.2. It is also the allegation that when the Appellant could not
succeed in influencing the Informant, the Appellant tried to malign
her image by spreading scandalous rumors in the school as well as
in her residential neighborhood. The Appellant also used
derogatory language touching upon her caste. It is also the
allegation that the Appellant threatened to kidnap and pour acid on
her face unless, the victim submitted to his terms. Alleging the
above overt act on the part of the Appellant, the victim lodged the
F.I.R. in Baliguda Police Station in 21.08.2015.
3.3. It is contended that the I.O. without proper investigation
submitted the final form on 17.03.2016 for the offence under Sec.
323/294/506/509/354(A)(I)(iii)(iv) of the I.P.C. and Sec. 3
(i)(x)(xi) of SC & ST (POA) Act. However, the Appellant was
charged for the offence under Sec. 292/506/509 of the I.P.C. r.w.
Sec. 3 (i)(x) of SC & ST (POA) Act and faced the trial in the court
of learned Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge, Kandhamal,
Phulbani in S.T. No. 116 of 2016.
// 4 //
3.4. Learned counsel appearing for the Appellant contended that
the prosecution in order to prove its case against the Appellant,
examined 5 nos. of witnesses and no evidence was laid by the
defence with examination of any witness. The Informant examined
herself as P.W. 2 and P.W. 1 is the elder sister of the Informant.
P.W. 3 is another teacher of the school and P.W. 5 is the I.O. of
the case.
3.5. Learned counsel appearing for the Appellant vehemently
contended that even though the Appellant faced the trial basing on
the F.I.R. lodged by P.W. 2 for the offence under Sec.
292/506/509 of the I.P.C. r.w. Sec. 3 (i)(x) of SC & ST (POA)
Act, but on the face of the evidence laid by P.W. 3 who happens to
be a co-teacher of the School, the Appellant could not have been
convicted and sentenced for the offence under Sec. 292/506/509 of
the I.P.C. r.w. Sec. 3 (i)(x) of SC & ST (POA) Act.
3.6. It is contended that P.W. 3 in her cross-examination
completely disowned the prosecution story and in view of such
statement of P.W. 3, who happens to be an independent witness,
// 5 //
no order of conviction and sentence could have been passed. P.W.
3 in her cross-examination has submitted as follows:-
"I commute to school by autorickshaw or for the transport bus.
During 2015 there were 3 lady teachers including me and 3
male teachers in the school. It is a fact that the informant had
not told me as to when the accused misbehaved with her. It is a
fact that I have never seen any such misdemeanour of the
accused. I have not seen the paper being put in to the
informant's handbag. It is a fact that the accused has not
misbehaved with me. I do not know to which caste the informant
belongs. I know her to be from the SC community. I have not
seen her caste certificate and service book. It is not a fact that
the informant has not told me any such thing and that I am
deposing falsehood at her instance."
3.7. It is also contended that the Headmaster of the School was
never examined as a prosecution witness and on the face of the
evidence of P.W. 3, evidence of P.W. 1 & 2 who are interested
witnesses, should not have been relied on by the learned trial court
while convicting and sentencing the Appellant. P.W. 5 who
happens to be the I.O. in his evidence also admits about non-
examination of the Headmaster of the School nor recording of his
statement under Sec. 161 Cr.P.C., as the Headmaster denied about
// 6 //
the knowledge of such allegation made by the Informant. P.W. 5
in his cross-examination has stated as follows:-
"6. I am unable to say if 21.08.2015 was not a Government
holiday. It is a fact that the formal FIR does not contain the
week day of 21.08.2015. 1 cannot say what day of the week was
that. One Uttara Kumar Sahu was the Headmaster of PUP
School, Jakikia on the day of my visit. I have not recorded his
statement u/s 161 CrPC since he denied the knowledge of the
allegations. I examined the accused at the Balliguda PS before
his arrest. It is a fact that I have not mentioned the specific hour
of the day when I examined him. It is a fact that I have not taken
permission of either the Headmaster or the BEO before
arresting the accused. The School has classes up to Class-VIII. I
examined few of the students but all of them denied any
knowledge about the allegations and hence did not feel it proper
to record their statements u/s 161 CrPC. There are no
residential houses close to the school.
7. The complaint (Ext. 1) is addressed to the District Education
Officer, Kandhamal. It does not disclose through whom it was
sent. I have not examined the District Education Officer,
Kandhamal. It is not a fact that I have not seized any such
complaint (Ext. 1). It is a fact that I have not seized any caste
certificate or any land records from the informant (PW 2). I did
not enclose any document with my requisition, Ext. 9. It is a fact
that the case diary does not reveal the basis upon which I came
to the conclusion that the informant belonged to SC. I have not
taken any step for forensic examination of the mobile handset. It
// 7 //
is not a fact that I have not seized any mobile handset from the
accused.
8. Sub-Inspector of Police, Balliguda PS recorded the statement
of the informant under section 161 CrPC as per my direction.
The statement is in her handwriting. It is a fact that the
statement does not bear any endorsement of mine. I examined
Saroj Kumar Nahak (PW 1, the brother of the informant) on
21.08.2015 and Kalpana Nahak (mother of the informant) on
22.08.2015 at the PS. 1 examined Saroj (PW 1) between 4.20
PM and 8.30 PM at the PS. I examined Menaka (PW 3) at the
School during my spot visit. I examined Pramod Kumar Mallick
at the PS the same day between 4.20 PM and 8.30 PM. It is not
a fact that I have not examined any of the aforesaid. It is not a
fact that for the purpose of this case I have created the
statements without examining them.
9. It is a fact that Saroj (PW 1) has not stated before me that his
sister had also given complaint to the Sub-Collector, Balliguda.
It is a fact that Manjulata (PW 2) has not stated before me that
the accused had developed her photograph from a group
photograph taken by him and that he used to sent SMS to her. It
is a fact that she has not stated before me that the accused had
taken strands of her hair for witchcraft and that he had mixed
something in her drinking water. It is a fact that she has not
stated before me that the accused had feigned suicide on her
account and that he had to be removed to the hospital. It is a
fact that she has not stated before me that she had brought the
fact to the notice of the school committee and that meetings had
been convened therefor.
// 8 //
10. It is not a fact that my investigation is not proper and that
without sufficient material have submitted charge sheet against
the accused."
3.8. It is contended that on the face of such statement of P.W. 3 &
5, the Appellant could not have been convicted for the offence
under Sec. 292/506/509 of the I.P.C. r.w. Sec. 3 (i)(x) of SC & ST
(POA) Act as the prosecution miserably failed to prove the
charges beyond are reasonable doubt. It is accordingly contended
that the impugned judgment is liable to be set aside by this Court.
4. Mr. C.K. Pradhan, learned Addl. Govt. Advocate on the other
hand while supporting the impugned judgment contended that
since the Appellant is a co-teacher and he was implicated for the
alleged offences by a co-teacher of the said school being P.W. 2,
basing on the statement of P.W. 2 so supported by P.W. 1, the
Appellant has been rightly convicted and sentenced. Reliance was
placed in the cross-examination of P.W. 1 which reads as follows:-
"3. I entered into service in 2007. The informant probably
joined in 2003. I have not seen the chits stated to have been
put into the hand bag of my sister. It is a fact that my sister
had not shown the water bottles stated to have been mixed
with something by the accused. We had called the accused to
// 9 //
our house and had asked him to desist from such conduct.
The accused did not reply anything and remained mum.
4. I have heard all these things from my sister. It is not a fact
that I have not stated before the police that my sister had told
about the matter to the Sub-Collector during his visit to the
school. I have no knowledge nor have I attended any meeting
in village Jakikia concerning in the matter. It is not a fact
that no such occurrence took place and that being influenced
by my sister I am deposing falsehood. It is not a fact that we
are not bauri by caste but are khadal by caste. Bauri and
Khadal are same castes."
4.1. P.W. 2 in her examination-in-chief also clearly supported the
prosecution allegation and on the face of such evidence of P.W. 1
& 2, no illegality or irregularity can be found with regard to
conviction and sentence of the Appellant vide the impugned
judgment.
5. To the submission made by the learned Addl. Govt. Advocate,
learned counsel appearing for the Appellant made further
submission and contended that P.W. 2 in her cross-examination
clearly admits that prior to submission of the F.I.R. vide Ext. 1,
she has not given any written complaint to anybody. In Para 6 of
her cross-examination P.W. 2 has submitted as follows:-
// 10 //
"It is a fact that I had not given any written complaint to any quarter prior to
submitting Ext. 1."
5.1. P.W. 2 in her cross-examination in Para 7 also submitted as
follows:-
"I have not made any complaint to the Sub-Collector, Baliguda. I have not
received any communication concerning the complaint of the School
Committee to the Sub-Collector, Baliguda."
5.2. It is accordingly contended that on the face of such evidence
laid by the prosecution and in absence of any independent witness
supporting the same, the order of conviction and sentenced could
not have been passed by convicting and sentencing the Appellant
for the offence under Sec. 292/506/509 of the I.P.C. r.w. Sec. 3
(i)(x) of SC & ST (POA) Act.
6. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the Parties and
considering the submissions made, this Court finds that basing on
the F.I.R. lodged by Informant-P.W. 2, Baliguda P.S. Case No.
111/2015 was registered for the offence under Sec.
323/294/506/509/354(A)(i)(iii)(iv) of the I.P.C. and Sec. 3
(i)(x)(xi) of SC & ST (POA) Act. After completion of the
// 11 //
investigation the Appellant was charge sheeted for the offence
under Sec. 323/294/506/509/354(A)(i)(iii)(iv) of the I.P.C. and
Sec. 3 (i)(x)(xi) of SC & ST (POA) Act. However, the Appellant
faced the trial in S.T. Case No. 116/2016 for the offence under
Sec. 292/506/509 of the I.P.C. r.w. Sec. 3 (i)(x) of SC & ST
(POA) Act.
6.1. The prosecution in order to prove its case examined 5 nos. of
witnesses. While P.W. 1 is the brother of the Informant, P.W. 2 is
the Informant herself. P.W. 3 is a co-teacher of the School and
P.W. 5 is the I.O..
6.2. This Court after going through the evidence of P.W. 1 & 2
vis-à-vis P.W. 3 & 5 finds that the allegation made by the
Informant-P.W. 2 has not been corroborated as the independent
witness who happens to be P.W. 3. Not only that as found from the
evidence of P.W. 5 the Headmaster of the School while declining
to give his statement under Sec. 161 Cr.P.C., clearly denied about
the allegation made by P.W. 2. It is also found that the Headmaster
of the School has not been examined as a prosecution witness.
// 12 //
6.3. Since the allegation made by the Informant-P.W. 2 was not
supported by any independent witness nor the Headmaster of the
School was examined as a witness, as per the considered view of
this Court on the face of such evidence available in the record, the
Appellant could not have been convicted and sentenced vide the
impugned judgment dtd.29.04.2017. It is also the view of this
Court that prosecution has failed to prove the charges against the
appellant beyond all reasonable doubt. Therefore, this Court is
inclined to quash judgment dtd.29.04.2017 so passed by the
learned Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge, Kandhamal, Phulbani
in S.T. No. 116 of 2016. While quashing the same, the appeal
stands allowed.
6.4. The Appellant be discharged from the bail bond.
7. The appeal accordingly stands disposed of.
(BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY)
Judge
Orissa High Court, Cuttack
The 30th May, 2025/Sneha
Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack
