Orissa High Court
G. Krutibasa Patra @ Gudla Krutibas ... vs State Of Odisha on 14 October, 2025
THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
CRA No.79 of 1998
(In the matter of an application under Section 374(2) of the Criminal
Procedure Code, 1973)
G. Krutibasa Patra @ Gudla Krutibas Patra ....... Appellant
-Versus-
State of Odisha ....... Respondent
For the Appellant : Mr. Biswa Kumar Mishra, Advocate
For the Respondent : Ms. Subhalaxmi Devi, ASC
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE SHRI JUSTICE SIBO SANKAR MISHRA
Date of Hearing: 14.10.2025 :: Date of Judgment: 14.10.2025
S.S. Mishra, J. The present criminal appeal is directed against the
judgment and order dated 27.03.1998 passed by the learned Special
Judge, Koraput, at Jeypore in T.R. Case No.73 of 1995 arising out of
G.R. Case No.476 of 1995, whereby the learned trial Court while
acquitting the appellants of the charges under Sections 3(1)(xi) of SC &
ST (PoA) Act, convicted the appellant for the offences punishable under
Sections 448/354/509 of I.P.C. The appellant was sentenced to undergo
R.I. for two months for the offence under Section 448 of I.P.C.,
additionally undergo R.I. for two months for the offence under Section
354 of I.P.C. and S.I. for one month under Section 509 of I.P.C., and the
sentences to run concurrently.
2. Heard Mr. Biswa Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the appellant
and Ms. Subhalaxmi Devi, learned Additional Standing Counsel for the
State.
3. The prosecution case in terse and brief is that the accused
repeatedly entered the informant's residential quarters, bearing No.B-215
in Sector-III, Damanjodi, during the informant's absence, on various
pretexts. Despite objections raised by the informant's wife, the accused
forcibly remained at the premises. It is further alleged that he
misbehaved with the wife of the informant and used words that outraged
her modesty. He also allegedly attempted to lure her with promises of
gold ornaments and precious stones. Moreover, the accused is said to
have persuaded the informant's wife to consume liquor, purporting that it
would be beneficial for her health and appearance. The informant, upon
learning these incidents, sent a message to the accused through one
Prasanta Kumar Mohapatra, requesting a meeting, which did not
materialize. Subsequently, on 02.08.1995, the informant confronted the
accused regarding his inappropriate conduct, but the accused remained
silent. Thereafter, on 05.08.1995, the informant lodged an F.I.R. against
the accused. It is also alleged in the prosecution version that the victim is
a member of Scheduled Caste and the accused-appellant is of general
caste. On the basis of said report, Damanjodi P.S. Crime No. 46 of 1995
was registered and investigation commenced. After investigation,
charge-sheet was filed and charges were were framed for the offences
under Sections 448/354/509 of I.P.C. read with Section 3(1)(xi) of the
SC & ST(PoA) Act. On his stance of denial and claim of trial, he was put
to trial.
4. The prosecution in order to bring home charges, examined five
witnesses. Out of whom, P.W.1 was the victim of the incident whereas
P.W.2 was the informant and husband of the P.W.1. P.W.3 was the son
of P.Ws.1 and 2. P.W.4 was the Office Superintendent of Delhi Public
School and P.W.5 was the I.O. of the case.
5. Although initially the appellant was charged under Section
448/354/509 of I.P.C. read with Section 3(1)(xi) of the SC & ST(PoA)
Act, however, the learned trial Court after analyzing the evidence of the
victim (P.W.1) and the informant (P.W.2) have arrived at a conclusion
that the accused person is not guilty of the offences under Section
3(1)(xi) of the SC & ST (PoA) Act rather he has been held guilty of the
offences under Sections 448/354/509 of I.P.C. and on that count,
sentence has been awarded. Relevant part of the impugned judgment is
reproduced hereunder:-
"12. P.Ws.1 and 2 have stated that they belong to
Dhoba Caste. Ext.4, the Certificate issued by the
Sub-Divisional Officer, Chatrapur shows that
P.W.2, (the husband of P.W.1) is a member of a
Scheduled Caste. It is not proved that the accused
is not a member of a Scheduled Caste or a
Scheduled Tribe. Prosecution ought to have
investigated into this aspect and obtained a
certificate from the concerned authorities as to
the community to which the accused belongs and
the fact whether he is a member of a Scheduled
Caste or a Scheduled Tribe. The accused in his
statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. on the
question of this Court that P.W.1, the victim, has
stated that she belongs to Dhoba Caste which is a
Scheduled Caste and that you do not belong either
to a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe, has
stated 'HON' (Yes). In my view, this itself is not
sufficient to show that he does not belong either to
a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe. Thus the
offence under Section 3(1) (xi) of the Act is not
made out in this case.
13. From the aforesaid discussions, I am of the
view that the prosecution has established the
charges under Sections 448, 354 and 509 I.P.C.
Accordingly, I hold the accused guilty under
Sections 448, 354 and 509 of the I.P.C. and
convict him thereunder. He is, however, acquitted
of the charge under Section 3(1)(xi) of the Act."
6. Being aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and order of
sentence passed by the learned Special Judge, Koraput, at Jeypore, the
present appeal has been preferred by the appellants.
7. At the outset, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that in so
far as the conviction recorded against the appellant is concerned, he
would not press the appeal and would confine his arguments only to the
quantum of sentence imposed. It is submitted that the incident dates back
to the year 1995, and at that time, the appellant was forty-five years of
age. Presently, he is in his late seventies and has been leading a
respectable and dignified life along with his family. The appellant has no
criminal antecedents, and no other case of a similar or any other nature is
pending against him. Over the years, he has remained well integrated
into society and has maintained a settled family life. It is urged that
sending him back to custody after such a long passage of time would
serve no useful penological purpose and would instead be counter-
productive, casting an unnecessary stigma not only upon him but also
upon his family members, particularly when there is no allegation of any
repeat offence or non-compliance with law thereafter.
8. While analyzing the evidence on record, I find no reason to differ
from the findings returned by the learned trial Court, as reproduced
above, and hence affirm the conviction recorded against the appellant for
the offences under Sections 448/354/509 of the I.P.C. However, coming
to the question of sentence, it appears that the learned trial Court had
awarded R.I. for two months for the offence under Section 448 of the
I.P.C., further R.I. for two months for the offence under Section 354 of
the I.P.C., and S.I. for one month for the offence under Section 509 of
the I.P.C., directing that the sentences under Sections 458 and 354 of
I.P.C. to run concurrently. It is submitted that the appellant has already
undergone a period of fifteen days in custody. Considering the fact that
the incident occurred three decades ago, and the appellant is now in his
late seventies, has no other criminal involvement, and has lived a
reformed and socially respectable life since then, I am inclined to take a
lenient view. Accordingly, while affirming the conviction, the
substantive sentences imposed by the learned trial Court are reduced to
the period the appellant already undergone.
9. Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal is partly allowed.
(S.S. Mishra)
Judge
The High Court of Orissa, Cuttack.
Dated the 14th October, 2025/ Swarna
Designation: Senior Stenographer
Location: High Court of Orissa
