Orissa High Court
Rama Hari Sahu vs State Of Orissa on 9 September, 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
CRA No.219 of 1996
(In the matter of an application under Section 374(2) of the Criminal
Procedure Code, 1973)
Rama Hari Sahu ....... Appellant
-Versus-
State of Orissa ....... Respondent
For the Appellant : Mr. Sudipto Panda, Amicus Curiae
For the Respondent : Mr. Ashok Kumar Apat, AGA
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE SHRI JUSTICE SIBO SANKAR MISHRA
Date of Hearing: 12.08.2025 :: Date of Judgment: 09.09.2025
S.S. Mishra, J. The present criminal appeal is directed against the
judgment dated 03.08.1996 passed by the learned Special Judge,
Koraput, Jeypore in T.R. Case No. 23 of 1994, whereby the appellant has
been convicted under Section 341 IPC and Section 3(1)(x) of the
Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act,
1989 and sentenced him to pay a fine of Rs.100/- in default to undergo
simple imprisonment for seven days for the offence under Section 341
IPC, and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and pay a fine
of Rs.200/- in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for fifteen days
for the offence under Section 3(1)(x) of the said Act.
2. Mr. Sudipto Panda, learned counsel, states he lacks power and
adequate papers for this case. He further submitted that the case file
belongs to his late senior Brahmananda Panda. Nonetheless, he is willing
to argue as Amicus Curiae to assist the Court on the request of the Court.
3. Heard Mr. Sudipto Panda, learned Amicus Curiae, for the
appellant and Mr. Ashok Kumar Apat, learned Additional Government
Advocate for the State.
4. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 14.02.1992 at about 9:00
A.M., the informant, P.W.6, Arjuna Mallik, a Junior Engineer of
Kudumulugumma Panchayat Samiti belonging to Scheduled Caste
(Kandara), was returning from the market when, at P.W.D. Road
Chhaka, the appellant, a member of the general caste, arrived on a
motorbike, stopped in front of him and shouted abusive words referring
to his caste, threatened that he had damaged his reputation, distributed
pamphlets against him, and warned him to leave the place or else he
would be killed. It is alleged that many persons were present and heard
the abuse. The informant lodged a written report, leading to registration
of the case and subsequent investigation.
5. The appellant's defence was one of complete denial and false
implication, alleging that due to his disputes with other contractors and
opposition to illegal acts, he was victimised by the informant. He
claimed that on the relevant day he had merely asked the informant to
process a file relating to a work order, and no such caste-based abuse
was ever uttered.
6. The prosecution examined nine witnesses, including the informant
(P.W.6), eyewitnesses P.W.3 and P.W.7, and P.Ws.5 and 9 are the
Investigating Officers. The defence examined none. The learned Special
Judge, on appreciation of evidence, found the testimony of P.W.6 fully
corroborated by P.Ws.3 and 7, and held the occurrence proved beyond
reasonable doubt. Accordingly, conviction and sentence as above were
imposed. The relevant portion of the aforesaid judgment is extracted
herein below:-
"10. P.W.6, the informant, has vividly narrated about
the incident of that date and also of previous dates.
He has also filed the pamphlet marked 'x' which had
been distributed making allegations against him and
on that day the accused also abused him telling that
he damaged his reputation and distributed pamphlets
against him. P.Ws 3 and 7 have admitted this fact.
P.W.6 states that he is a Kandara belonging to
Scheduled Caste. No denial suggestion has been
given to him that he is not a member of Scheduled
Caste. He states that the accused abused him
'Kandara Magyan" and shouted at him to seek a
transfer and leave that place or else he would murder
him. This has also been stated by P.Ws 3 and 7. The
occurrence took place on a public road and this has
been heard by many persons. P.W.6 felt humiliated
and insulted. The evidence of P.W.6 regarding the
occurrence of 14.2.92 gets full corroboration from
P.Ws 3 and 7. There is no material contradiction in
their evidence. Both of them are local persons and I
find nothing on record to disbelieve their version on
any ground. So taking into consideration the evidence
of these three witnesses, I am satisfied that the
prosecution has proved its case and the accused is
liable under section 341 I.P.C. and section 3(1)(x) of
the S.C.& S.T. Act."
7. Mr. Panda, learned Amicus Curiae for the appellant contended, at
the threshold, that the investigation in the present case stands vitiated for
non-compliance of Rule 7(1) of the SC and ST (Prevention of Atrocities)
Rules, 1995, since the investigation was carried out by an officer below
the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police. It is urged that Rule 7(1)
specifically mandates that only an officer of the rank of DSP or above,
duly appointed by the State Government or competent authority, is
authorised to investigate offences under the Act, and any investigation
by a lower rank officer would nullify the entire proceedings. This
argument, however, cannot be accepted for the reason that the alleged
occurrence took place on 14.02.1992, charge-sheet was submitted in the
year 1994, and the Rules of 1995 came into force thereafter on
31.03.1995. Procedural rules ordinarily do not operate retrospectively to
nullify investigations already concluded. Hence, the contention of the
learned counsel, though attractive, cannot be accepted in the present
case.
8. On careful scrutiny of the record, it also appears that all the
incriminating circumstances forming the basis of conviction have not
been properly put to the accused in his examination under Section 313
Cr.P.C. The statement recorded under Section 313 shows a general
denial, but specific questions regarding the distribution of pamphlets and
caste-based utterances were not squarely put to him. It is well settled that
failure to put all incriminating circumstances to the accused causes
prejudice and renders such material unusable against him. The Hon'ble
Supreme Court in Sujit Biswas vs. State of Assam, reported in (2013) 12
SCC 406, held thus:-
"20. It is a settled legal proposition that in a criminal trial, the
purpose of examining the accused person under Section 313
CrPC, is to meet the requirement of the principles of natural
justice i.e. audi alteram partem. This means that the accused
may be asked to furnish some explanation as regards the
incriminating circumstances associated with him, and the
court must take note of such explanation. In a case of
circumstantial evidence, the same is essential to decide
whether or not the chain of circumstances is complete. No
matter how weak the evidence of the prosecution may be, it is
the duty of the court to examine the accused, and to seek his
explanation as regards the incriminating material that has
surfaced against him. The circumstances which are not put to
the accused in his examination under Section 313 CrPC,
cannot be used against him and must be excluded from
consideration. The said statement cannot be treated as
evidence within the meaning of Section 3 of the Evidence Act,
as the accused cannot be cross-examined with reference to
such statement."
9. Another important aspect is the proof of caste of the informant.
While P.W.6 has stated that he belongs to Kandara caste, which is a
Scheduled Caste, no caste certificate or documentary proof has been
placed on record. The prosecution has also not examined any official
witness to establish his caste status beyond doubt. In an offence under
Section 3(1)(x) of the SC & ST Act, strict proof of the caste of the victim
is mandatory, and oral assertion is insufficient in the absence of
corroboration.
10. In light of the above, this Court is not satisfied that the essential
ingredients of the offence under Section 3(1)(x) of the SC & ST Act
have been proved beyond all reasonable doubts. The conviction of the
appellant under the said provision cannot be sustained and is accordingly
set aside.
11. Coming to the charge under Section 341 IPC, the evidence of
P.W.6, corroborated by P.Ws.3 and 7, clearly indicates that the appellant
obstructed the informant on the road by stopping his motorbike in front
of him, thereby preventing him from proceeding further. This constitutes
wrongful restraint within the meaning of Section 341 IPC. To that extent,
the conviction is well founded.
12. On the question of sentence, it is urged that the appellant is aged
about 75 years, has already undergone custody for about one month, and
has suffered the ordeal of criminal proceedings since 1992. He was about
46 years old at the time of the occurrence and is now more than 75 years
old. Considering his advanced age, the trivial nature of the offence under
Section 341 IPC, and the period already undergone, this Court is of the
view that further incarceration would serve no purpose.
13. Accordingly, as mentioned in the preceding paragraph, the
conviction and sentence of the appellant under Section 3(1)(x) of the SC
& ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 are set aside, and he is
acquitted of the said charge. However, the conviction of the appellant
under Section 341 IPC is maintained. Considering his age and the period
of custody already undergone, the sentence under Section 341 IPC is
reduced to the period the appellant has already undergone.
14. This Court records appreciation for the effective and meaningful
assistance rendered by Mr. Sudipto Panda, learned Amicus Curiae. He is
entitled to the honourarium of Rs.7,500/- (Rupees seven thousand five
hundred) as a token of appreciation.
15. The Criminal Appeal is partly allowed.
(S.S. Mishra)
Judge
The High Court of Orissa, Cuttack.
Dated the 9th Day of September, 2025/ Subhasis Mohanty
Designation: Personal Assistant
Reason: Authentication
Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack.
Date: 12-Sep-2025 15:56:55
