Orissa High Court
Pramod Hati vs State Of Orissa on 9 September, 2025
THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
CRLA No. 191 of 2004
(In the matter of an application under Section 374 of the Criminal
Procedure Code, 1973)
Pramod Hati ....... Appellant
-Versus-
State of Orissa ....... Respondent
For the Appellant : Mr. D.K. Mishra-1, Advocate
For the Respondent : Ms. Sarita Moharana, ASC
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE SHRI JUSTICE SIBO SANKAR MISHRA
Date of Hearing: 05.08.2025 :: Date of Judgment: 09.09.2025
S.S. Mishra, J. The present Criminal Appeal, is filed by the appellant
under Section 374 of the Cr. P.C., assailing the judgment of conviction
and order of sentence dated 15.05.2004 passed by the learned Special
Judge, Sonepur in Sessions Case No. 124/19 of 2000, whereby the
learned trial Court has convicted the accused-appellant under Section
354 of I.P.C. and sentenced him to undergo R.I. for one year.
2. Heard Mr. D.K. Mishra-1, learned counsel for the appellant and
Ms. Sarita Moharana, learned Addl. Standing Counsel for the State.
3. The prosecution case, tersely stated, is that on 04.04.1997 at about
8.00 A.M. P.W.1, the victim returned back from her paddy field with
collected mahua flowers. On the way, the accused approached her
willingness for quick sex and on her refusal, he caught her neck and
throttled her and pushed her to the ground and seeing arrival of
witnesses, ran way. The witnesses found her crying and on their query,
she explained as to how the accused misbehaved her. Her brother and
father, who had gone to plough the land from which she returned back
ahead also reached there and then took her to home. Thereafter, a village
meeting was convened which yielded no result. Hence, the FIR was
lodged by the brother of the victim, who had expired in the meantime.
On the basis of the aforesaid allegation, the F.I.R. was registered
and after completion of investigation, charge sheet was submitted against
the accused person under Sections 354 of IPC read with Section 3(1) (xi)
of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (PoA) Act. Charge was
framed against the appellant. On his stance of denial and claim of trial,
he was put to trial.
4. The prosecution, in order to bring home the charges, examined as
many as eight witnesses. P.W.1 was the victim girl, P.W.2 is the father
of the victim girl. PW.3, the witness who reached the spot at the time of
occurrence and seeing him the accused ran away leaving the victim girl;
P.Ws.4 and 5 were the members of the village panch, wherein the matter
was deliberated upon. P.Ws.6, 7 and 8 were the Investigating Officers,
who conducted the investigation of the case and submitted the charge
sheet.
5. Although the appellant was charged for commission of offence
under Section 354 of IPC read with Section 3 (1) (xi) of the S.C. & S.T.
(PoA) Act, however, the trial court acquitted the appellant of the offence
under Section 3 (1) (xi) of the S.C. & S.T. (PoA) Act on the ground that
the Investigating Officers in the present case, i.e., P.Ws.6, 7 and 8 were
not the competent officer to conduct the investigation as per Rule-7 of
the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of
Atrocities) Rules, 1995. The learned trial court has also relied upon the
judgment of this Court in the case of Maheswar Panda vrs. State of
Orissa, reported in 2003 (24) OCR 135 and held that an officer not
appointed in terms of the provision of law, who has conducted the
investigation, is illegal and invalid.
6. The present case is pertaining to an incident happened on
04.04.1997 and subsequently after investigation, charge sheet was filed
in the case in the year 1997. The S.C. & S.T. (PoA) Rules came into
force on 31.03.1995. Rule-7 of Rules, 1995 mandate that any offence
committed under the Act needs to be investigated by a police officer not
below the rank of a Deputy Superintendent of Police. Since admittedly
the Investigating Officers are not of the rank of Deputy Superintendent
of Police, the trial court has rightly acquitted the appellant for the
offence under Section 3 (1) (xi) of the S.C. & S.T. (PoA) Act. Hence,
this part of the judgment being not challenged by the State, the same is
affirmed.
7. Coming to the offence under Section 354 of the IPC, the evidence
of P.W.1, the victim and P.W.2, the father of the victim is apparently
clear. The victim in her evidence has deposed that on the day of the
occurrence she had gone to their land to collect mahua flower and while
she was returning home, on the way, the accused approached her
willingness for quick sex uttering "TIKIA DEBUKI" and on her refusal,
the accused caught her by neck and throttled her neck and pushed her to
ground. She immediately made hulla and hearing the hulla, her father
P.W.2 and brother (the informant who had expired in the meanwhile)
rushed there and seeing them the accused ran away. P.W.2, the father of
the victim by corroborating the evidence of P.W.1 has stated that in the
morning he and his eldest son were ploughing their land while P.W.1, his
daughter was collecting mahua flower and finding indication of rain, he
asked her daughter to go home and accordingly she returned back and
then he and his son unyoked the bullocks and came behind her. Hearing
her cry on the mid way, they ran near her and found her crying near
Ragudibandha and she complained before them that the accused made
indecent proposal to her followed by assault, by catching hold of her by
neck and pushing her to the ground. The said version further
corroborated from the evidence of P.W.3, the co-villager, who deposed
that ,in that morning he had to stop ploughing his land as rain
approached and then he returned back home and on the way found P.W.1
crying near Ragudibandha and being asked she complained before him
that the accused uttered indecent things to her. These witnesses, i.e.,
P.Ws.1, 2 and 3 have sustained extensive cross examination by the
defence. The substantive part of their version regarding the occurrence
has not been shaken. Therefore, I have no hesitation to record that the
impugned order passed by the learned trial court is culmination of true
appreciation of the evidence which came on record. In that view of the
matter, the conviction recorded by the learned trial court for the offence
under Section 354 of IPC stands affirmed.
8. At this stage, Mr. D.K. Mishra-1, learned counsel for the appellant
submitted that at the time of the incident the appellant was of twenty-five
years and at present he is in his early fifties and he has a clean antecedent
and now leading a happy life with his family. Therefore, sentencing him
to custody at the belated stage to serve out the remaining sentence
awarded would be harsh. He further submitted that the appellant was
arrested on 07.04.1997 and remained in custody for some time.
Therefore, it is submitted that in the fact scenario of the present case, due
to long pendency of the criminal proceeding against the appellant, the
appellant may be treated under the Probation of Offenders Act.
9. Taking into consideration the fact that the appellant was only
twenty-five years at the time of incident in the year 1997 and the fact
that he has a clean antecedent, I am of the considered view that the
submission made by learned counsel for the appellant deserves merit.
The appellant was convicted vide judgment and order dated 15.05.2004
and the appeal is pending since 2004. Much has changed in the life of the
appellant in between and he has already settled in his life. The appellant
has undergone the ordeal of prolonged trial and pendency of appeal for
about two decades.
10. In the prevailing scenario, regard being had to the age of the
appellant and his clean antecedents and the fact that the incident relates
back to the year 1997, I am of the considered view that the appellant is
entitled to the benefit of the Probation of Offenders Act read with
Section 360 of Cr.P.C. The case of the appellant is also covered by the
ratio of the judgment of this Court in the case of Pathani Parida &
another vs. Abhaya Kumar Jagdevmohapatra1 and Dhani @
Dhaneswar Sahu vs. State of Orissa2.
11. In such view of the matter, the present Criminal Appeal in so far
as the conviction is concerned is turned down. But instead of sentencing
the appellant to suffer imprisonment, this Court directs the appellant to
be released under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act for a
period of one year on his executing bond of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five
Thousand) within one month with one surety for the like amount to
appear and receive the sentence when called upon during such period
and in the meantime, the appellant shall keep peace and good behavior
and he shall remain under the supervision of the concerned Probation
Officer during the aforementioned period of one year. The appellant is
2012 (Supp-II) OLR 469
2007 (Supp.II) OLR 250
directed to appear before the learned trial court to furnish the bail bond,
as mentioned above.
12. Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal is partly allowed.
(S.S. Mishra)
Judge
The High Court of Orissa, Cuttack.
Dated the 09th September, 2025/ Ashok
Signed by: ASHOK KUMAR JAGADEB MOHAPATRA
Location: High Court of Orissa
