Orissa High Court
Chakradhar Chinda And Others vs State Of Odisha on 9 September, 2025
THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
CRA No.68 of 2000
(In the matter of an application under Section 374(2) of the Criminal
Procedure Code, 1973)
Chakradhar Chinda and others ....... Appellants
-Versus-
State of Odisha ....... Respondent
For the Appellants : Mr. D. K. Mishra 1, Advocate
For the Respondent : Mr. Raj Bhusan Dash, 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 three appellants consolidately preferred this
appeal assailing the judgment and order dated 25.02.2000 passed by the
learned Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge, B0langir in G.R. Case
No.358 of 1998 arising out of T.R. Case No.1 of 1999, whereby the
learned trial Court while acquitting the appellants of the charges under
Sections 3(1)(x) of SC & ST (PoA) Act read with Section 307/34 of
I.P.C., convicted the appellants for the offence punishable under Section
324/34 of I.P.C. The appellants were sentenced to undergo R.I. for four
months and to pay a fine of Rs.500/-, in default, to undergo further R.I.
for two months on that count.
2. Heard Mr. D. K. Mishra-1, learned counsel for the appellants and
Mr. Raj Bhusan Dash, learned Additional Standing Counsel for the State.
3. When the matter was taken up for hearing on 05.08.2025, it was
brought to the notice of the Court that during pendency of the present
appeal, the appellant No.1-Chakradhar Chinda and the appellant No.2-
Rohit Chinda have expired. Therefore, the present appeal qua the
appellant Nos.1 and 2 stood abated in the absence of any application
under Section 394 Cr.P.C. by the legal heirs or next friend of the
deceased-appellants. Hence, the appeal is considered only in respect of
appellant No.3-Harisankar Chinda.
4. The prosecution case in terse and brief is that one Krushna Nag,
the injured (P.W.1) had purchased some landed properties from the pre-
decessor in interests of the appellants more than forty years back and has
been in possession over the same as the owner thereof. It is alleged that
on the date of occurrence, i.e. on 23.06.1998 at about 12.30 P.M., while
Krushna Nag (P.W.1) was sitting near the shop of one Durjan Seth, the
accused persons came there, being armed with axe and iron-rods and
assaulted him by means of the said weapons on his head, neck and hand,
as a result of which, he sustained severe injuries. On being assaulted, the
injured fell down, and the appellants fled away. It is also alleged that
they had threatened the injured (P.W.1) to take away his life. Giridhari
Nag (P.W.7), the son of the injured saw the occurrence from a distance.
After investigation, charge-sheet was filed for the alleged commission of
offences punishable under Sections 307/34 of I.P.C. read with Section
3(1)(x) of the SC & ST (PoA) Act. On their stance of denial and claim of
trial, they were put to trial, after the charges were framed.
5. The prosecution in order to bring home charges, examined as
many as thirteen witnesses. Out of whom, P.W.1 was the injured
whereas P.W.2, was the eye-witness to the occurrence and has turned
hostile. P.Ws.3, 4 and 6 were the seizure witnesses, who have also not
supported the prosecution case. P.W.5 is the wife of the injured and said
to be eye-witness to the occurrence. P.W.7 is the informant, who is the
son of the injured. P.Ws.8, 9 and 10 were the witnesses to prove the
circumstances. P.W.11 was the A.S.I. of Dungripali Out Post and the
first Investigating Officer, whereas P.W.12 is the Medical Officer, who
examined the injured on police requisition. P.W.13 is the second I.O. of
the case.
6. The learned trial Court found the testimonies of the injured
witness (P.W.1), his wife (P.W.5), and his son (P.W.7) credible and
corroborated by medical evidence and the seizure of bloodstained
articles, despite hostile independent witnesses and minor discrepancies in
weapon attributions. It concluded that the assault was carried out with
dangerous weapons but caused only simple hurt, with no intention to
cause death, thus not attracting Section 307 I.P.C. The learned trial Court
arrived at a conclusion that the accused persons are not guilty for the
offences under Sections 307/34 of I.P.C. read with Section 3(1)(x) of the
SC & ST (PoA) Act rather they are held guilty for the offence under
Section 324/34 of I.P.C and on that count, sentence has been awarded.
The following is the passage of the impugned judgment, which sums up
the conclusion is reproduced below:-
"Thus, on a scrutiny of the evidence of P.Ws. 5
and 7 find the same credible. Their evidence
with regard to the assault on P.W.3 has also been
corroborated by medical evidence. The I.O.
P.W.11, had seized blood stained earth and
sample earth from the spot under seizure list Ext,
1/2, blood stained banian of the injured under
seizure list-Ext.2/2 and one axe and two iron
rods from the house of the accused persons
under seizure list Ext.3/1. Admittedly, the seized
materials have not been sent for chemical
examination and, therefore, the tangia which has
been marked M.O.I and the two 1on-rods which
are marked M.Os. II and III, cannot be said to
have been stained with blood. The independent
witnesses to seizure have turned hostile.
Therefore, the M.Os. I, II and III may not be
incriminating, but that by itself will have no
adverse impact on the prosecution case, P.W.11
has stated about seizures. P.W.1 has also stated
that his banian had been stained with blood from
his head injury and the police had seized the
same. He has also identified the said banian in
Court, which is marked M.O.IV. P. W. 11 has no
axe to grind against the accused persons. Having
proved the seizure of the blood stained banian of
P.W.1, the seizure corroborates the oral evidence
about the assault on P. W. 1.
Independent eye-witnesses namely, P.Ws.2
and 10 have turned hostile but their omission to
support the prosecution case does not affect the
credibility of P.Ws.1, 5 and 7. On a close
scrutiny, I find the evidence of P.Ws.1, 5 and 7
quite clear, cogent and trustworthy. There is also
corroborative medical evidence and seizure of
the blood stained banian of the injured and blood
stained earth from the spot. The conclusion,
therefore, deducible is that, all the three accused
persons in furtherance of their common intention
caused simple hurt to P.W.1 by means of tangia
and iron-rods. As revealed from the medical
evidence, the blunt side of the tangia was used
and all the three accused persons dealt one blow
each. From this it is quite clear that the accused
persons had no intention to cause the death of
P.W.1 or to cause such injury as well as likely to
cause death in ordinary course of nature. Simple
hurt was caused by means of tangia and iron-
rods, which are dangerous weapons. The accused
persons, therefore, are liable U/S/ 324/34 I.P.C.
and not U/S. 307/34 I.P.C."
7. Being aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and order of
sentence passed by the learned Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge,
Bolangir, the present appeal has been preferred by the appellants.
8. Although initially the appellants were charged under Section
307/34 of I.P.C. read with Section 3(1)(x) of the SC & ST (PoA) Act,
however, the learned trial Court has acquitted all of them from all
charges while finding them guilty for the offence under Section 324/34
of I.P.C. The learned trial Court while recording an acquittal for the
offence under Section 3(1)(x) of SC & ST (PoA) Act and Section 307/34
of I.P.C. not only appreciated the evidence in that regard but also relied
upon Rule 7 of the SC & ST (PA) Rule, 1995 which came into force on
31.03.1995. The learned trial Court has arrived at a conclusion that in the
instant case, the Investigating Officer i.e. P.Ws.11 and 13 were working
as A.S.I. and S.I. of Police and they were well below the rank of Deputy
Superintendent of Police. Hence, the entire investigation is vitiated.
Accordingly, the appellants were acquitted from the offence under the
3(1)(x) of SC & ST (PoA) Act. The learned trial Court has concluded
inter alia stating as under:-
"Further under Rule-7 of the S.C. & S.T. (P.A.)
Rules, 1995 investigation into an offence under
the S.C. & S.T. (P.A.) Act is to be conducted by
an Officer not below the rank of D.S.P.
Interpreting the scope and submit of Rule-7, the
Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of
Ramallinga Reddy @ D. Babu vrs. State of A.P.,
1999 (2) Crimes 343), held that investigation of
an offence under the S.C. & S.T. (P.A.) Act by an
Officer below the rank of Deputy Superintendent
of Police is illegal, which vitiates the trial of the
said offence and, therefore, the accused cannot be
convicted. In the instant case, admittedly
investigation was conducted by P.Ws.11 and 13,
who are respectively A.S.I. and S.I. of Police.
There is, therefore, a clear violation of the
provision of Rule-7 of the S.C. & S.T. (P.A.)
Rules, 1995, Investigation of the offence U/S. 3
(1)(x) of the Act being illegal, the accused persons
cannot be held guilty for the same.
10. In the light of the discussions made above, I
hold the accused persons not guilty U/S/ 3(1)(x)
of the S.C. & S.T. (Prevention of Atrocities) Act
and U/S. 307/34 IPC and assault them of the said
charges. Instead, the accused persons having been
found guilty for an offence punishable U/S.
324/34 I.P.C., I convict them thereunder."
9. I find no reason to disagree with the conclusion arrived at by the
learned trial Court in so far as recording of acquittal in favour of the
appellants of the charges under Sections 307/34 of I.P.C. as well as
Section 3(1)(x) of SC & ST (PoA) Act. Hence, I need not advert to the
evidence in that regard, particularly, the State has not questioned the
acquittal. The only question to be decided in this case is; whether from
the evidence on record, the offence under Section 324/34 of I.P.C.
against the appellants are made out or not. In that regard, the evidence of
P.Ws.1, 3, 5, 7 and 11 is relevant. P.W.1 was the injured in the present
case, who has narrated the incident by deposing as under:-
"xxx xxx...On the date of occurrence at about 12.00
noon my wife and my son Hadu were ploughing the
said land. The accused persons came there, unyoked
the plough and abused saying "SALA GANDA TAME
KAHINIKI AMA JAMIN CHASUCHA". I was then
sitting near the shop of Durjan Seth in order to
purchase Bidi as Durjan had gone to his house. The
three accused persons then came running towards me.
Accused Harisankar was holding a tangia and the other
two accused persons were armed with iron rods. They
abused me saying "MAA GIHA GANDA TORA
BOPAR JAMIN KI HALFANDI ASICHU". The
accused persons then assaulted me by their weapons on
my head, neck and hand. I sustained bleeding injuries
and fell down and became unconscious."
The said witness (P.W.1) was subjected to extensive cross-
examination at the hands of the defence counsel but to no avail. P.W.5,
who is the wife of P.W.1 and eye witness to the occurrence has also
narrated the incident in the similar way by deposing as under:-
"2. The occurrence took place at about noon on a
Tuesday, in the month of Jesta about a year back. On
the date of occurrence my son Hadu and myself were
ploughing our land, which we had purchased since 40
to 50 years. At that time the accused persons came to
our land, abused me in filthy languages and also
threatened to kill us saying "GANDA KU HANI
DEBU' claiming that the land belongs to them. They
were armed with an axe and two iron rods. Then they
came towards the village and I followed them. My
husband was sitting near the shop of Durjana. The
accused persons assaulted my husband by weapons
and then ran away. While following the accused
persons from my land I saw the assault on my
husband from near a date-palm tree. When I came
near the spot I found my husband lying unconscious
with bleeding injuries."
10. P.W.7, the son of the injured has also deposed regarding the
incident in the similar way by stating as under:-
"xxx xxx....At the time of occurrence my father was
sitting near a shop. The accused persons came and
assaulted him by means of tangia and iron-rod and
then ran away. While I was preparing to go to the
Police Station for reporting the matter, the A.S.I. of
Dunguripali Out Post reached at the spot of
occurrence. I reported the matter before him orally
which was reduced into writing by him. The
contents of the F.I.R. were read over and explained
to me and finding the same to be correct I put my
L.T.I."
11. P.W.12, the doctor, who was examined the injured (P.W.1) has
found the following injures on the body of the injured, which reads as
under:-
(1) Lacerated wound on left side of head towards
back obliquely placed and of size 2" x 1/3" x 1/2.
The injury was simple in nature and possibly caused
by blunt impact.
(2) Bruise on left side of shoulder of the size 5" x 1"
with a haematoma of size of 5" x 6". The injury was
simple in nature, caused by blunt weapon.
(3) Bruise on right fore-arm on the outer-side near
elbow. The size of the wound was 4" x 3" and it was
simple in nature, caused by blunt weapon."
The said witness has, however, deposed that the injuries are
simple in nature and caused by blunt weapon. From conjoint reading of
all the evidence, this is apparently come on record that the accused
persons have used tangia, iron-rod etc. to assault P.W.1, causing various
injuries as has been narrated by the doctor (P.W.12). The injuries
although was simple but have been caused by deadly weapons. The
learned trial Court came to the conclusion that although the appellants
have assaulted the P.W.1, however, they had no intention to kill the
injured (P.W.1). Therefore, the learned trial Court has rightly acquitted
all of them for the offence under Section 307 of I.P.C. and rightly
convicted the appellants for the offence under Section 324/34 of I.P.C.
The learned trial Court sentenced the appellants to undergo R.I. for four
months and to pay a fine of Rs.500/-, in default of payment, they were
also sentenced to undergo R.I. for two months. It reveals from the record
that the appellants were arrested on 23.06.1998 and were enlarged on
bail on 21.07.1998. Therefore, the surviving appellant No.3 has already
undergone sentence for about a month. The appellant No.3 was 36 years
of age at the time of incident i.e. in the year 2000.
12. Mr. Mishra, learned counsel for the appellants at this stage
submitted that by taking into consideration the age of the appellant No.3
and the social status of the appellant No.3 as of today and the fact that he
has clean antecedent, the sentence so awarded against the appellant No.3
may be reduced down to the sentence he has already undergone.
13. Regard being had to the fact that the appeal is pending since 2000
and the incident relates back to the year 1998, sending the appellant No.3
back to the custody to serve out the remaining period of sentence would
be harsh because the appellant No.3 is at present about in his sixties. He
has no criminal antecedents. Over the years, he has led a dignified life,
integrated well into society, and is presently leading a settled family life.
Incarcerating him after such a long delay, it is argued, would serve little
penological purpose and may in fact be counter-productive, casting a
needless stigma not only upon him but also upon his family members,
especially when there is no suggestion of any repeat violation or ongoing
non-compliance with regulatory norms. Therefore, I am of the view that
the sentence awarded by the learned Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge,
Bolangir is liable to be modified.
14. The prayer made by the appellant deserves merit. Accordingly,
while confirming the conviction recorded by the learned trial Court for
offence under Section 324/34 of I.P.C., I modify the sentence of four
months to that of the period the appellant No.3 has already undergone,
however, I enhance the fine amount from that of Rs.500/- to Rs.5,000/-
(rupees five thousand) and in the event of default of making payment,
the appellant No.3 shall undergo R.I. for fifteen days. The amount to be
deposited shall be disbursed to the injured (P.W.1) in accordance with
the provision under Section 357 Cr.P.C.
15. Accordingly, the CRA is partly allowed.
(S.S. Mishra)
Judge
The High Court of Orissa, Cuttack.
Dated the 09th September, 2025/ Swarna
Designation: Senior Stenographer
Location: High Court of Orissa
