[Cites 5, Cited by 0]
Orissa High Court
Suresh Kumar Behera vs State Of Odisha ... Opposite Parties on 18 March, 2026
Author: V. Narasingh
Bench: V. Narasingh
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
CRLREV. No.736 of 2025
Suresh Kumar Behera ... Petitioner
Mr. A. P Dit, Advocate
-versus-
1. State of Odisha ... Opposite Parties
2. Motilal Sahu .
3. Bipin Sahu
4. Dilip Ekka
Mr. A.K Pati, ASC
Mr. B.K. Rout, Advocate
CORAM: JUSTICE V. NARASINGH
ORDER
Order No. 18.03.2026
05.
1. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner
and learned counsel for the State.
2. This Criminal Revision has been filed
challenging the order dated 02.07.2025 passed by
the learned Addl. District & Sessions judge-cum-
Special judge, Rourkela in ICC Case No.01 of
2023 (arising out of Spl. G.R. Case No.34 of
2023), whereby the protest petition
384/427/506/34 IPC r/w Sec 3(1)(r)(s)/3(2)(va)
of SC/ST (POA) Act was rejected.
3. It is submitted by the learned counsel, Mr.
Dit, for the Petitioner that the investigation was
conducted in a perfunctory manner in Spl. G.R.
Case No.34 of 2023 arising out of Biramitrapur
P.S. Case No.214 of 2023 instituted under
384/427/506/34 IPC r/w Sec 3(1)(r)(s)/3(2)(va)
of SC/ST (POA) Act without proper scrutiny of the
materials on record and challenging the
submission of such final report dated 30.11.2023
the ICC case in question was filed.
It is submitted that the learned Court failed
to appreciate the assertions in the complaint
petition as well as the statements of the
complainant-petitioner under Section 200 Cr.P.C
and other witnesses recorded under Section 202
Cr.P.C in its proper prospective and ignoring the
statements which clearly established that the
accused persons not only committed the offence
breaking the boundary of the Petitioner's land but
also abused him referring to his caste thereby
committing the offence under Section Special Act,
since exercising jurisdiction in perverse manner,
the complaint petition has been dismissed the
same merits interference exercise of revisional
jurisdiction by this Court.
4. On issuance of notice, the private Opposite
Parties have entered appearance. The
Vakalatanama, which was stated to have been
filed, be taken on record.
5. It is the submission of the learned counsel
for the private Opposite Party No.4, Mr. Rout, that
during the course of investigation, the statement
of the Petitioner was recorded under Section 161
of the Cr.P.C., and the attention of this Court is
drawn to the statement of the Petitioner, Suresh
Kumar Behera, from the Case Diary produced by
the learned counsel for the State, wherein it is the
categorical stand of the present Petitioner that he
cannot say about any eye-witnesses to the
occurrence. The version of the Petitioner in
vernacular is produced hereunder:
"ପାଚେରି ଭା୍ᘰିବାର ଚ ୌଣସି ୍ᙚତଖ ଦର୍ଶୀ ବିଷୟଚର ହିପାରି ବି
ନାହିିଁ ।"
6. The statement of the brother of the
Petitioner (Paresh Chandra Behera) is also to the
same effect.
The Petitioner as well as his brother and
one Fakir Mohan Pani were examined as witnesses
on behalf of the complainant-Petitioner in the ICC
Case is C.W.1, C.W.2 and C.W.3 respectively.
7. It is apt to note that the third witness, Fakir
Mohan Pani was examined in the course of
pursuing the complaint case on behalf of the
complainant, for the first time whereas he was not
named as a witness by the Petitioner during the
investigation.
It is borne out from the charge sheet,
except the statement of witnesses, there was no
independent corroboration of the allegation of the
Petitioner and it is apt to note that so far as the
allegation under the Special Act is concerned the
same is ex facie not maintainable even otherwise
against the Opposite Party -Dillip Ekka since he
belongs to such category for which final report
was submitted.
8. It is curious that the name of said Fakir
Mohan Pani examined in the complaint case was
never mentioned during the enquiry before the
police authority.
9. The learned Special Judge, on a carefully
analysis on the evidence adduced in the complaint
case (protest petition) vis-a-vis the investigation
and the reasons for submission of the final report
arrived at the conclusion that there is no infirmity
in the submission of final report.
On scrutiny of the same and taking into
account the statement of the complainant and the
witnesses recorded under Section 200 and 202
Cr.P.C as noted above and the materials on record
including the statement recorded under Section
161 Cr.P.C as well as the final report, this Court
does not find any perversity appreciation of
evidence and materials on record by the learned
Sessions Judge in dismissing the complaint
petition and accepting the final report, so as to
warrant interference by this Court in exercises of
its revisional jurisdiction keeping in view the
contours thereof.
10. Accordingly, the CRLREV stands rejected.
(V. NARASINGH)
Judge
Soumya
Signed by: SOUMYA RANJAN SAMAL
Location: High Court of Orissa
Date: 20-Mar-2026 20:18:15
