Back
2019 Supreme(Ori) 341
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK
A.K. MISHRA, J.
Rama Chandra Pujari and Another - Appellant
Versus
State of Orissa and Another - Respondent
Criminal Misc. Case No.1455 of 2010
Decided On : 29-01-2019
For the Appellant :M/s.Sidheswar Mohanty, L.Pani & P.K.Mohanty, Advocates
For the Respondent: Karunakar Nayak Addl. Standing Counsel
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the accused's entitlement to seek the production of documents to prove innocence arises at the stage of defence, not at the stage of framing of charge.
Headnote:
Section 482 Cr.P.C. - Consideration of Defence Material at the Stage of Framing Charge - Sections 227 & 228, Cr.P.C. - S.C. & S.T. (P.A.) Act - [Sections 227 & 228, Cr.P.C., S.C. & S.T. (P.A.) Act]
Fact of the Case:
The court considered whether the trial court, at the stage of framing of charge under Sections 227 & 228, Cr.P.C., is to accept and assess the material placed by the defence. The accused persons contended that they belonged to a scheduled tribe community and filed documents to support their claim.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the trial court was not obligated to accept the documents filed by the defence at the time of consideration of charge. It emphasized that the defence's entitlement to seek the production of documents to prove innocence arises at the stage of defence, not at the stage of framing of charge.
Issues: The key issue was whether the trial court should accept and assess the material placed by the defence at the stage of framing of charge under Sections 227 & 228, Cr.P.C.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the interpretation of the provisions of Section 91 of the Cr.P.C., which specifies that the accused's entitlement to seek the production of documents to prove innocence arises at the stage of defence, not at the stage of framing of charge.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the proceeding under Section 482 Cr.P.C., stating that the trial court had not committed a mistake in not accepting the documents filed by the defence at the time of consideration of charge.
JUDGMENT :
A.K.MISHRA, J.
1. The question in singularity in this proceeding under Section 482 Cr.P.C., 1973 is whether the trial court at the stage of framing of charge under Sections 227 & 228, Cr.P.C. is to accept and assess the material placed by the defence.
This point emerged when the Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge, Koraput, Jeypore vide order dated 22.3.2010 in C.T. No. 184 of 2009, declined to accept the documents in support of the caste of the present petitioners who were accused persons and thereby discharged the accused persons of the offence under Section 447/34 of the I.P.C. but ordered to frame charge in respect of the offences under Sections 294/323/324/34 of the I.P.C. and under Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 ( for short 'S.C. & S.T. (P.A.) Act').
To put the facts simply, Opposite party no.2 Buduri @ Nila Khillo lodged an F.I.R. on 5.10.2005 alleging that both the petitioners in order to construct a temple assaulted the informant and abused in filthy language causing annoyance. On such F.I.R. Koraput Town P.S. Case No. 134 dated 5.10.2005 under Sections 294/323/324/34 of the I.P.C. and Section 3(1)(x) of the S.C. & S.T.(P.A.) Act was registered. After completion of investigation Charge Sheet was filed under Sections 294/323/324/447/34 of the I.P.C. and Section 3(1)(x) of the S.C. & S.T.(P.A.) Act, against both the petitioners.
2. On 5.10.2009 learned S.D.J.M., Koraput took cognizance of the offences and issued process under Section 204 Cr.P.C., 1973 The said cognizance order dated 5.10.2009 in G.R. Case No. 744 of 2005 was challenged before this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C., 1973 in CRLMC No. 4147 of 2009 and vide order dated 2.2.2010 the following order was passed:-
"xx xx I am not inclined to accept the aforesaid contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioners at the present stage since the petitioners are at liberty to raise their contentions at the time of framing of charge before the trial Court. If it is so raised, the same shall be considered by the concerned Court in accordance with law.
The CRLMC is disposed of."
3. At the stage of consideration of charge, it was contended by the accused persons (present petitioners) that they belonged to scheduled tribe community for which they did not come under the purview of S.C. & S.T. (P.A.) Act. To substantiate their stand, they filed caste certificate of one Rama Chandra Pujari, accused-petitioner No.1. Learned Special Court while refused to discharge the petitioners from the offence under S.C & S.T. (P.A.) Act, did opine that "at such stage, the defence has absolutely no scope to file any material in support of the defence and insist upon the court to consider such materials placed by the defence in order to balancing it with the prosecution material to ascertain the guilt or innocence of the accused, since such action of the court would amount to prejudging the evidence on merits before trial."
4. In this proceeding, learned counsel for the petitioners has filed the photo copy of the ROR in the name of Haribandhu Pujari and caste certificate No.1714 of 2005(Annexure-4 series) in favour of Smt. Neela Khillo-petitioner No.2 to contend that both the petitioners are the members of scheduled tribe belonging "Paraja" sub-caste and being a member of scheduled tribe, cannot be said to have committed offence under S.T. & S.C.(P.A.) Act.
4(a) A key plank on the point of fact, as per the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the order of Special Court in discharging the accused persons of the offences under Section 447/34 of the I.P.C. and ordering to frame charge under Sections 294/323/324/34 of the I.P.C. is not challenged here. In other words, deletion of charge under section 3(1)(x) of S.C. & S.T.(A.P.) Act has been sought while allowing the case to continue for other offences under Indian Penal Code.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that though the trial court is debarred from cons
