Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
SIBO SANKAR MISHRA
Suresh Kumar Behera – Appellant
Versus
State of Orissa – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
SIBO SANKAR MISHRA, J.
1. The present criminal appeal filed by the sole appellant under Section 374 (2) of Cr.P.C. is directed against the judgment and order dated 07.10.1994 passed by the learned Special Judge-cum-Sessions Judge, Koraput, Jeypore in Sessions Case No. 121 of 1993, whereby the learned trial Court has convicted the accused-appellant for the offences punishable under Sections 34 1, 294 and 354 of the I.P.C. read with Section 34 of IPCand, accordingly, sentenced him to pay a fine of Rs.100/-, in default to undergo R.I. for seven days on each count under Section 34 1 and 294 IPC and further to pay a fine of Rs.500/-, in default to undergo R.I. for one month under Section 354 of IPC.
2. The prosecution alleged that on 24.04.1993 at about 8.00 to 9.00 P.M. the informant Sobha Khosla, who is a member of the Schedule Caste, had been to the shop of Siba Prasad Samal (P.W.5) to purchase bread. While she was returning from that shop, the present appellant along with one Ranjit Praharaj came there in a motor cycle and accused Ranjit Praharaj abused her in filthy language uttering “Magyan Randi”. He then dealt fist blows on her fore-head causing bleeding injury. There
The conviction under IPC sections was sustained, but charges under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Act were not proven due to lack of evidence establishing the victim's caste.
The court upheld the conviction for wrongful restraint under IPC while overturning the conviction under the SC & ST Act due to insufficient proof of the informant's caste status.
Non-compliance with procedural safeguards in investigating offenses under the SC/ST Act leads to vitiation of proceedings and entitlement to acquittal, regardless of evidence of offense.
Prosecution must establish the accused is not a member of SC/ST to prove an offence under the SC/ST Act; absence of such evidence voids the conviction under the Act.
The prosecution failed to establish rape beyond reasonable doubt; however, conviction for criminal trespass upheld due to sufficient evidence of unlawful entry and intent to outrage modesty.
The judgment confirms that a conviction can stand under IPC while acquitting charges under SC & ST (PoA) Act due to lack of sufficient evidence.
Conviction under IPC for abortion requires credible evidence; benefits of Probation of Offenders Act granted to senior citizen first-time offenders based on societal roles.
For conviction under the SC/ST Act, prosecution must prove both caste identity and an intent to harm due to that identity; lack of such proof invalidates the charge.
The court held that while the intention to murder was not established, the appellants were guilty of assaulting the victim, with emphasis on the inapplicability of exaggerated judicial proceedings in....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
