Intention to insult based on caste must be established for conviction under Section 3(1)(x) of the S.C. & S.T. (PoA) Act; the absence of such intent results in acquittal.

JUDGMENT :

S.S. Mishra, J.

Three convicts have filed the present Criminal Appeal challenging the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 03.05.2002 passed by the learned Special Judge, Mayurbhanj, Baripada in C.P. Case No.676/991 T.C. No.12/2001. By the impugned judgment, the learned trial Court has convicted the appellants of the charges under Sections 323/341/34 of the IPC read with Section 3(1)(x) of the S.C. & S.T. (PoA) Act. Accordingly, the convicts-appellants were sentenced to undergo R.I. for six months for the offence under Section 3(1)(x) of the S.C. & S.T. (PoA) Act as well as for Section 323 of the IPC and to pay a fine of Rs.400/- (Rupees four hundred), in default, to undergo S.I. for fifteen days.

2. During pendency of the appeal, on the direction of this Court, the IIC, Baisinga Police Station has placed on record the report dated 20.07.2025 intimating this Court that the appellant no.1- Arjuna Mahanta and the appellant no.2- Ramachandra Mahanta have expired. Therefore, vide order dated 02.09.2025, the present Criminal Appeal qua those two deceased appellant nos.1 and 2 stood abated in absence of any application under Section 394 of the Cr. P.C. by the legal heirs or the next friend of the appellants. Hence, the present appeal is confined to the appellant no.3- Rucha Mahanta alone.

3. When the matter was listed for hearing, consistently, none appeared for the appellants. Therefore, Mr. Sasanka Sekhar Das, Advocate, who was present in the Court, was requested by the Court to assist the Court in the capacity of Amicus Curiae. He has readily accepted the same and rendered effective assistance to the Court.

4. Heard Mr. Sasanka Sekhar Das, learned Amicus Curiae appearing for the appellants and Ms. Suvalaxmi Devi, learned Additional Standing Counsel appearing for the State.

5. The Prosecution case in terse and brief is that on 03.07.1999 at 11 a.m., one Gokuli Chandra Senapati of village Janikadeipur found all the three accused persons were ploughing his land situated at Mouza- Dageipur. The informant and his two sons, namely, Gajendra Senapati and Surendra Senapati came to the land and protested the accused persons not to cultivate that land. All the accused persons got annoyance at the protest of the informant and his sons and they abused the informant. Accused Arjuna Mahanta assaulted Gokuli Chandra Senapati in a stick to his head and left palm. Accused Arjuna Mahanta assaulted Gajendra Senapati, the elder son of the informant and accused Bidyadhar and Ruchu Mahanta assaulted Surendra Senapati with the stick causing bleeding injury. So, the informant and his sons came to Baisinga hospital for treatment. His sons Gajendra Senapati and Surendra Senapati went to Balasore hospital for better treatment. On investigation of the case, the police prima facie found the complaint to be true, hence filed the charge sheet.

6. The appellants took a stance of complete denial and claimed trial. Hence, they were put to trial for the offences charged.

7. The prosecution examined seven witnesses to establish its case apart from relying upon six exhibits. The defence has also led the evidence independently by examining one witness and relied upon Ext.A-(ROR).

8. The learned trial Court meticulously appreciated the evidence to arrive at the following conclusion:

“9. The evidence adduced by P.Ws.1, 2, 3 and 4 show that the accused persons used stick or lathi to assault P.Ws.1, 2 and 3. The entire occurrence took place when the injured persons protested the ploughing of land by accused Arjuna Mohanta. The accused persons were annoyed when