The prosecution must prove caste status with reliable documentation for the SC & ST Act to apply, and abuses must occur in public view to constitute an offense.

JUDGMENT :

S.S. Mishra, J.

The present Criminal Appeal is conjointly preferred by eight appellants assailing the judgment and order dated 27.11.1999 passed by the learned Special Judge, Balasore in Special Case No. 54 of 1996, whereby the appellants have been convicted for offence punishable under Section 3 (1)(x) of S.C. & S.T. (PoA) Act and sentenced them to undergo R.I. for six months and to pay a fine of Rs.100/- each, in default to undergo further R.I. for seven days.

2. This appeal is pending since 1999. During pendency of the appeal, the whereabouts and wellbeing of the appellants was sought for. The learned State Counsel has placed on record the report dated 13.08.2025 stating that appellant no.1 has expired. Relying upon the said report, vide order dated 19.08.2025, the present appeal qua appellant no.1-Daitari Prasad Sahu stood abated, as he expired on 17.12.2006 and no application has been filed under Section 394 by his L.Rs or next friend. Therefore, the present appeal is confined to the remaining seven appellants.

3. Heard Mr. Pratik Nayak, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. R.B.Dash, learned Additional Standing Counsel for the State.

4. The prosecution story, in brief, is that the complainant (P.W.1) belongs to 'Niari' (Radhi) by caste and, as such, a member of scheduled caste, whereas the accused persons are members of non-scheduled caste and non-scheduled tribe. The complainant alleged that on 26.07.1997 at about 8.00 A.M. the accused persons in order to take revenge due to their previous grudge on the family of the complainant, trespassed into the land of the complainant by cutting the south-western corner fence of his homestead and wanted to dig a 'Nala'. When the complainant and his mother protested to such illegal act of the accused persons, they chased them to assault by means of lathis and spades etc. Further they abused them saying “SALA RADHI, TUMA MAAKU GIHEIN, TUMA BHAUNIKU GIHEIN” and they threatened that would injur them if they would come out of their house. There was huge gathering at the spot and due to the abuse, the complainant along with his mother was dishonoured and sustained loss due to damage to their fence. On same day, the complainant lodged a report at the Police station and as the police did not take any action, he filed the complaint.

5. The present case is arising out of a complaint case filed by P.W.1. P.W.1 has filed the complaint making various allegations against the eight accused persons. The complainant (P.W.1) recorded his initial statement under Section 202 Cr.P.C., inter alia, stating as under:-

“1. I complained against 1) Daitari Prasad Sahu 2) Khagendra Prasad Sahu, 30 Jogendra Pr. Sahu, 4) Baburam Pradhan, 5) Bhagabat Behera, 6) Chakradhar Behera, 7) Jogendra Mahalik, 8) Rabindra Mahalik. I belong to 'Radhi' and 'Niari' caste and thus belonging to scheduled caste. The 'Sahu' accused persons belong to 'Teli' caste and 'Pradhan' accused belonged to 'Khadayat' by caste and 'Behera' and 'Mahalik' accused persons belong to 'Teli' and, as such, they are non-scheduled caste.

2. The occurrence took place on 26.7.96 at about 8 A.M. Accused persons cut the south-western corner of my fence, trespassed into the bari and they tried to dig the earth. When I opposed along with my mother, they chased me to assault and they abused me as “SALA RADHI'. The outsiders were present while the accused persons were abusing as above.

3. I lodged written F.I.R. at Khantapara P.S.”

6. Relyi