The conviction of the appellants for assault was upheld, while they were acquitted of charges under the SC & ST Act due to lack of proof of the victim's caste.

Judgment :

S.S. Mishra, J.

The two of the convicts-accused namely Nabin Chandra @ Kumar Das and Surya Das have combinedly filed the present appeal challenging the judgment and order dated 12.05.1995 passed by the learned Special Judge-cum-Sessions Judge, Koraput, Jeypore, Camp at Gunupur in Sessions Case No.89 of 1994, whereby the learned trial Court while acquitting the co-accused, namely, Simanchal Parichha of all the charges by extending the benefit of doubts, convicted the present appellants for offences under Sections 341 /323/34 of I.P.C. read with Section 3 (1)(x) of the SC & ST (PoA) Act. They were sentenced to undergo S.I. for six months for the offence under (1)(x) of the SC & ST (PoA) Act read with Section 34 of I.P.C., in default, to undergo S.I. for four months for the offence under Section 323 read with Section 34 of I.P.C. and S.I. for one month for the offence under Section 34 1 /34 of I.P.C.

2. Vide order dated 01.07.2025, learned counsel for the State was directed to obtain instruction regarding the wellbeing and status of the appellants. Pursuant thereto, the I.I.C., Padmapur Police Station has submitted a report dated 03.08.2025 inter alia stating that both the appellants are alive. When they were informed regarding the pendency of the appeal, they expressed unwillingness to prosecute the same. Confronted with this situation, this Court requested the learned counsel for the appellants to argue the matter in the capacity of Amicus Curiae, to which, Mr. Sarat Kumar Behera, learned counsel has agreed and has rendered assistance to this Court.

3. Heard Mr. Sarat Kumar Behera, learned Amicus Curiae for the appellants and Ms. Subhalaxmi Devi, learned Additional Standing Counsel for the State.

4. The prosecution case in terse and brief is that the accused persons, who do not belong to the Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe communities, had, prior to the incident, prevented the victim, a member of a Scheduled Tribe, from drawing water from a public well. On the date of the incident, i.e. on 20.09.1993, at about 7:00 a.m., while the victim was drawing water from the said well, the accused-Nabin (appellant No.1) approached him and stated, "Tome Magyan Dombo Manoku Kohila Sote Kuonku Asi Gadhuucho. Following this, the accused-Nabin is said to have pushed the victim, causing him to fall. At that moment, the co-accused Simanchal reportedly arrived at the scene, shouting, "MARO, MARO". As the victim attempted to flee towards his house, he was allegedly intercepted and restrained by accused Surjya Das (appellant No.2). Thereafter, all three accused persons are said to have jointly assaulted the victim, causing him to lose consciousness. Thereafter, the victim’s father, Dhanurjaya Bidika (P.W.1), who was passing by to his field, witnessed the assault and attempted to intervene. It is alleged that the accused persons then verbally abused him, and the appellant No.1 inflicted a bleeding injury on his hand using a katti (a sharp weapon).

On the basis of the aforesaid allegation, Padampur P.S. Case No.23(2) of 1993 was registered and after completion of investigation, charge sheet was submitted against the accused persons under Sections 294 /341/323/324/506/34 of I.P.C. read with section 3(1)(x) of the SC & ST (PoA) Act. Charges were framed and on the stance of denial and claim of trial, the appellants were put to trial.

5. The prosecution in order to bring home charges examined seven witnesses. Out of whom, P.W.1 is the informant and father of the victim, P.W.2 was an eye witness to the occurrence, P.W.3 was the alleged seizure witness, who was declared hostile by the pro