IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

CRA No.308 of 1999

(In the matter of an application under Sections 374(2) of the Criminal

Procedure Code, 1973)

Dhusa @ Dusasan Parua & another ……. Appellants

-Versus-

State of Orissa ……. Respondent

For the Appellants : Mr. Pratyush Ranjan Pattnaik, Advocate

For the Respondent : Mr. Raj Bhusan Dash,

Additional Standing Counsel

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE SHRI JUSTICE SIBO SANKAR MISHRA

Date of Hearing: 31.07.2025 : : Date of Judgment: 19.08.2025

S.S. Mishra, J. The present Criminal Appeal filed by the appellants under Section 374(2) of the Cr.P.C., is directed against the impugned judgment and order dated 22.11.1999 passed by the learned Special Judge-cum-Sessions Judge, Balangir in G.R. Case No.523 of 1997/T.R. No.9 of 1998, whereby the learned trial Court has found the accused-

appellants guilty and convicted them for the offences punishable under Sections 323/294/355/34 of the IPC and sentenced them to undergo R.I. for three months each and to pay fine of Rs.500/- (Rupees five hundred), in default, to undergo further R.I. for one month for the offence under Section 323/34 of the IPC, they were directed to undergo R.I. for one month for the offence under Section 294/34 of the IPC and R.I. for six months and to pay fine of Rs.500/- (Rupees five hundred), in default to further undergo R.I. for two months for the offence under Sections

355/34 of the IPC and the sentences were directed to run concurrently.

The accused-appellants being aggrieved and dissatisfied by the judgment of conviction and order of sentence of the learned Special Judge-cum-Sessions Judge, Balangir, have preferred the present Criminal Appeal.

2. The prosecution case, in nutshell, is that on 30.11.1997 at about 8 A.M., when the informant Mistri Nanda, a member of Scheduled Caste was returning from his land, on the way, in front of the rice mill of Dhubaleswar Parua, both the accused persons restrained and abused him in obscene language saying “SALA MAAGIHA, MADARCHOD TURA BUAKE DAK” and also made caste aspersion addressing him as ‘Ganda’, the community to which he belongs. Further, the accused Dhusa threw him on the ground by pulling his hand. Accused Tapa dealt slaps, kicks and fist blows and also put human excreta in his mouth by a stick. Accused Tapa also assaulted on his head near the ear by a stone causing bleeding injury. After the occurrence, the informant fled away from the spot and described the incident to some persons of the village. It is further alleged that due to the previous dispute, the accused persons indulged in such offensive activities. Hence, the F.I.R. After the investigation, charge sheet was filed in the present case and the appellants were put to trial on the stance of denial.

3. In order to bring home the charges, the prosecution has examined seven witnesses. P.W.1 was the injured-informant. P.Ws.2, 3 and 5 were the post occurrence witnesses before whom P.W.1 described about the occurrence. P.W.4 was a witness, who has not supported the prosecution case. P.W.6 was the Investigating Officer and P.W.7 was the doctor of Tusra Government Hospital, who examined P.W.1 on police requisition.

The defence examined one witness.

4. Both the appellants stood charged for the offences punishable under Sections 323/294/355/34 of the IPC read with Section 3(1)(x) of the S.C. & S.T. (PoA) Act. However, the learned trial Court acquitted the appellants of the offence under Section 3(1)(x) of the S.C. & S.T.

(PoA) Act by observing as under:

“Although there is evidence that P.W.1 is a member of schedule caste and the accused persons are general caste men, the offences u/s 3(1)(x) of the S.C. & S.T. (Prevention of Atrocities) Act cannot be said to have been established as there is no evidence that the insult and intimidation meted out towards P.W.1 was within public view. Besides there is infraction of the mandatory provision of Rule 7 of the S.C. & S.T. (P.A.) Rules, 1995 which provides that investigation into an offence under the S.C. & S.T