THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

CRA No.79 of 1998

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

Procedure Code, 1973)

G. Krutibasa Patra @ Gudla Krutibas Patra ……. Appellant

-Versus-

State of Odisha ……. Respondent

For the Appellant : Mr. Biswa Kumar Mishra, Advocate

For the Respondent : Ms. Subhalaxmi Devi, ASC

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE SHRI JUSTICE SIBO SANKAR MISHRA Date of Hearing: 14.10.2025 :: Date of Judgment: 14.10.2025

S.S. Mishra, J. The present criminal appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 27.03.1998 passed by the learned Special Judge, Koraput, at Jeypore in T.R. Case No.73 of 1995 arising out of G.R. Case No.476 of 1995, whereby the learned trial Court while acquitting the appellants of the charges under Sections 3(1)(xi) of SC &

ST (PoA) Act, convicted the appellant for the offences punishable under Sections 448/354/509 of I.P.C. The appellant was sentenced to undergo R.I. for two months for the offence under Section 448 of I.P.C., additionally undergo R.I. for two months for the offence under Section 354 of I.P.C. and S.I. for one month under Section 509 of I.P.C., and the sentences to run concurrently.

2. Heard Mr. Biswa Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the appellant and Ms. Subhalaxmi Devi, learned Additional Standing Counsel for the State.

3. The prosecution case in terse and brief is that the accused repeatedly entered the informant’s residential quarters, bearing No.B-215 in Sector-III, Damanjodi, during the informant's absence, on various pretexts. Despite objections raised by the informant’s wife, the accused forcibly remained at the premises. It is further alleged that he misbehaved with the wife of the informant and used words that outraged her modesty. He also allegedly attempted to lure her with promises of gold ornaments and precious stones. Moreover, the accused is said to have persuaded the informant’s wife to consume liquor, purporting that it would be beneficial for her health and appearance. The informant, upon learning these incidents, sent a message to the accused through one Prasanta Kumar Mohapatra, requesting a meeting, which did not materialize. Subsequently, on 02.08.1995, the informant confronted the accused regarding his inappropriate conduct, but the accused remained silent. Thereafter, on 05.08.1995, the informant lodged an F.I.R. against the accused. It is also alleged in the prosecution version that the victim is a member of Scheduled Caste and the accused-appellant is of general caste. On the basis of said report, Damanjodi P.S. Crime No. 46 of 1995 was registered and investigation commenced. After investigation, charge-sheet was filed and charges were were framed for the offences under Sections 448/354/509 of I.P.C. read with Section 3(1)(xi) of the SC & ST(PoA) Act. On his stance of denial and claim of trial, he was put to trial.

4. The prosecution in order to bring home charges, examined five witnesses. Out of whom, P.W.1 was the victim of the incident whereas P.W.2 was the informant and husband of the P.W.1. P.W.3 was the son of P.Ws.1 and 2. P.W.4 was the Office Superintendent of Delhi Public School and P.W.5 was the I.O. of the case.

5. Although initially the appellant was charged under Section 448/354/509 of I.P.C. read with Section 3(1)(xi) of the SC & ST(PoA) Act, however, the learned trial Court after analyzing the evidence of the victim (P.W.1) and the informant (P.W.2) have arrived at a conclusion that the accused person is not guilty of the offences under Section 3(1)(xi) of the SC & ST (PoA) Act rather he has been held guilty of the offences under Sections 448/354/509 of I.P.C. and on that count, sentence has been awarded. Relevant part of the impugned judgment is reproduced hereunder:-

“12. P.Ws.1 and 2 have stated that they belong to Dhoba Caste. Ext.4, the Certificate issued by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Chatrapur shows that P.W.2, (the husband of P.W.1) is a member of a Scheduled Caste. It is not proved that the accused is not a member