THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

CRA No. 259 of 1999

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

Procedure Code)

Sunil Patra @ Sunil Bihari Patra

and others …… Appellants

-Versus-

State of Orissa ……. Respondent

For the Appellants : Mr. Devashis Panda, Advocate

For the Respondent : Mr. A.K. Apat, AGA

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE SHRI JUSTICE SIBO SANKAR MISHRA

Date of Hearing: 18.11.2025 : Date of Judgment: 27.11.2025

S.S. Mishra, J. The appellants have preferred the present appeal assailing the judgment and order dated 04.10.1999 passed by the learned Special Judge, Balasore in Special Case No. 29 of 1996. By the said judgment, the learned trial Court convicted the appellants for the offences punishable under Sections 448/353/506/34 of the Indian Penal Code, as well as under Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act read with Section 34 of the IPC.

Consequent thereto, the appellants were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months and to pay a fine of Rs.100/-, and in default thereof, to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for fifteen days for the offence under Section 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST (PoA) Act read with Section 34 IPC. They were further sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for one month on each count for the offences under Sections 448/34, 353/34 and 506/34 of the IPC. The learned trial Court extended to them the benefit of set-off, further directing that all the substantive sentences shall run concurrently.

2. Heard Mr. Devashis Panda, learned Counsel for the appellant and Mr. A.K. Apat, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State.

3. Pursuant to the order dated 29.07.2025, learned counsel for the State has produced the written instruction received from the I.I.C., Bhograi P.S. dated 17.08.2025, which indicates that the appellant No.l- Sunil Patra @ Sunil Bihari Patra has expired. Hence, the appeal qua the appellant Nos. l stood abated (vide order dated 19.08.2025) in absence of any application under Section 394 of Cr.P.C. by their legal heirs or next friends. In so far as the appellant Nos.2 and 3 are concerned, they are alive. Hence, consideration of the present appeal is only confined to appellant nos.2 and 3 alone.

4. According to the prosecution story, on 02.07.1994, while the informant Maguni Sethi (P.W.4) was on duty at the Kamarda Police Out- Post along with other APR and police constables, at about 4:00 p.m., the accused persons allegedly entered the out-post. At that moment, accused Prakash Dey rushed towards P.W.4 and warned him that if he did not extend support to the Communist Party, an Assembly question would be raised against him through Dipti Krushna Panda. He thereafter abused both P.W.4 and the Officer-in-Charge in filthy language and threatened to demolish the police out-post and kill them.

During this incident, accused Diptiman attempted to forcibly take away the station diary register lying on the table, but P.W.4 managed to snatch it back. It is further alleged that accused Sunil instigated the others to tie P.W.4 with a rope, sever one of his hands, and tear off his uniform. When P.W.4 tried to step out, accused Diptiman Acharya obstructed him.

The prosecution further asserts that the accused persons abused the informant by referring to his caste, he being a member of the Scheduled Caste with the intention to humiliate him in a place within public view. Hearing the alarm raised by P.W.4, the APR constables rushed inside to rescue him, upon which the accused persons fled from the spot.

5. P.W.4 subsequently reported the incident at Bhograi Police Station. The case was registered, witnesses were examined, and upon completion of investigation, charge-sheet was submitted against the accused persons for the alleged offences. On denial of the charges and their claim to be tried, the accused persons were accordingly put to trial. On the charges for the offences under Sections 488/363/506/34 of the IPC and Section

3(1)(x) o