THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

CRA No.125 of 2002

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

Procedure Code, 1973)

Subodhini Patel ……. Appellant

-Versus-

State of Orissa ……. Respondent

For the Appellant : Mr. Kamalakanta Sethi, Amicus Curiae

For the Respondent : Mr. Raj Bhusan Dash, ASC

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE SHRI JUSTICE SIBO SANKAR MISHRA Date of Hearing: 11.11.2025 :: Date of Judgment: 18.11.2025

S.S. Mishra, J. The sole appellant-Subodhini Patel in the present Criminal Appeal has assailed the judgment and order dated 16.04.2002 passed by the learned Judge, Special Court, Sambalpur in T.R. Case No.16 of 2000, whereby the learned trial Court while acquitting the appellant of the offence under Section 3(1)(x) of the SC & ST (PoA) Act

and Section 294 of I.P.C., convicted her for the offence under Section 506 of I.P.C. and on that count she was sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default, to undergo S.I. for thirty days.

2. The present appeal has been pending since 2002. When the matter was called for hearing, consistently none appeared for the appellant. Therefore, this Court requested Mr. Kamalakanta Sethi, learned counsel, who was present in Court to assist the Court as Amicus Curiae. He has readily accepted the same and after obtaining entire record, assisted the Court very effectively. This Court records appreciation for the meaningful assistance rendered by Mr. Sethi.

3. Heard Mr. Kamalakanta Sethi, learned Amicus Curiae for the appellant and Mr. Raj Bhusan Dash, learned Additional Standing Counsel for the State.

4. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 07.03.2000, one Dayasagar Majhi (P.W.5) was guarding the chilli field belonging to the village Gountia, namely Samitartha Patel (P.W.4). At about noon, while Dayasagar was arranging branches tied with ropes along the ridge of the field to prevent goats from entering, the accused noticed his activity and mistakenly believed that he was setting traps to catch fowls. The accused, under that impression, approached Dayasagar and scolded him, alleging that he had caught, killed, and consumed several of her fowls. She further threatened to cut him into pieces, went to her house, brought a Panki (kitchen knife), and chased him with an intention to assault. Fearing for his life, Dayasagar fled to his house and informed his mother, Sobhagini Majhi (P.W.3), about the incident. Sobhagini thereafter came out and confronted the accused, challenging her to see how she would harm her son. The accused then abused Sobhagini in filthy languages as calling her “Randi, Kesbi, Gandimarijhee, Gand Maijhi,” and further threatened to cut Samitartha into pieces, alleging that he was Sobhagini’s paramour. As the accused continued to shout and threatened, Sobhagini returned to her house. On the following day, Sobhagini Majhi lodged a written report (Ext.1) at the police station, on the basis of which the present case was registered. Upon completion of investigation, the Investigating Officer submitted charge-sheet against the accused for commission of the alleged offences punishable under Sections 294/506 of I.P.C. read with Section 3(1)(x) of the SC & ST (PoA) Act.

5. The prosecution in order to bring home charges examined seven witnesses. Out of whom, P.W.5 is the first victim of the occurrence whereas P.W.3 being the mother of P.W.5 was the second victim of the occurrence. P.Ws.1 and 2 were the witnesses to the occurrence but out of them P.W.1 declared hostile as he did not support the prosecution case. P.W.4 was the aforesaid Gountia-Samitartha Patel. P.W.6 was the S.I. of Kuchinda P.S., who had investigated the case and P.W.7 was the D.S.P., who subsequently took charge of the investigation and submitted the charge-sheet. On the stance of complete denial and claim of trial, the appellant was put to trial.

6. Initially the appellant was charged under Sections 294/506 of I.P.C. read with Section 3(1)(x) of the SC & ST (PoA) Act. However, on the appreciation of the evidence