IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

CRA No.164 of 1996

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

Procedure Code, 1973)

Sujit Behera ……. Appellant

-Versus-

State of Orissa ……. Respondent

For the Appellant : Mr. Biswa Kumar Mishra, Advocate

For the Respondent : Mr. Raj Bhusan Dash, ASC

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE SHRI JUSTICE SIBO SANKAR MISHRA

Date of Hearing : 13.11.2025 Date of Judgment: 18.11.2025

S.S. Mishra, J. The appellant Sujit Behera has assailed the judgment of conviction and the order of sentence dated 18.05.1996 passed by the learned District & Sessions Judge, Phulbani in S.T. No.92 of 1995 (Arising out of G.R. Case No.187 of 1994 on the file of the J.M.F.C., G. Udayagiri) in convicting him for the alleged commission of the offence punishable under Section 325 of the IPC read with Section 3(1)(x) of the S.C. & S.T. (PoA) Act, 1989 and sentenced him to undergo S.I. for two years for the offence under Section 3(1)(x) of the S.C. & S.T. (PoA) Act and further sentenced to pay a fine of

Rs.1,000/- (Rupees one thousand), in default, to undergo further S.I. for two months. In view of the sentence imparted for the offence under Section 3(1)(x) of the S.C. & S.T. (PoA) Act, no separate sentence has been awarded on the count of conviction under Section

325 of the IPC.

2. The prosecution case in terse and brief is that one Krushna Chandra Digal, who belongs to the Scheduled Caste category, was a student of A.M.C.S. College, Tikabali. On 29.11.1994, at about 10.00 A.M., he along with his college friends were waiting at the verandah of the economics class. Non-students of the college, the present appellant-Sujit Kumar Behera and Manoj Kumar Mishra wanted Krushna Chandra Digal to follow them. On being rigid, Krushna Chandra Digal followed them towards the college gate. At some distance from the economics class room, on the instigation of Manoj Kumar Mishra, the present appellant voluntarily caused grievous hurt to Krushjna Chandra Digal by means of a bamboo ‘thenga’. Krushna Chandra Digal wanted to run away from the place. But, the present appellant, on the instigation of Manoj Kumar Mishra further voluntarily caused hurt by inflicting grievous injury in the nature of fracture on the right leg of Krushna Chandra Digal, following which he raised alarm. Thereafter, his college friends came to him and the appellant fled away from the spot. Krushna Chandra Digal was shifted to Tikabali Hospital.

Jolandhar Digal, the father of Krushna Chandra Digal was informed about the incident. He went to the Tikabali Hospital and came to know about the entire incident from his son Krushna Chandra Digal. Then he went to the college to meet the Principal and lodged a report at the Tikabali P.S.

3. In order to bring home the charge, the prosecution examined seven witnesses out of whom, P.W.1 was the informant, P.W.2 was the injured son of the informant, P.Ws.3, 4 and 5 were the college mates of P.W.2 on the date of occurrence. P.W.6 was the Medical Officer and P.W. 7 was the Investigating Officer of the case.

4. The learned trial Court, after analyzing the evidence on record and by heavily relying upon the evidence of P.W.2, arrived at the following conclusion:

“8. On cumulative consideration of the case, unhesitatingly it can be said that prosecution has been able to bring home that accused Sujit Kumar Behera directed P.W.2 to follow him away from the verandah of the economic class, and thereafter, voluntarily caused grievous hurt by means of bamboo THENGA on the leg of Krushna Chandra Digal and also caused hurt on his shoulder necossiating hospitalization to be treated by P.W.6 at Tikabali Hospital.

Therefore, this Court is of the view that prosecution has been able to bring home the culpability of accused Sujit Kumar Behera for the offence u/s. 325 I.P.C.

9. It has not been elicited from P.W.2, the place to which he was dragged inter alia, P.W.2 has not been confronted whether his place of assault is outside or inside the college premises. Not