Dismissed

Dr.Rajendra Narayana Dakhinakabat v. State of Odisha

Orissa HC16 Feb 2024CRLA/623/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Appeal against rejection of a section 227 CrPC discharge petition in a case alleging sexual harassment of minor girl students by a school Principal. The High Court found sufficient grounds to proceed, dismissed the appeal and directed expeditious framing of charge and completion of trial.

What did the court decide?

Appeal dismissed; trial court directed to frame charge by 24.02.2024 and conclude trial by end of June 2024.

Dr.Rajendra Narayana Dakhinakabat Vs State of Odisha — Caste Atrocities | Orissa HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

¶2

CRLA No.623 of 2023

¶3

Dr. Rajendra Narayana …. Appellant Dakhinakabat

¶4

Mr. A.K. Sarangi, Advocate

¶5

-versus-

¶6

1. State of Odisha …. Respondents 2. P.A., I.T.D.A., Rayagada

¶7

Mr. Arupananda Das Addl. Govt. Advocate

¶8

Order No.

¶9

¶10

CORAM:
JUSTICE S.K. SAHOO
ORDER
16.02.2024
This matter is taken up through Hybrid
arrangement (video conferencing/physical mode).
Heard learned counsel for appellant and learned
counsel for the State.

¶11

The appellant Dr. Rajendra Narayana Dakhinakabat has filed this appeal under section 14-A of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereafter S.C. & S.T. PoA Act, 1989) challenging the order dated 18.04.2023 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge -cum- Presiding Officer, Special Court, POCSO Act, Rayagada in rejecting the petition filed by the appellant under section 227 of the Cr.P.C.

¶12

The learned trial Court in the impugned order

¶13

// 2 //

¶14

held as follows:

¶15

“9. On further perusal of the case record including the statements of the witnesses & victims recorded u/s. 161 Cr.P.C. and U/s. 164 Cr.P.C. and other connected papers, taking face value of entire prosecution materials and judged the same from this spectrum of the above cited pronouncements, this Court is driven to an irresistible conclusion that there are sufficient ground for proceeding against accused R.N. Dakhina Kabata for the offences punishable U/Ss. 354-A(2) of the I.P.C. and Sec. 12 of the POCSO Act, 2012 and Sec.3(1)(xii) of the S.C. & S.T (POA) Act, 1989. For the reasons, this Court intends to frame the charges against the accused thereunder. With such observation, the present petition merits no consideration and stands rejected. Accordingly, the petition is disposed of. The accused persons are absent and allowed to be represented u/s. 317 Cr.P.C. for today only.”

¶16

It appears that earlier the appellant approached

¶17

this Court in CRLA No.664 of 2021 challenging the order of cognizance and this Court directed the matter to be listed along with CRLMC No.1972 of 2015 and ultimately the said appeal was disposed of on 15.02.2023 with observation that if any discharge petition is filed by the appellant at the appropriate stage, the learned trial Court shall dispose of the same in accordance with law.

¶18

Page 2 of 9

¶19

// 3 //

¶20

Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that when the appellant joined the said school as the Principal on 02.02.2013, he found that the teachers who were running the hostel mess for 24 boarding students were not properly providing food to the students and after knowing about the same, the appellant informed the Collector. Accordingly, the Collector transferred those teachers from the institutions. It was further submitted by the learned counsel that the aforesaid teachers, with the help of some girl students, in order to take revenge lodged the aforesaid false case against the appellant. As such the initiation of criminal proceeding is otherwise illegal and unsustainable in the eye of law and the said is liable to be quashed.

¶21

The status report dated 09.02.2024 submitted by the learned trial Court indicates that no charge has been framed till date.

¶22

Mr. Arupananda Das, learned Addl. Govt. Advocate, on the other hand, supported the impugned order and placed the statements of three victims recorded under section 164 of the Cr.P.C. and contended that the ingredients of the offences are clearly made out against the appellant.

¶23

The case was instituted on 05.03.2015 and during the course of investigation, a number of witnesses were examined and some important

¶24

Page 3 of 9

¶25

// 4 //

¶26

documents were seized. It appears that the appellant joined as Principal in the Ekalavya Model Residential School, Siriguda, Rayagada on 02.02.2013 and continued as such. It is the case of the prosecution that the appellant solicited sexual favour from the female students and also sexually abused them. The appellant used to call the girl students to his residential quarters situated inside the premises of the said school and asked them to give sexual favour to him. The appellant also used to touch their body taking different pleas.

¶27

Due to such conduct on the part of the appellant, the female students interacted among themselves and decided to send a petition to the Collector for immediate transfer of the appellant. Basing on such petition, the Collector formed a committee consisting of Deputy Collector (Establishment Collectorate, Rayagada), District Social Welfare Officer, Rayagada, Child Development Project Officer, Rayagada and District Child Protection Officer, Rayagada to enquire into the allegation against the appellant. The committee conducted enquiry and submitted the fact finding report to the Collector endorsing a copy to S.P., Rayagada for registration of F.I.R. against the appellant. From the facts and circumstances, the I.O. found prima facie case for commission of offences under section 354-A(ii)/109 of

¶28

Page 4 of 9

¶29

// 5 //

¶30

the I.P.C. and sections 8/12 of the POCSO Act against the appellant along with other co-accused persons.

¶31

The learned trial Court in the impugned order has been pleased to hold that there are sufficient ground for proceeding against the appellant for commission of offences under section 354-A(ii) of the I.P.C., section 12 of the POCSO Act and section 3(1)(xii) of the S.C. & S.T. (PoA) Act, 1989.

¶32

Section 354(A)(2) of the I.P.C. states that a person who commits the offence specified in clause (i) or clause (ii) or clause (iii) of sub-section (1) shall be punished with rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both.

¶33

354-A(1) of the I.P.C. states that a man said to be guilty of offence of sexual harassment if he commits any of the following acts:

¶34

i) physical contact and advances involving unwelcome and explicit sexual overtures; or

¶35

(ii) a demand or request for sexual favours; or

¶36

(iii) showing pornography against the will of a woman; or

¶37

(iv) making sexually coloured remarks.

¶38

Section 12 of the POCSO Act deals with punishment for sexual harassment and sexual harassment has been defined under section 11 of the said Act.

¶39

Similarly section 3(1)(xii) of the S.C. &

¶40

Page 5 of 9

¶41

// 6 //

¶42

S.T.(PoA) Act, 1989 states that whoever, not being a member of the scheduled caste or scheduled tribe, being in position to dominate the will of a woman belonging to scheduled caste or scheduled tribe and uses that position to exploit her sexually to which she would not have been otherwise agreed shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than six months but which may extend to five years and with fine.

¶43

After going through the statements of the victims and other materials available on record, I find that the learned trial Court has rightly held that there are sufficient grounds for proceeding against the appellant for commission of such offences.

¶44

Section 227 of the Cr.P.C. empowers the Sessions Judge to discharge the accused if upon consideration of the record of the case and the documents submitted therewith, and after hearing the submissions of the accused and the prosecution in this behalf, he comes to a finding that there is no sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused.

¶45

At the time of framing of the charge, it is not necessary for the prosecution to establish beyond all reasonable doubt that the allegations/charges which they are bringing against the accused are bound to be brought home against him. It is also not incumbent upon the trial Court to assess as to whether the

¶46

Page 6 of 9

¶47

// 7 //

¶48

prosecution will ultimately succeed in getting an order of conviction against the accused after adducing all the evidence. All these aspects cannot be considered at the time of framing of the charge. If the materials placed before the Court create reasonable suspicion against the accused then the Court will be fully justified in framing the charge and proceeding with the trial. The principle underlying the exercise of power under section 227 of the Code has been elucidated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sajjan Kumar -Vrs.- C.B.I. reported in (2010) 9 Supreme Court Cases 368 in the following words:

¶49

“24. At the stage of framing of charge under Section 228 CrPC or while considering the discharge petition filed under Section 227, it is not for the Magistrate or the Judge concerned to analyse all the materials including pros and cons, reliability or acceptability, etc. It is at the trial, the Judge concerned has to appreciate their evidentiary value, credibility or otherwise of the statement, veracity of various documents and is free to take a decision one way or the other.”

¶50

In view of the available materials on record and the scope for intervention under section 227 of the Cr.P.C. as has been enumerated by the Hon’ble Highest Court, I find no infirmity or illegality in the impugned order.

¶51

Page 7 of 9

¶52

// 8 //

¶53

Though a number of documents have been annexed to the appeal memo by the learned counsel for the appellant for proving false implication of the appellant in the case but it would not be appropriate for this Court to adjudge upon the merits of such documents at the present stage. The learned trial Court would be in the best position to adjudicate upon such aspects, if those are placed before the learned Court during the trial and evidence is adduced in that respect.

¶54

At this stage, there is scarcely any convincing material available on record to impel me to come to a finding that it is a false case against the appellant, particularly, in view of the statements made by victim girls under section 164 of the Cr.P.C. who are innocent minor students studying in a residential school.

¶55

In view of the foregoing discussions, the CRLA being devoid of merits stands dismissed.

¶56

The F.I.R. was lodged on 05.03.2015 and almost nine years have elapsed in the meantime and charge is yet to be framed. It appears from the status report submitted by the learned trial Court that the case is posted to 19.02.2024 for framing of the charge. The learned trial Court shall do well to frame the charge on that date and if not possible on that date, the framing of charge to be completed by 24.02.2024.

¶57

Page 8 of 9

¶58

// 9 //

¶59

The learned trial Court shall thereafter make every endeavour to expedite the trial and conclude the same by the end of June, 2024 and report compliance to this Court.

¶60

If the appellant fails to appear on the date of framing of charge or the date fixed for trial, it shall be open to the learned trial Court to take coercive steps against him and if necessary, his bail bonds can also be cancelled.

¶61

A copy of the order be communicated to the learned trial Court by the learned Registrar (Judicial) for compliance.

¶62

sipun

¶63

( S.K. Sahoo)
Judge

¶64

Digitally Signed Signed by: SIPUN BEHERA Designation: Senior Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, C UTT ACK Date: 19-Feb-2024 10:10:46

¶65

Signature Not Verified

¶66

Page 9 of 9

Dr.Rajendra Narayana Dakhinakabat v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dr.Rajendra Narayana Dakhinakabat v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Bulu Nayak Vs State of Odisha

Deepak Kumar Sahu @ Dipak Sahu Vs State of Odisha

Pratap Kumar Biswal Vs State of Odisha

Rinku Majhi Vs State of Odisha

K.Biswajit Patra Vs State of Odisha

Kasim Khan Vs State of Odisha