Prakash Naidu Vs State

three appellants challenging the judgment and order dated 30.11.1993 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge, Paralakhemundi

¶14

in G.R. Case No. 101 of 1992, convicting them for offence under Section 379 of IPC and Section 3(1)(v) of SC & ST (PoA) Act and sentenced them to undergo R.I. for six months for the offence under Section 379 I.P.C. and

¶15

further six months and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- in default S.I. for one month under Section 3(1)(v) of SC & ST (PoA.) Act.

¶16

Although this appeal has been filed conjointly by three appellants, but during pendency of this appeal it was informed to the Court that appellant no.1-Prakash Naidu has expired. Therefore, vide order dated 31.07.2025, the present appeal stood abated qua the appellant no.1, in the absence of any application under Section 394 Cr.P.C. by either the L.Rs of the deceased appellant or next friend. Hence, consideration of the present appeal is only confined to appellant nos.2 and 3 alone.

¶17

Heard Mr. P.K. Mishra, learned counsel for the appellants and Mr. S.J. Mohanty, learned Additional Standing Counsel for the State.

¶18

The narrative of the prosecution case in the present case is that on 12.04.1992 at about 8.30 A.M. the accused persons forcibly entered into the cashew nut plantation allotted to the victims/villagers of Saura of Kuruda under Garabandha P.S. and removed cashew nuts after assaulting the villagers.

¶19

The criminal law was set in motion against the appellants on registration of the FIR No.11 dated 12.04.1992 for alleged commission of offence punishable under Sections 379/34 IPC read with Section 3(1)(v) of the SC & ST (PoA) Act. After investigation, the police filed charge sheet and on

¶20

Page 2 of 10

¶21

the stance of denial and claim for trial, the appellants were put to trial after the charges were framed.

¶22

When the trial was in progress, at that point of time, it appears that the matter was attempted to be settled. It is the case of the prosecution that 32 persons have reported to the police, but only P.W.1, the informant in the present case has signed the compromised petition. Therefore, the trial court did not pay any heed to it and proceeded to decide the matter.

¶23

The prosecution examined nine witnesses to bring home the charges. P.W.1 the informant of the case did not support the prosecution. Similarly, P.Ws.6 to 8 have also wriggled out of their previous statement and were declared hostile. Hence, the entire prosecution case rests on the shoulders of P.Ws.2 to 5 and P.W.9, the Investigating Officer of the case.

¶24

The large part of the impugned judgment deals with the compromise petition and eventually the compromise petition was not acted upon. The learned trial court while relying upon the evidence of P.Ws.2 to 5 has arrived at a conclusion that the accused persons have forcibly removed the cashew nuts from the land of the prosecution witnesses and recorded the following

¶25

findings:-

¶26

Page 3 of 10

¶27

“14. Coming to the second point of determination, it is seen that the informant and accused persons are of neighbouring village and the spot is at a considerable distance from the village of the accused persons. It is seen that both the parties are known to each other and the circumstances under which the removal of cashew nuts has been made indicates that accused persons have forcibly taken the cashewnuts from the plantation. Thus, there is no doubt to say that the accused persons have committed the offence u/s 379 I.P.C.”

¶28

It appears that the learned trial court has not analysed the evidence individually, rather taking into consideration the evidence in its entirety came to the conclusion that the appellants are guilty of offence under Section 379 I.P.C. In so far as the offence under Section 3(1)(v) of the SC & ST (PoA)

¶29

Act, the learned trial court has only recorded the following findings:-

¶30

“15. So far the offence under Atrocities Act is concerned, the accused persons are Kampo-Saura by caste and they are not coming under S.C or S.T. But, the victims, the informant are Scheduled Tribe persons. In such circumstance taking of cashew nuts is nothing, but to interfere with the right of Sauras over their land which is coming under 3 (1) (v) of S.C/S.T Prevention of Atrocities Act. Thus in view of my discussion, all the accused persons are liable U/s 379 IPC & 3 (1) (v) of S.C/S.T. Prevention of Atrocities Act and I convict them thereunder.”

¶31

Relevant would be to deal with the evidences in regard to the offence

¶32

under Section 3(1)(v) of SC & ST (P.A) Act. P.W.2 has deposed before the court that he had got eight cashew nut trees from the Soil Conservation Department and he has been taking care of those trees. On the occurrence date at about 12.00 A.M., the accused persons came and forcibly taken the cashew

¶33

Page 4 of 10

¶34

nut by assaulting him. However, in the cross-examination, he has admitted that he has no document to show that he has received eight cashew nut trees

¶35

from the Soil Conservation Department and he was not able to disclose the plot number where the cashew nut trees were situated.

¶36

P.W.3 has stated that he and P.Ws.1 and 2 are from Soura caste, whereas the accused persons are Kampa Sabara. He stated that they were in possession of cashew nut tope near Londa parbat. The Soil Conservation Officer had given the tope to twenty families of their village and he has got thirty trees. He has also stated that every villagers have got thirty trees. He stated that they have deposited one rupee per year towards the rent of the tope. He has not stated in his evidence that the accused persons have forcibly taken the cashew nuts. However, in the cross examination he has stated that he along with four to six persons were present at that point of time the accused persons came and forcibly took away the cashew nuts.

¶37

Similarly, P.W.4 has stated that about two years back the accused persons came to his land and forcibly took the cashew nuts. He has received the same from the Soil Conservation Department and on his protest the accused persons threatened to assault the villagers. He has also given the cost of the cashew nuts to be Rs.1000/-.

¶38

Page 5 of 10

¶39

P.W.5 also deposed in the similar line. The other villagers, like P.Ws.6,

¶40

7, 8 as well as P.W.1 not supported the prosecution case, though they stated to be the victim of the incident.

¶41

From the evidence of all the witnesses, the only thing which is coming to fore is that the accused persons have forcibly taken the cashew nuts trees under the possession of the witnesses which they have received from the Soil Conservation Department. In the light of the above evidence, the charge under Section 3(1)(v) of the SC & ST (PoA) Act needs to be appreciated. It could be safely concluded that the prosecution has failed to prove the charge of Section 3(1)(v) of the SC & ST (PoA) Act. Moreover, the prosecution has not admitted to bring on record an iota of evidence to establish that the victim, i.e., the prosecution witnesses belong to either Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe community. No certificate or for that matter any kind of oral evidence has been adduced by the prosecution. Moreover, in the fact scenario of the case as well, the charge under Section 3(1)(v) of SC & ST (PoA) Act is not attracted. Therefore, I am completely not in agreement with the conclusion drawn by the learned trial court in paragraph-15 as reproduced above. Hence, that part of the judgment by which the appellants were convicted on the charges of offence under Section 3(1)(v) of SC & ST (PoA) Act is set aside.

¶42

Page 6 of 10

¶43

In so far as the offence under Section 379 IPC is concerned, although the learned trial court has not meticulously dealt with all the evidence, however fact remains that conjoint reading of the evidence of P.Ws.2 to 5 brings out a case of theft against the accused persons as all the witnesses have stated in unison that the cashew nut trees received by them from the Soil Conservation Department has been forcibly taken away by the accused persons. Therefore, the conclusion drawn by the learned trial court convicting the accused appellants for offence under Section 379 IPC sustains. Accordingly, I affirm the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed against the appellants in so far as Section 379 IPC is concerned.

¶44

At this stage, Mr. Mishra, learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the incident relates back to the year 1992 and at that point of time all the accused persons were young. After more than three decades the surviving appellant nos.2 and 3 have attained the advance age. Moreover, appellant no.2 was twenty years at the time of incident, therefore at present he is fifty three years of age. Similarly, appellant no.3 was 35 years of age at the time of incident and at present he is sixty-eight years of age. He submitted that the appeal has been prolonging to be heard for about 31 years. Therefore, sending the appellants to custody for fulfilling their remaining sentence at this belated

¶45

Page 7 of 10

¶46

stage would serve no purpose. The learned Counsel further submitted that the appellants have no criminal antecedents and no other case of a similar nature or otherwise is stated to be pending against them. Over the years, they have led a dignified life, integrated well into society, and are presently leading a settled family life. Incarcerating them after such a long delay, it is argued, would serve little penological purpose and may in fact be counter-productive, casting a needless stigma not only upon them but also upon their family members, especially when there is no suggestion of any repeat violation or ongoing non-compliance with regulatory norms. Therefore, in the fitness of situation, the appellants may be extended the benefit of the Probation of Offenders Act read with Section 360 Cr.P.C. I am inclined to accede to the prayer made by Mr. Mishra, learned counsel for the appellants on the facts scenario of the case.

¶47

14 . Regard being had to the societal position of the appellants, clean antecedents and the fact that the incident had taken place in the year 1992, I am of the considered view that the appellants are entitled to the benefit of the Probation of Offenders Act and Section 360 of Cr.P.C.

¶48

Page 8 of 10

¶49

15 . At this point, it would be apt to place reliance on the judgment of the judgment of the Apex Court in Rattan Lal v. State of Punjab¹ , wherein the Court held that the object of the Probation of Offenders Act is to reform the individual offender and to prevent the conversion of a youthful or first-time offender into a habitual criminal by subjecting him to prison life. It was held

¶50

thus: -

¶51

“The Act is a milestone in the progress of the modern liberal trend of reform in the field of penology. It is the result of the recognition of the doctrine that the object of criminal law is more to reform the individual offender than to punish him. Broadly stated, the Act distinguishes offenders below 21 years of age and those above that age, and offenders who are guilty of having committed an offence punishable with death or imprisonment for life and those who are guilty of a lesser offence. While in the case of offenders who are above the age of 21 years absolute di sc retion is given to the court to release them after admonition or on probation of good conduct, subject to the conditions laid down in the appropriate provisions of the Act, in the case of offenders below the age of 21 years an injunction is issued to the court not to sentence them to imprisonment unless it is satisfied that having regard to the circumstances of the case; including the nature of the offence and the character of the offenders, it is not desirable to deal with them under Sections 3 and 4 of the Act.”

¶52

1 AIR 1965 SC 444

¶53

Page 9 of 10

¶54

Similar principles were reiterated in the judgment of this Court in the cases of Pathani Parida & another vs. Abhaya Kumar Jagdevmohapatra² and Dhani @ Dhaneswar Sahu vs. State of Orissa³ .

¶55

16 . In such view of the matter, the present Criminal Appeal in so far as the conviction is concerned is turned down. But instead of sentencing the appellants to suffer imprisonment, this Court directs the appellants to be released under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act for a period of six months on their executing bond of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand) each

¶56

within one month with one surety each for the like amount to appear and receive the sentence when called upon during such period and in the meantime, the appellants shall keep peace and good behavior and they shall remain under the supervision of the concerned Probation Officer during the aforementioned period of six months.

¶57

17 . Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal is partly allowed and disposed of.

¶58

The High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Dated the 18^th of November, 2025/Ashok

¶59

Signature Not Verified 2 2012 (Supp-II) OLR 469 Digitally Signed 3 2007 (Supp.II) OLR 250

¶60

Digitally Signed Signed by: ASHOK KUMAR JAGADEB MOHAPATRA Designation: Secretary Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa Date: 18-Nov-2025 19:06:35 Page 10 of 10

Prakash Naidu v. State

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Prakash Naidu v. State

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kuna Das Vs State

Sambhu Kumar Vs State

Maheswar Sahu Vs State of Odisha

Kalia @ Mrutunjaya Vs State

Smt.Appala Narasamma Vs State

K.Rajeswar Vs State