Suresh Kumar Behera Vs State

S.S. Mishra, J. The present criminal appeal filed by the sole appellant under Section 374 (2) of Cr.P.C. is directed against the judgment and order dated 07.10.1994 passed by the learned Special

¶11

Judge-cum-Sessions Judge, Koraput, Jeypore in Sessions Case No. 121

¶12

of 1993, whereby the learned trial Court has convicted the accused-

¶13

appellant for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 294 and 354 of the I.P.C. read with Section 34 of IPCand, accordingly, sentenced him to pay a fine of Rs.100/-, in default to undergo R.I. for seven days on each count under Section 341 and 294 IPC; and further to pay a fine of Rs.500/-, in default to undergo R.I. for one month under Section 354 of IPC.

¶14

2. The prosecution alleged that on 24.04.1993 at about 8.00 to 9.00 P.M. the informant Sobha Khosla, who is a member of the Schedule Caste, had been to the shop of Siba Prasad Samal (P.W.5) to purchase bread. While she was returning from that shop, the present appellant along with one Ranjit Praharaj came there in a motor cycle and accused Ranjit Praharaj abused her in filthy language uttering “Magyan Randi”. He then dealt fist blows on her fore-head causing bleeding injury. Thereafter, both the accused persons dragged her by holding her wearing sari and asked her to sit on the motor cycle. Her sari was torn as the accused persons dragged her and thereafter both the accused persons left in that motor cycle. There was profuse bleeding from the fore-head just

¶15

above the left eye of the informant. She reported the occurrence at the

¶16

Page 2 of 9

¶17

police station. Thereafter, the police registered the case and took up investigation and after completion of investigation, submitted the charge sheet. The appellant along with other accused were put to trial.

¶18

3. The accused persons including the appellant stood charged and

¶19

subjected to trial for the offences punishable under Sections 294, 341, 354 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (in short „IPC‟) and Section 3 (1) (x), 3 (1) (xi) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

¶20

4. The prosecution in order to bring home charges examined five witnesses. Out of which, P.W.1 is the victim-informant, P.W.2, is an independent witness, who did not support the prosecution case and declared hostile, P.W.3 is a shop keeper, who was also declared as hostile, P.W.4 is the Sub-Inspector of Police, who investigated the case and submitted the charge sheet and P.W.5 is the doctor, who examined the informant-injured and found injuries in her person.

¶21

5. The present appeal is pending since 1994. When the matter was called up for hearing, none has appeared for the appellant. In view of the long pending of the matter, this Court deemed it appropriate to appoint

¶22

Page 3 of 9

¶23

Mr. Satyanarayan Mishra-4, Advocate, who is present in Court, as an Amicus Curiae, to assist the Court. Mr. Mishra, has readily agreed to assist the Court and rendered very effective assistance. On behalf of the

¶24

State, Ms. Gayatri Patra, learned Additional Standing Counsel is heard.

¶25

6. In the present case, P.W.1, the informant and the victim is the prime witness to the prosecution, her version stood corroborated with the testimony of P.W.5, the doctor and P.W.4 the investigating officer of the case. P.W.2 and P.W.3 being independent witnesses, have not supported the prosecution case. Therefore, they were subjected to extensive cross examination by the prosecutor. The conjoint reading of the evidence of all the witnesses reveals that the victim was restrained by the accused persons and assaulted by them. P.W.5 the doctor found three injuries in the person of P.W.1; (1) lacerated injury 1” x 1/2” on the left side forehead; (2) abrasion 1/2" x 1/2”on medial side of left eye brow and (3) abrasion 1/2”x 1/2” on the exterior part of the left knee-joint. The statement of the doctor P.W.5 stood corroborated with the evidence of P.W.1 the victim, who stated that in the night of occurrence she had been to the bus stand to purchase bread from the shop of Samal and in the

¶26

Page 4 of 9

¶27

meantime the accused persons came in a motor cycle and stopped her. Accused Ranjit was the pillion rider who abused her in filthy language and dealt fist blows on her forehead thrice causing bleeding injury. She became dumb founded as to why he abused and assaulted her and while she was returning back to her home, both the accused persons dragged her and forced to sit in the motor cycle. However, they did not succeed and fled away. From the evidence of P.W.1, it is apparently clear that both the accused persons have abused and assaulted her. This narration of the incident by P.W.1 also stood corroborated with Ext.1 the FIR. The I.O. also narrated the same version which stood corroborated with the evidence of the doctor (P.W.5). Therefore, by conjointly reading of the evidence of all the witnesses, the trial court has rightly arrived at the

¶28

following conclusion:-

¶29

“9. The learned Defence Counsel submits that P.W.1 has stated to have reported in the night of the occurrence while P.W.4 has stated that he received the written report at 9.30 A.M. of 25-4-93 and he has also not verified as to who was the scribe of that report. The learned Defence Counsel further submits that P.W.1 has admitted not to have know accused Ranjit and she identified him before the police at the Police Station and thereafter came to know that he was Ranjit and as such, named him in the F.I.R., but

¶30

P.W.4 has stated that before arresting the accused persons they were not brought to the Police Station and hence the case of the prosecution cannot be believed.

¶31

On perusal of the evidence of P.W.1, I find that she has categorically stated in the cross-examination to have gone to the Police Station to report and the accused persons came there after her arrival and thereafter her report was reduced into writing. To a question put by the Court she further clarifies that she sat on the verandah of the Police Station till 12 midnight and then she came away to her house and again in the morning she went to the Police Station and her report was reduced into writing. Thus she has clarified that in the night she did not report and in the next morning she reported. So I find no discrepancy in the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 4.

¶32

With regard to the arrival of the accused persons at the Police Station, P.W.4 differs from her. But I do not find any reason as to why the evidence of P.W.1 would be disbelieved simply because P.W.4 has stated that before arresting the accused persons he did not bring them to the Police Station. From the evidence of P.W.1 it is clear that in the night of the occurrence the accused persons came to the Police Station after she went there and she came to know the name of Ranjit when she identified him to the Police. It does not mean that Police is P.W.4.

¶33

10. Taking into consideration all these facts and circumstances, I find that both the accused persons in furtherance of their common intention illegally restrained P.W.1 in the night of 24.4.93 and also humiliated her by abusing in filthy language in a public place and it is also clear that she got annoyed

¶34

Page 6 of 9

¶35

being abused and also assaulted accused Ranjit and both the accused persons also out-raged her modesty by dragging her and assaulting her causing bleeding injuries. But I do not find any cogent evidence that P.W.1 is a member of the Scheduled Caste and hence I find that the prosecution has not been able to bring home the charge under Sections 3 (1)(x) and 3(1)(xi) of the Act. Thus the prosecution has been able to prove the charges under Sections 341, 294 and 354 read with Section 34 I.P.C.”

¶36

7. The learned trial court awarded sentence to pay a fine of Rs.100/-

¶37

in default to undergo R.I. for seven days on each count under Section 341 and 294 IPC and Rs.500/- in default to undergo R.I. for one month

¶38

under Section 354 IPC. Therefore, the substantive sentence of fine of Rs.600/- with default penalty has been imposed.

¶39

8. Out of the two convicted accused, the present appellant has approached this Court by filing the appeal in subject.

¶40

9. The learned Amicus Curiae has taken me to the evidence of all the witnesses and tried to persuade the Court that no case under Section 294 and 341 of I.P.C. is made out against the appellant. He has also submitted that even if the evidence adduced by the prosecution is taken into consideration, it is clearly illuminating that it is the co-accused Ranjit, who had given the blow to the victim and no direct allegation is

¶41

Page 7 of 9

¶42

made against the appellant except the fact that he was riding the vehicle. Therefore, no offence under Section 294 or 354 IPC is made out against the present appellant. However, under the aid of section 34 IPC, the trial court has convicted the present appellant along with the co-accused Ranjit. Therefore, he submits that the present appellant may be acquitted from the charge of the aforesaid offences. Mr. Mishra further submitted that at the time of incident the present appellant was 28 years old and about 31 years have already lapsed in the meantime. At present, the appellant is aged about 60 years. Therefore, incarcerating him at the belated stage would be un-equitable and harsh. The appellant has already settled in his life and he is the first time offender and he leads a decent life with his family. Therefore, Mr. Mishra submits that the appellant may not be sent to custody at this stage, rather he may be extended the benefit of the Probation of Offenders Act.

¶43

10. Taking into consideration the evidence on record and the submission of both the learned counsel appearing for the parties, I am of the considered view that the findings recorded by the learned trial court

¶44

is sustainable in view of the overwhelming evidence, particularly the

¶45

Page 8 of 9

¶46

evidence of P.W.1, P.W.4 and P.W.5, even the evidence of the hostile witnesses could be used to draw corroboration with the evidence of

¶47

P.W.1. Hence, I am not inclined to interfere with the conviction recorded

¶48

by the learned trial court, however, modified the sentence. Accordingly,

¶49

the appellant is sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- (Rupees one thousand) on each count, in default of making such payment, he shall undergo S.I. for a period of 15 days. The fine amount of Rs.3000/(Rupees three thousand), once realized, shall be paid to P.W.1, the victim in accordance with Section 357 of Cr.P.C.

¶50

11. This Court records the appreciation for the effective and meaningful assistance rendered by Mr. Satya Narayan Mishra-4, learned Amicus Curiae. He is entitled to an honorarium of Rs.7,500/- (Rupees seven thousand five hundred) to be paid as token of appreciation.

¶51

12. The CRA is accordingly disposed of.

¶52

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

¶53

Signature Not Verified

¶54

Digitally Signed Signed by: ASHOK KUMAR JAGADEB MOHAPATRA Designation: Secretary Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa Date: 18-Jul-2025 18:33:20

Suresh Kumar Behera v. State

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Suresh Kumar Behera v. State

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ananda Samal Vs State

Gangadhar Nayak Vs State

Smt.Premashila Vs State

M/S.Ghanashyam Vs State

Purusottam Behera Vs State

M/S.Larambha Service Vs Suresh Ch.Churia