Allowed¶65

Pradeep v. State

Orissa HC20 Nov 2025CRA/94/1995

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Pradeep Sahu v. State, CRA No. 94 of 1995 (Orissa HC, Cuttack, 20.11.2025): acquittal under S.3(1)(xi) SC & ST (PoA) Act — caste-based intention ingredient not evidenced and victim's SC/ST status not proved (only hearsay 'Ghasi' caste testimony of P.Ws.1 and 3; caste certificate not proved); acts satisfied S.354 IPC ingredients; benefit of doubt extended; conviction/sentence of Sessions Judge, Phulbani in S.T. No.4 of 1995 dated 01.03.1995 (R.I. 2 years, fine Rs.2000/-) set aside; follows Dashrath Sahu (2024 SCC OnLine SC 72), relies on Khageswar Kunar ((2015) 61 OCR 821).

What did the court decide?

Judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 01.03.1995 (Sessions Judge, Phulbani, S.T. No.4 of 1995) set aside; appellant acquitted of all the charges; bail bond furnished stands discharged. ¶65

Pradeep Vs State — Orissa HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 01.03.1995 (Sessions Judge, Phulbani, S.T. No.4 of 1995) set aside; appellant acquitted of all the charges; bail bond furnished stands discharged.

¶65

Issue for consideration

Whether the findings recorded by the learned trial Court, which led to the appellant's conviction and sentence, should be sustained in this appeal. +2 more

¶31

Court's answer

The prosecution has failed to establish the case against the appellant for offence under Section 3(1)(xi) of the S.C. & ST (PoA) Act; the appellant is entitled to the benefit of doubt; the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 01.03.1995 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Phulbani in S.T. No.4 of 1995 is set aside, the appellant is acquitted of all the charges and the bail bond furnished stands discharged.

¶64

Ratio / Principle

The acts proved (catching hold of the victim's hand, dragging her into the pond water, tearing her frock from the front side and slapping her) satisfy the ingredients of an offence under Section 354 IPC and also satisfy part of the ingredients of the offence under Section 3(1)(xi) of the S.C. & ST (PoA) Act.

¶61

Key takeaways

Neither the victim (P.W.2) herself nor the other witnesses evidence that the act complained of was committed by the appellant with an intention that it was being done on the ground of the caste of P.W.2; the intention ingredient of Section 3(1)(xi) is therefore not made out.ratio¶63
Apart from the testimony of P.Ws.1 and 3 that the victim belongs to 'Ghasi' by caste, no other evidence establishes that the victim belongs to either SC or ST, and the caste certificate has not been proved on record.ratio¶44

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

CRA No. 94 of 1995 (High Court of Orissa, Cuttack; S.S. Mishra, J.; judgment dated 20.11.2025): Appeal under Section 374(2) CrPC against the judgment dated 01.03.1995 of the learned Sessions Judge, Phulbani (S.T. No.4 of 1995) convicting the appellant Pradeep Sahu under Section 3(1)(xi) of the S.C. & ST (PoA) Act and sentencing him to R.I. for two years and a fine of Rs.2000/- (default S.I. four months) for allegedly catching hold of the victim's hand, dragging her into a village pond and tearing her frock on 04.06.1992. Held: although the proved acts satisfied the ingredients of Section 354 IPC and part of those of Section 3(1)(xi), neither the victim (P.W.2), who never stated her caste in her testimony, nor any other witness showed that the act was committed with the intention that it was being done on the ground of her caste; apart from the testimony of P.Ws.1 and 3 that the victim is 'Ghasi' by caste, no evidence of SC/ST status came on record and the caste certificate was not proved. Following Dashrath Sahu vrs. State of Chhattisgarh (2024 SCC OnLine SC 72) and relying on Khageswar Kunar ((2015) 61 OCR 821), the Court held the prosecution had failed to establish the offence under Section 3(1)(xi), extended the benefit of doubt to the appellant, set aside the conviction and sentence, acquitted him of all charges and discharged his bail bond. Criminal Appeal allowed and disposed of.

¶1

THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

¶2

CRA No. 94 of 1995

¶3

(In the matter of an application under Section 374(2) of Criminal Procedure Code)

¶4

Pradeep Sahu ……. Appellant -VersusState ……. Respondent For the Appellant : Mr. S.K. Dwibedi, Advocate

¶5

For the Respondent : Mr. S.J. Mohanty, ASC

¶6

CORAM:

¶7

THE HONOURABLE SHRI JUSTICE SIBO SANKAR MISHRA

¶8

Date of Hearing and Judgment: 20.11.2025

¶9

S.S. Mishra, J. The present appellant is aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 01.03.1995

¶10

passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Phulbani in S.T. No.4 of 1995, whereby the petitioner on being convicted for offence under Section 3(1)(xi) of the S.C. & ST (PoA) Act, has been sentenced to undergo

¶11

R.I. for two years and to pay a fine of Rs.2000/-, in default of

¶12

payment of fine, to undergo S.I. for four months.

¶13

2. Heard Mr. S.K. Dwibedi, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. S.J. Mohanty, learned counsel for the State.

¶14

3. The prosecution case narrates that on 04.06.1992 around 3.00 P.M. Koili Suna,(victim), the daughter of Lingaraj Suna, who resides in village Kantamal with her father and other family members had been to the village pond to clean utensils. Pradeep Sahu (appellant), who is the son of Rupalal Sahu, all of a sudden came to the pond with the intent to dishonour/outrage her modesty, caught hold of the hand and dragged Koili Suna inside the water and tore away her frock. Koili Suna managed to rescue herself from the grip of the accused and ran away and thereafter informed her parents, besides her brother.

¶15

4. On the basis of the aforementioned allegations, FIR was registered and investigation was conducted. Charge sheet was filed against the appellant and on the stance of complete denial and claim for trial, he was put to trial after the charges were framed.

¶16

5. To establish the charges, the prosecution examined six witnesses, out of whom P.W.1 is the mother of the victim. P.W.2 was

¶17

Page 2 of 12

¶18

the victim, P.W.3 was an immediate post occurrence witness, P.W.4

¶19

was the scriber of the FIR, P.W.5 was the father of the victim and

¶20

P.W.6 was the Investigating Officer.

¶21

6. The learned trial Court after analysing the entire evidence on record arrived at the following findings:-

¶22

“ 6. P.Ws. 1 and 5 though not the eye witnesses have emphatically said that P.W. 2 came running to the house sobbing althrough and narrated the incident to them. The incident is at 3 PM. and the F.I.R. has been lodged at 5.30 P.M. of the same day. This postoccurrence testimony of P.Ws. 1 and 5 is also a corroborating factor in the evidence of P.W. 2.

¶23

P.W 2 has corroborated her F.I.R. version in all respects except the dealing of two slaps by the accused to P.W 2 in the course of dragging of P.W. 2 to the water of the pond. The fact of dealing of slaps by accused to P.W. 2. seem to be an addition in her evidence. Baring and except this addition, the evidence of P.W. 2 has not suffered from any exaggeration. In 1991(33)0.J.D. (Faghu Bhoi & another Vrs. State of Orissa) the Honourable Court have observed:-

¶24

"The evidence of P.Ws. 1 and 2 no doubt suffers from exaggeration but that per se does not rendered the evidence unworthy or inacceptable. In their anxiety to be accepted as trueful witness, they appear to be exaggerated and embroidered, unless the exaggeration is of such proportion that it renders the evidence improbable unworthy of acceptance; the Court has a duty to trim off the unnecessary embroidery and exaggeration and found out the truth.

¶25

In A.I.R. 1977 S.C. page 1614 (Hanuman Appellant Vs. State of Haryana) the Honourable Court have observed:-

¶26

Page 3 of 12

¶27

“xxx that the evidence of the complainant is not corroborated as indred it to have been corroborated in view of the fact that she is a prosecutrix in regard to an of under Sec. 354. We see no substance in any of these submissions, xxx”

¶28

All men are not equal in their power of reproduction of a fact witnessed by them. Some forget incidence at a short period. Some do not remember the sequence of evidence in order. P.W.3 has nót said in his examination in chief that he produced the accused at the P.S. but has affirmed as such in his cross examination P.W.6 has corroborated the production of the accused by P.W. 3. The proximate post occurrence circumstances has excaived corroboration within the evidence of prosecution witnesses. Though the dealing of slaps by the accused to P.W. 2 at the pond site may be an addition but that per-se cannot discredit the evidence of P.W. 2 altogether.

¶29

“Honesty” per se denotes regard for descency of behaviour in speach and diass etc., P.W. 2 has asserted her age, to be 18 years P.W. 2 is an unmarried girl. It has not been elicited from the evidence of P.W. 2 that she was a friend of the accused or they had any relation within themselves. In a lonely place if a young girl of 18 years was dragged to the surface of the water and further her frock was torn by the accused himself. In the circumstances, with moral certainty the overtact can be said to be an act suggestive of outraging modesty of P.W.2 with intention behind. Dragging denotes application of force perse.

¶30

P.W. 4 the scribe of the FI.R is a formal witness. Further P.W. 4 had said that he has not been examined by the police.”

¶31

7. The appellant is aggrieved by the aforesaid findings recorded

¶32

by the learned trial Court, which led to his conviction and sentence.

¶33

Therefore, he has preferred the present appeal.

¶34

Page 4 of 12

¶35

8. Mr. S.K. Dwibedi, learned counsel for the appellant, has taken me to the evidence on record and pointed out the glaring contradictions. Apart from that, Mr. Dwidebi has submitted that even if the prosecution version through the witnesses are accepted, no specific case under Section 3(1)(xi) of the S.C. & S.T. (PoA) Act is made out because there was no intention attributed by the victim on the part of the appellant to commit the crime with an intention that it is being done on the ground of her caste. He has relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Dashrath Sahu vrs. State of Chhattisgarh , reported in, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 72 .

¶36

9. He further submitted that in the present case, the prosecution has failed to bring on record the evidence establishing the caste of the victim. He submitted that neither sufficient oral evidence came on record nor any iota of evidence in the name of documentary evidence borne on record to suggest that the victim belongs to either SC or ST. On that ground, the appellant is entitled to an acquittal of the offence under Section 3(1)(xi) of the S.C. & ST (PoA) Act. He has relied upon the judgment of this Court in the case of Khageswar Kunar and others vrs. State of Orissa , reported in (2015) 61 OCR 821 .

¶37

Page 5 of 12

¶38

10. In the light of the judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellant, I have analyzed the evidence on record. P.W.2 is the victim in the present appeal. She, in her testimony, deposed that the accused caught hold of her hand and tried to drag her into the water. She somehow could manage to escape from the clutch of the accused. She has further deposed that the accused gave two slaps, one on each of her cheeks and tore her dress from the front side. She further stated that she ran away towards her home crying and at that point of time P.W.3-Kasta Sandha met her in the way and she narrated the incident to her. In the entire testimony of the said victim (P.W.2), she has not stated that she belongs to either SC or ST and she has not even stated her caste in her testimony.

¶39

11. P.W.5, the father of the victim, is a hearsay witness. He has not witnessed the incident. He has deposed before the court stating that he heard from his daughter that when she had been to pond for washing the utensils, the son of one Lingaraj Suna came all of a sudden and caught hold of his daughter and dragged her inside the water and tore her frock from the front side and when she raised hullah, the accused

¶40

released her.

¶41

Page 6 of 12

¶42

12. Mr. Dwibedi, learned counsel for the appellant, has pointed out that the accused is the son of one Rupalal Sahu. Therefore, the evidence of P.W.5 in the examination-in-chief, although he has stated that the accused is the son of one Lingaraj Suna, however, in the cross-examination, the said witness corrected himself and stated that he does not know the name of the accused, but he knows that he is the son of Rupalal Sahu. The apparent contradictions in the testimony of P.W.5 create a serious doubt. It is also pointed out that the said witness, who is the father of the victim, has also not stated anywhere that he belongs to SC or ST, even though he has disclosed his caste. It is only P.W.3, who is the cousin brother of P.W.2, the victim, has stated that P.Ws.1 and 2 belong to ‘Ghasi’ by caste. Although he has supported the version of P.W.2 regarding the narration of the incident though with little variation, but fact remains that he was a hearsay witness and he has not seen the occurrence himself. P.W.1, who is the mother of the victim (P.W.2), is also not a witness to the occurrence. She has only heard it from her daughter. She also narrated the incident as had been described to her by her daughter. The said witness has deposed that she belongs to ‘Ghasi’ by caste. It is apparent on record that apart from the testimony of P.Ws.1 and 3, that

¶43

Page 7 of 12

¶44

those who have stated that the victim belongs to ‘Ghasi’ by caste, no other evidence to establish that the victim belongs to either SC or ST comes on record. The caste certificate has also not been proved on record. On the face of such evidence, the judgment cited by Mr. Dwibedi in Khageswar Kunar (supra) assumes importance. Paragraph-5 of the said judgment reads as under:-

¶45

“5. Admittedly, in this case no such documentary evidence has been tendered proving the caste of the informant and her brother (PWs 1 and 6) that they are the members of Scheduled Caste. It is stated in the FIR that the informant was abused by accused Khageswar and he had hurled the abusive words those are "Sali Dhobani Ghoda Gehi etc "The Trial Court as it appears has taken into consideration that as the accused persons nowhere claim of the exemption of being member of SC and ST which provides them immunity of prosecution under the Act on the face of the evidence of P.W 1 receiving corroboration from the FIR she is to be held to be a member of Scheduled Caste as prosecution version is that she was insulted by calling her caste. The view of the Trial Court that simply because of the evidence on record that accused Khageswar abused PW 1 stating as "Dhobani', the same is enough to hold PW 1 as a member of Scheduled Caste, in my considered view is not sustainable in the eye of law in a prosecution for offence under the Act. The prosecution is always under legal obligation to prove that the victim belongs to a caste which specifically finds place in the list of Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe as the case may be in any of the entry specified in the Presidential Order promulgated in exercise of the power conferred by Clause-1 of Article 342 of the Constitution of India. Here accepting for a moment that the accused Khageswar had abused informant (P.W 1) uttering Dhobani', then also 'Dhobani' is not found to be there in any of the entries in the Constitution (Scheduled Caste) Order, 1950 as amended

¶46

Page 8 of 12

¶47

from time to time. Therefore, this Court is led to accept the submission of the learned counsel for the appellants that here is a case where the foundational fact to attract any of the offences provided under the Act as regards the victim being a member of Scheduled Caste has not been established by acceptable evidence when it is specifically denied by the accused persons during their examination under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and when even PW 1 has not stated her caste on oath that as such that she is a member of Scheduled Caste community.”

¶48

13. The main contention raised by Mr. Dwibedi is that even if the evidence of all the witnesses is taken on its face value, no offence under section 3(1)(xi) of the S.C. & ST (PoA) Act is made out. He has relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Dasarath Sahu (supra). The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the said judgment in paragraphs-7, 8, 9 and 10 has held as under:-

¶49

“7. Section 3(1)(xi) of the SC/ST Act reads as below:—

¶50

“ 3. Punishments for offences of atrocities .—(1) Whoever, not being a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe,—

¶51

(i)-(x)…..

¶52

(xi) assaults or uses force to any woman belonging to a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe with intent to dishonour or outrage her modesty;

¶53

shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than six months but which may extend to five years and with fine.”

¶54

Page 9 of 12

¶55

8. A plain reading of the section makes it clear that the offence of outraging the modesty should be committed with the intention that the victim belonged to the Scheduled Caste category.

¶56

9. We have gone through the FIR and the sworn testimony of the prosecutrix/complainant as extracted in the judgments of the High Court as well as that of the trial Court. The case as projected in the FIR and the sworn testimony of the prosecutrix would reveal that the prosecutrix/complainant was engaged for doing household jobs in the house of the accused appellant who tried to outrage her modesty while the prosecutrix/complainant was doing the household chores. Apparently thus, even from the highest allegations of the prosecutrix, the offending act was not committed by the accused with the intention that he was doing so upon a person belonging to the Scheduled Caste. This issue was dealt with by this Court in the case of Masumsha Hasanasha Musalman v. State of Maharashtra1 wherein it was held as below:—

¶57

“9. Section 3(2)(v.) of the Act provides that whoever, not being a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe, commits any offence under the Penal Code, 1860 punishable with imprisonment for a term of ten years or more against a person or property on the ground that such person is a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe or such property belongs to such member, shall be punishable with imprisonment for life and with fine. In the present case, there is no evidence at all to the effect that the appellant committed the offence alleged against him on the ground that the deceased is a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe. To attract the provisions of Section 3(2)(v.) of the Act, the sine qua non is that the victim should be a

¶58

Page 10 of 12

¶59

person who belongs to a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe and that the offence under the Penal Code, 1860 is committed against him on the basis that such a person belongs to a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe. In the absence of such ingredients, no offence under Section 3(2)(v.) of the Act arises. In that view of the matter, we think, both the trial court and the High Court missed the essence of this aspect. In these circumstances, the conviction under the aforesaid provision by the trial court as well as by the High Court ought to be set aside.”

¶60

10. In the said judgment, this Court dealt with a case involving offence under Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act. The language of Section 3(1)(xi) of the SC/ST Act is pari materia as the same also provides that the offence must be committed upon a person belonging to Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes with the intention that it was being done on the ground of caste.”

¶61

14. The fact of the present case is quite akin to that of Dasarath Sahu (supra) case. It is a fact that the evidence has come on record that the accused has caught hold the hand of the victim and drag her into the water and tore her frock from the front side and slapped her, which satisfy the ingredients of an offence under Section 354 IPC and also satisfy the part of the ingredients of the offence under 3(1)(xi) of the S.C. & ST (PoA) Act. But from the evidence of P.W.2, the intention part is not coming to fore to hold that the appellant is guilty

¶62

Page 11 of 12

¶63

for offence under Section 3(1)(xi) of the S.C. & ST (PoA) Act, particularly for two reasons that neither the victim herself nor from the evidence of other witnesses, which is germinating from the record evident the act complained of committed by the appellant is with an intention that it was being done on the ground of caste of P.W.2.

¶64

15. In such view of the matter, I am of the considered opinion that the prosecution has failed to establish the case against the appellant for offence under 3(1)(xi) of the S.C. & ST (PoA) Act. Hence, the appellant is entitled to the benefit of doubt. While extending the benefit of doubt to the appellant, the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 01.03.1995 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Phulbani in S.T. No.4 of 1995 is set side. The appellant is acquitted of all the charges. The bail bond furnished stands discharged.

¶65

16. Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal is allowed and disposed of.

¶66

The High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Dated the 20^th of November, 2025/Ashok

¶67

Signature Not Verified

¶68

Digitally Signed Signed by: ASHOK KUMAR JAGADEB MOHAPATRA Designation: Secretary Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa Date: 02-Dec-2025 14:02:14

¶69

Page 12 of 12

Pradeep v. State

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pradeep 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

Prakash Naidu Vs State

Kalia @ Mrutunjaya Vs State

Smt.Appala Narasamma Vs State

S.K.Praharaj Vs State

Mrutunjaya Vs State

Diba Tudu Vs State