Ambarisha Behera Vs State

THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

CRLA No. 183 of 2007

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

*Ambarisha Behera*	*…….* *Appellant*
	*-Versus-*
*State of Orissa*	*…….* *Respondent*
For the Appellant :	Mr. Ramesh Chandra Behera, Advocate
For the Respondent :	Mrs. Siva Mohanty, ASC

¶5

CORAM:

¶6

THE HONOURABLE SHRI JUSTICE SIBO SANKAR MISHRA

¶7

Date of Hearing: 09.12.2025 :: Date of Judgment: 16.12.2025

¶8

S.S. Mishra, J. The sole appellant-Ambarisha Behera, in the present

¶9

appeal, has assailed the judgment of conviction and order of sentence

¶10

dated 22.03.2007 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Dhenkanal in C.T. (Special) Case No. 41 of 2023, whereby he was found guilty of

¶11

offence under Section 354 of IPC as well as under Section 3 (1)(xi) of

¶12

the S.C. & S.T. (PoA) Act, 1989 and in lieu of such conviction, the

¶13

learned trial court sentenced the appellant R.I. for six months on the

¶14

count of conviction under Section 3 (1)(xi) of the S.C. & S.T. (PoA) Act, 1989. However, no separate sentence was awarded for offence under Section 354 of IPC.

¶15

2. Heard Mr. Ramesh Chandra Behera, learned counsel for the appellant and Mrs. Siva Mohanty, learned Additional Standing Counsel for the State.

¶16

3. The prosecution story in the present case narrates that on 21.02.2001 at about 9.00 A.M. the victim, (P.W.7), was collecting some branches from the mango trees standing by the side of the road. It is alleged that the accused came there from jungle side and started dragging the victim towards jungle by using force. The victim tried her best to get out of her clutch and ultimately escaped by giving the accused a slap. It is further alleged that when the accused received the slap, he had bit on the right hand of the victim. The victim then raised cry which invited the attention of Siba Sahu, Palau Senapathy and others, who were working in the nearby brick kiln and when they arrived, the accused left the place by leaving his bicycle and napkin and ran away towards jungle. One Ratnakar Nayak, who was working nearby and one Ani Sethy, who was going on the road to the tank to take bath are said to have seen the incident. The victim after the said

¶17

Page 2 of 14

¶18

incident came crying to her house narrated the incident and her father in turn approached the village chief Jaladhar Sahu in the matter by making a complaint in writing. A meeting was called for the purpose, but the accused did not come to attend the same. Thereafter, the matter was reported at Mahabi road Police out-post under Parjang Police Station on 22.01.2001 at 10.20 A.M.

¶19

4. On the basis of the aforementioned allegations, police registered the case and investigation was conducted. Charge sheet was filed against the appellant. The accused took a plea of denial and false implication specifically contending that P.W.7, the victim, has falsely implicated him in the present case so as to harass him. On such stance and claim for trial, he was put to trial after the charges were framed.

¶20

5. To establish the charges, the prosecution examined nine witnesses, out of them P.W.1, was the then Tahasildar, Kamakhyanagar, who had issued the caste certificate concerning the caste of P.W.7; P.W.2 was the doctor, who had medically examined P.W.7; P.W.3 is the father of P.W.7, whereas P.Ws.4, 5 and 6 were the co-villagers of P.W.7 and the accused; P.W.7 was the victim, whereas P.Ws.8 and 9 were the I.Os. of the present case.

¶21

6. On the analysis of the evidence, particularly the evidence of

¶22

P.W.7, the victim and P.W.2, the doctor, the learned trial court arrived at the following conclusion:-

¶23

The star witness for the prosecution in this case is P.W.7 the victim standing in a footing of an injured witness and corroborative evidence comes from the lips of P.W.2 the doctor who had examined P.W.7 on Police requisition as in this case all other witnesses to the occurrence have not supported then prosecution case. P.W.7 in her evidence has stated that on the relevant date, time and place when she was bringing a branch of a mango tree, the accused came and pulled her blouse for which the same was got torn. She has further stated that accused had caught hold of her and was pulling her towards nearby jungle when she struggled, and slapped him. It has been further deposed by her that accused had bitten on her right thumb when she was coming away having escaped. As regards the incident practically, P.W.7 has not been cross examined. Barring a stray statement having been brought out that accused had not pulled her with any evil intention, no such infirmity has surfaced so as to even doubt her positive evidence on the score. A bare suggestion has been thrown that as because she did not succeed in marrying the accused, the false case she has foisted against him but, that gains no support from any other evidence on record. F.I.R. Ext. 4 lodged by P.W.7 renders corroboration to her evidence as on the plain reading of the same. I find that the present version of the victim runs at par with the narration made in Ext.4 without any such major variation. When, P.W.7 states to have sustained injury on the right thumb, the same further gets corroboration from the evidence of P.W.2 the doctor who deposed to have noticed such simple injuries on right index finger of P.W.7. Although, in this case the after occurrence witnesses, P.W.5 has not supported the prosecution but that itself in my considered opinion is not sufficient to discard the version of P.W.7. Furthermore here apart from the corroborative evidence available on

¶24

Page 4 of 14

¶25

record as stated above one more circumstance goes to establish the truthfulness of the version of P.W.7 and that is when P.W.7 says that her blouse was torned and accused was leaving left his napkin. during trial that napkin marked M.O.II and the torn blouse is M.O.I have been produced whose seizure has also been proved and even there is no suggestion that accused had not left such napkin or that the napkin does not belong to the accused. This definitely further renders corroboration to the version of P.W.7 about the presence of the accused at the relevant time over ruling the possibility of false implication. From all these, evidence of P.W.7 is found to be having a ring of truth and her credibility has in no way be impeached. Thus, on a conspectus of evidence I find that prosecution has been able to prove beyond reasonable doubt the fact that, accused came pulled her blouse and dragged her and then because of protest bit her right thumb.

¶26

Here when P.W.7's evidence and the caste certificate is to the effect that she is a member of Scheduled caste being Dhoba by caste, the same is not under challenge and rather the accused during his examination admits the said fact and there is also no dispute that the accused is not a member of either Scheduled caste or Scheduled tribe. Then role of the accused in the incident as has been established clearly indicate that it was with an attention to outrage the modesty of P.W.7 a member of Scheduled caste when the same is considered with the other circumstances that the attempt was made when the victim was alone and that too in a lonely place and on protest from the side of the victim there was a strong resistance by bitting her right thumb and then the last one is the fact that the accused ran away from the spot when P.W.7 raised hulla. In view of all these, the statement of the victim P.W.7 during cross examination that it was not with an evil intention pales into in significance and cannot be given any weightage.”

¶27

7. Aggrieved by the aforementioned findings, the appellant

¶28

challenged the order in the present appeal.

¶29

Page 5 of 14

¶30

8. Mr. Behera, learned counsel for the appellant has challenged the impugned judgment on various grounds, particularly questioning the veracity of the testimony of P.W.7, which is riddled with the contradictions. He further submitted that P.W.3, the father of the victim, P.Ws.4, 5 and 6 the villagers although were the main witnesses of the prosecution, but have not deposed in favour of the prosecution to lend corroboration to the statement of P.W.7. It is also pointed out that a compromise was entered into between the accused and the victim and was placed before the learned trial court. The victim, however, wriggled out of her settlement terms that would reflect from the evidence. Learned counsel for the appellant further pointed out that the prime witness, as per the prosecution version, namely, the mother of the victim and one Ratnakar Nayak were deliberately withheld to be examined by the prosecution. By extensively reading of the evidence of P.Ws.8 and 9, learned counsel for the appellant further urged that the statutory provisions under Rule-7 of the Scheduled Caste and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Rules, 1995 has not been complied with in the present case. To substantiate his argument, he has also relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cases of Asmathunnisa vrs. State of A.P., (2011) 49 OCR (SC) 175;

¶31

Page 6 of 14

¶32

Karuppudayar vrs. Deputy Suerintendent of Police , (2025) 98 OCR (SC) 169; and Hutu Ansari @ Futu Ansar & Ors. Vrs. State of Jharkhand , (2025) 99 OCR (SC) 552.

¶33

9. Per contra, learned counsel for the State submitted that the reasoning recorded by the learned trial court to convict the appellant is culmination of true appreciation of evidence. Therefore, the same cannot be said to be unjustified and requires interference.

¶34

10. With the help of learned counsel for the parties, I have gone through the entire materials placed on record to appreciate as to whether any offence under Section 3 (1)(xi) of the S.C. & S.T. (PoA) Act, 1989 is made out or not. The prime witness, P.W.7, who is the victim in the present case has stated that she belongs to ‘Dhoba’ by caste and a member of the Schedule Caste, whereas the accused ‘Chasa’ by caste. She narrated the incident, inter alia , deposing as under:-

¶35

“About three years back, on a day at about 10 AM.. I had been to wash cloth. At that time, I broke a branch of a mango tree from mangrove. At that time, the accused came and pulled my blouse, as a result of which, it was torn. I raised cry. Hearing my cry, Ani Sethi and others of my village came there. I had sustained an injury on my right hand on thumb, As a result of being bitten by the accused, when the accused ran away from the spot, he left the napkin behind. At that time, the accused Amarish caught hold of me and with an evil intention, pulled me towards the nearby jungle, for which, I struggled and

¶36

Page 7 of 14

¶37

slapped him. As I was coming away, he bit my right hand as a result of which, I shouted.”

¶38

However, on the cross examination of the said witness it is very categorically admitted that Ambarish (the appellant) has not pulled her with any evil intention. That part of the admission in the cross examination has diluted her version in the examination in chief that with ill intention the appellant has tried to pull her. The doctor, who examined the victim has deposed that he found two injuries in the person of the victim. Both the injuries, according to him, were simple in nature. Injury no.1 was an abrasion of 1 cm x ½ cm on radial aspect of back of right index figure and injury no.2 is an abrasion of ½ cm x ½ cm on lateral aspect of base of right index figure (between the index and middle figure).

¶39

11. The independent witnesses, like P.Ws.3, 4, 5 and 6 have not supported the prosecution case and all of them have in unison stated that they have no knowledge about the occurrence. P.W.8 was the I.O., who was posted as D.S.P. of Dhenkanal on 24.04.2001, in his examination in chief has stated that he investigated the case and filed the charge sheet on 13.08.2001. However, in the cross examination, he has stated as under:-

¶40

Page 8 of 14

¶41

“2. I have neither visited the spot nor prepared spot map in this case. I have not separately recorded the statements of any witness in this case. It is not a fact that between 24.4.2001 and 13.8.2001, I have not made any investigation in this case. I have not made any seizure in this case nor sent the injured for his medical examination. It is not a fact that I have signed on the police papers, sitting in the office without being making any investigation.”

¶42

His admission that he has not visited the spot, not examined the witnesses and not prepared the spot map etc. stood directly corroborated with the evidence of P.W.9, the ASI, who has deposed that after the OIC registered the case, the investigation was handed over to him and he proceeded with the investigation. He further stated in his cross examination, as under:-

¶43

“ 2. On receiving the written report, I examined the complainant and her father at the outpost. I also sent the complainant for her medical examination by issuing necessary requisition. At 11.30 A.M., I visited the spot, i.e, the mangrove in village Pangatira. I had prepared a spot map. Ext.5 is that spot map.

¶44

3. At the spot, I examined all other witnesses. At 4 PM, I seized one torn blouse of the complainant and one napkin of the accused, on production by the complainant at the spot. Then, I prepared the seizure list in presence of witnesses. Ext. 3/1 already marked, is the seizure list and 3/3 is my signature therein, M.O.I is that torn blouse of the complainant and M.O.11 is the napkin of the accused.”

¶45

12. The reading of the evidence of P.Ws.8 and 9 makes it abundantly

¶46

clear that the entire investigation of the case is being conducted by

¶47

Page 9 of 14

¶48

P.W.9. Rule-7 of the Scheduled Caste and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Rules, 1995, which came into force on 31^st March, 1995 mandates that every case registered under the provisions of S.C. & S.T. (PoA) Act shall be investigated by an officer not below the rank of D.S.P. This mandatory provision appears to have been conveniently given a go by in the present case, as the investigation was in fact carried out by P.W.9, who was posted as ASI in the police station. His testimony reveals the said fact and stood corroborated with the evidence of P.W.8, who himself has admitted in the cross examination that he has not done any investigation in the case. On this sole ground, the appellant could be acquitted.

¶49

13. Apart from that, reading of the evidence of P.W.7, the victim, also does not inspire confidence because of the inherent contradictions and for the reason that none of the independent witnesses have supported the prosecution case. Besides that it is a settled position of law that the act complained of against the appellant is intended by him, to commit so as to insult or denigrate the victim, who belongs to scheduled caste. The paramount requirement to attract the offence under Section 3 (1)(xi) of the S.C. & S.T. (PoA) Act is that the offence must be committed upon a person belonging to scheduled caste or

¶50

Page 10 of 14

¶51

scheduled tribe with the intention that it was being done on the ground of the caste. In this regard, the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court

¶52

in the case of Dashrath Sahu vrs. State of Chhattisgarh , reported in, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 72 assumes importance and paragraphs-9 and 10 of the said judgment read as under:-

¶53

“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 Maharashtra wherein it was held as below:—

¶54

“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 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

¶55

Page 11 of 14

¶56

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.”

¶57

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.”

¶58

Relying on the aforementioned judgment, similar principles were reiterated by this Court in the case of Pradeep Sahu vrs. State of Orissa (CRA No. 94 of 1995), relevant portion of which is reproduced hereunder for convenience of ready reference:-

¶59

“ 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 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.”

¶60

Page 12 of 14

¶61

14. On the aforesaid count also, the prosecution has failed to establish its case. Thirdly, it was the obligation on the part of the prosecution to not only establish on record that the victim belongs to either Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe and the accused is not belonging to either Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe. In the instant case, though the prosecution has brought documents on record to establish that the victim belongs to Scheduled Caste, however, no evidence is illuminating on record to suggest that the accused is not belonging to Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe category. In this regard, the judgment of this Court in the case of Sibananda @ Subbanath Bhoi vrs. State of Odisha , reported in (2024) 94 OCR 792, assumes importance. Paragraph-12 of the said judgment reads as under:-

¶62

“12. One of the prime ingredients of Section 3 of the S.C. & S.T. (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 is that, the victim must have become a member of Schedule Caste or Schedule Tribe and the accused must not have become a member of scheduled caste or scheduled tribe. So, in order to penalise an accused under Section 3 of the S.C. & S.T. (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, it should be the duty of the prosecution to bring material into the record either through oral or through documentary evidence that, the victim is a member of S.C. or S.T. and the accused is not a member of S.C. or S.T. Unless and until, it is established/proved on behalf of the prosecution by bringing materials into the record that, the victim is a member of S.C. or S.T. and the accused is not a member of S.C. or S.T., no conviction under Section 3(1)(xi) of the S.C. & S.T. (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 can be made against an accused. On that aspect, the propositions of law has already been clarified in the ratio of the following decisions:-

¶63

Page 13 of 14

¶64

(i) 2000 (1) C.C.R. (Kerala) 375- Kuriakose vrs. State of Kerala, …………………

¶65

(ii) 2008 (2) Crimes Page-168 (Bombay)- Prakash vrs. State of Maharastra and another, ……………….

¶66

(iii) 2011 (2) Crimes 496 (MP)- Krishna alias Kresa vrs. State of M.P., ………………….”

¶67

15. In view of the foregoing situation, none of the ingredients as discussed above, which is required to be established on record, has been established by the prosecution through the evidence of the prosecution witnesses. Hence, the inevitable conclusion is that the appellant is entitled to the benefit of doubt.

¶68

16 . Accordingly, the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 22.03.2007 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Dhenkanal in C.T. (Special) Case No. 41 of 2023 is set side. The appellant is acquitted of all the charges. The bail bond furnished by the appellant stands discharged.

¶69

17 . The Criminal Appeal is allowed and disposed of.

¶70

The High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Dated the 16^th of December, 2025/Ashok

¶71

Signature Not Verified

¶72

Digitally Signed Signed by: ASHOK KUMAR JAGADEB MOHAPATRA Designation: Secretary Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa Date: 17-Dec-2025 10:57:55

¶73

Page 14 of 14

Ambarisha Behera v. State

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ambarisha 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sandhyarani Swain Vs State of Odisha

Jyotsnarani Singh Vs State of Odisha

Manmath Kumar Sahu Vs Bhubanananda Mishra

Narahari Das Vs State

Jagannath Nayak Vs State

Lakshyapati Kumar Vs State