THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK CRLA No.53 of 2002 (In the matter of an application under Section 374(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973) K. Ramesh Patro ……. Appellant -Versus- State of Orissa ……. Respondent For the Appellant : Ms. Shuvra Mohapatra, Amicus Curiae For the Respondent : Mr. Jateswar Nayak, AGA CORAM: THE HONOURABLE SHRI JUSTICE SIBO SANKAR MISHRA Date of Hearing: 12.02.2026 :: Date of Judgment: 19.02.2026 S.S. Mishra, J. The present Criminal Appeal, filed by the appellant under Section 374(2) of Cr.P.C. is directed against the judgment and order dated 20.08.2002 passed by the learned Second Additional Sessions Judge, Berhampur in S.C. No.35 of 2000 (S.C. No.228/2000-GDC), whereby the learned trial Court while acquitting the appellant for the offences under Sections 493/417/506 of I.P.C., convicted him for the offence under Section 3(1)(xii) of the SC & ST (PoA) Act and on that count, he was sentenced to undergo R.I. for one year. 2. The present appeal has been pending since 2002. When the matter was called for hearing, consistently none appeared for the appellant. Therefore, this Court requested Ms. Shuvra Mohapatra, learned counsel, who was present in Court to assist the Court as Amicus Curiae. She has readily accepted the same and after obtaining entire record, assisted the Court very effectively. This Court records appreciation for the meaningful assistance rendered by Ms. Mohapatra, learned counsel. 3. Heard Ms. Shuvra Mohapatra, learned Amicus Curiae for the appellant and Mr. Jateswar Nayak, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State. 4. The prosecution case, in brief, is that in the year 1997 the informant was engaged as a casual labourer under the accused. During the course of such engagement, acquaintance between the parties gradually developed into intimacy. It is alleged that the accused assured the informant that he would marry her and, on the strength of such assurance, established physical relations with her. As a consequence thereof, the informant conceived. It is further the case of the prosecution that the accused had also promised to provide the informant with a dwelling house, a sum of Rs.5,000/- in cash, and 20 bharans of land. When the informant was about four months pregnant, she requested the accused to honour his promise of marriage and other assurances; however, he allegedly avoided the same. The informant thereafter disclosed the matter to the villagers, but the accused is stated to have threatened her to assault and harm. Alleging deception and betrayal on the part of the accused, the informant lodged a written report on 09.09.1999 at Chatrapur Police Station. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed on the alleged commission of the offences under Sections 493/417/506 of I.P.C. read with Section 3(1)(xii) of the SC/ST (PoA) Act. On the stance of complete denial and claim of trial, the appellant was put to trial. 5. In order to establish its case, the prosecution examined five witnesses. Out of whom, P.W.1, cited as an eye-witness to the occurrence, did not support the prosecution and was declared hostile. P.W.2 was the medical officer, who examined the victim on 10.09.1999 and opined that she was pregnant for about six to nine months. P.W.3 is the victim-cum-informant. P.W.4, the then S.I. of Police, Chatrapur P.S., and P.W.5, the Deputy Superintendent of Police (Home Guard), are the investigating officers, the latter having submitted the charge-sheet. 6. The learned trial Court after evaluating the entire evidence on record arrived at a conclusion that the prosecution could prove its case beyond all reasonable doubt to establish the case under Section 3(1)(xii) of the SC & ST (PoA) Act alone, but not the other charges and gave the following findings:- “9. Learned counsel for the accused argued that since the case was not investigated by one Deputy Supdt. of Police, the entire prosecution need to be quashed. I am conscious of the observation made by His Lordship of our Hon'ble Court reported in (2002) 22, O.C.R, page 92, Sessions Judge V. State, wherein answering the reference made by learned Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge, Cuttack His Lordship has laid-down certain Laws with reference to Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act and Rules framed thereunder. According to His Lordship, if investigation made by police below the rank of officer provided under Rule 7 of the Statute, investigation is vitiated. As per Rule 7 of S.C and S.T. (PA) Rules 1995, an offence committed under the Act is to be investigated by a police officer not below the rank of Dy. S.P. In the instant case initial investigation was made by p.w.4 who was S.I of Police, Chatrapur on the date of receipt of the F.I.R. However, since the defect noticed on 19-1-2000, Dy. S.P., Home guards, Chatrapur as per order of Addl. S.P, Ganjam, Chatrapur took charge of investigation from S.I. R.N. Pradhan. Said Dy. S.P. has been examined as p.w.5 and according to him, after taking charge of investigation, he perused the case diary, tested the witnesses and as by the time he took charge of the case, investigation was already over, he made formal investigation before submitting charge sheet. So, once charge-sheet is submitted by Deputy S.P., the defect is rectified. Nodoubt,p.w.5 has not recorded statement of witnesses once again as recording of statement once again would have only served repetition of table work. The whole purpose of enacting rule 7 is to see that the investigation is made by an experienced police officer, so that there will be no flaws in investigation. Once defect is rectified, on that ground the case cannot be quashed or thrown to oblivion. Rather, I must say that statutory requirement has been complied, though at a later stage of investigation and simultaneously it can be stated at the cost of repetition that accused has not shown anything how he was prejudiced by such investigation and how his right was affected by submission of charge-sheet by Deputy S.P. Once the irregularity does not go to the root of the matter, the trial is not vitiated. Hence, I conclude that prosecution has successfully proved the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt as regards his involvement u/s 3(1)(xii) of SC and ST(PA) Act. 10. In the result, I hold the accused not guilty u/ss. 493/417/506 I.P.C. and acquit him thereunder, but I hold him guilty u/s 3(1) (xii) of SC & ST (PA) Act and convict him thereunder…...” 7. Ms. Mohapatra, learned Amicus Curiae for the appellant has read out the prosecution evidence in extenso and pointed out the discrepancies and inconsistencies in the prosecution evidences. She has also highlighted the statutory procedural non-compliance by the prosecution. She submitted that in this case the mandate of Rule 7 of the SC & ST (P.A.) Rules, 1995 has not been complied. On that count alone, the appellant could be acquitted. 8. On the contrary, Mr. Nayak, learned counsel for the State has relied upon the testimony of the victim and also taken me to the impugned judgment particularly paragraph-8 of the same to justify the findings returned by the learned trial Court. 9. I have perused the materials on record, both the ocular evidence as well as the documentary evidence. In the light of the available materials on record, I have analysed the impugned judgment. The first issue raised by the learned Amicus Curiae regarding the non- compliance of Rule 7 of 1995 Rules needs to be dealt with which goes to the root of the entire prosecution case. Rule 7 of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Rules, 1995, which came into force with effect from 31.03.1995, mandates that every offence registered under the Act shall be investigated by a police officer not below the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police. For convenience of ready reference, Rule 7 of the SC & ST (PA) Rules reads as under:- 7. Investigating Officer –(1) An offence committed under the Act shall be investigated by a police officer not below the rank of a Deputy Superintendent of Police. The investigating officer shall be appointed by the State Government/Director General of Police/Superintendent of Police after taking into account his past experience, sense of ability and justice to perceive the implications of the case and investigate it along with right lines within the shortest possible time. (2) The investigating officer so appointed under sub– rule (1) shall complete the investigation on top priority and submit the report to the Superintendent of Police, who in turn shall immediately forward the report to the Director–General of Police or Commissioner of Police of the State Government, and the officer in–charge of the concerned police station shall file the charge sheet in the Special Court or the Exclusive Special Court within a period of sixty days (the period is inclusive of investigation and filing of charge-sheet.). (2A) The delay, if any, in investigation or filing of charge–sheet in accordance with sub–rule (2) shall be explained in writing by the investigating officer. (3) The Secretary, Home Department and the Secretary, Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Development Department (the name of the Department may vary from State to State) to the State Government or Union Territory Administration, Director of Prosecution, the officer in– charge of Prosecution and the Director General of Police or the Commissioner of Police in–charge of the concerned State or Union Territory shall review by the end of every quarter the position of all investigations done by the investigating officer.” 10. In order to ascertain from the record whether the investigation has been conducted by a competent officer as contemplated under Rule 7 of 1995 Rules, the evidence of P.Ws.4 and 5 needs to be appreciated. P.W.4 has deposed that on 09.09.1999, he was posted as S.I. of Police, Chatrapur P.S. On that day, he received a written report from the informant and treated the same as an F.I.R. under Sections 493/417/506 of I.P.C. read with Section 3(1)(xii) of the SC & ST (PoA) Act. He deposed that after registration of the case, the I.I.C. of the police station directed him to take up the investigation. In paragraph-2 of his examination-in-chief, he has narrated in what manner he had conducted the investigation. He has deposed that he examined and recorded the statements of the witnesses, arranged for the medical examination of the child victim, and upon receipt of the medical opinion, obtained a caste certificate from the Tahasildar certifying that the informant belongs to the Scheduled Caste community and has also recorded the statements of the independent witnesses under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C. In paragraph-4 of the cross-examination, P.W.4 has very specifically admitted that the Deputy Superintendent of Police (P.W.5) has not separately recorded the statement of the witnesses and he has also deposed that P.W.5 has not visited the spot. The suggestion made by the defence that he was not competent to investigate the case related to an offence under the SC & ST Act, he has denied the suggestion and deposed that he was competent. P.W.5, who has been projected by the prosecution as the Investigating Officer, which apparently reflecting from paragraph-9 of the impugned judgment as reproduced above has deposed that on 19.01.2000, he was posted as Deputy S.P., Homeguard, Ganjam. He further deposed that he took up the investigation from P.W.4 and filed the charge-sheet finding the material to be sufficient. However, in the cross-examination, he has stated as under:- “2. On 10.09.1999 also I was continuing as Dy. S.P. Homeguards, Chatrapur. By the time I took over charge investigation was already over and I made a formal investigation before submitting charge-sheet. I have not taken any step for conducting D.N.A. test of the child. It is not a fact that I mechanically submitted charge sheet.” 11. From perusal of the evidence of P.W.5, it is apparent that he had taken over the charge after the entire investigation was over and he had only filed the charge-sheet. In the light of the evidence of P.Ws.4 and 5, if the finding of the learned trial Court in paragraph-9 of the impugned judgment as reproduced above is truely appreciated, the same may not be correct. The observation made by the learned trial Court goes contrary to the evidence of P.Ws.4 and 5. Reading of the evidence of the police officers those who claimed to have investigated the case, makes it abundantly clear that the procedural safeguard proved under Rule 7 of SC & ST Rules, 1995 has not been complied with to its true letter and spirit. 12. The evidence of P.W.3, the informant and victim also worth reliance to appreciate the prosecution case. She in her deposition has stated that she and the accused were living together as the wife and husband and had cohabited for a period of one year. She further deposed that upon conceiving and four months after the conception, the accused-appellant did not come to her. During her pregnancy, she approached the accused, whereupon he assured her that he would marry her and accept her as his legally wedded wife. He also allegedly promised to provide her with 20 bharans of agricultural land and a homestead measuring 10 cubits. As she was assured by the accused, she did not go for abortion, but subsequently, the accused resiled from his promises and refused to fulfill his commitment. Therefore, the case was registered. Page 11 of 13 Reading of the evidence of P.W.3 makes it further clear that the relationship between the accused and the victim, who was thirty-six years of age was consensual in nature. To bring home the case under the provisions of SC & ST Act, the essential ingredient is required to be proved on record is that the accused has committed the alleged offence knowing, intending and/or on the ground that the victim belongs to either Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Dashrath Sahu vrs. State of Chhattisgarh1 has held as under:- “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.” Accordingly, mere commission of an offence ipso facto will not attract the offence of SC & ST Act unless the prosecution proves that the act complained of was intended by the accused to insult or cause injury to the victim knowing that he/she belongs to SC or ST community. 1 S.L.P. (Crl.) Nos. 6367 of 2023 13. In view of the aforesaid settled principle of law as discussed above, it is manifestly clear that the prosecution has failed to establish its case beyond all reasonable doubt. The prosecution has also failed to bring home the essential ingredient required to establish an offence under Section 3(1)(xii) of SC & ST (PoA) Act. The case of the appellant is directly covered by the judgment as discussed above. Therefore, this Court is not delving upon the merits of the case by analyzing the evidence further, rather inclined to allow the appeal on the aforementioned legal ground. Hence, the appellant is entitled to the benefit of doubt. While extending the benefit of doubt to the appellant, the judgment and order dated 20.08.2002 passed by the learned Second Additional Sessions Judge, Berhampur in S.C. No.35 of 2000 (S.C. No.228/2000-GDC) is set aside. The appellant is acquitted of all the charges. The bail bond furnished stands discharged. 14. Accordingly, the CRA is allowed and disposed of. 15. This Court acknowledges the effective and meaningful assistance rendered by Ms. Shuvra Mohapatra, learned Amicus Curiae in this case. Learned Amicus Curiae is entitled to an honorarium of Rs.7,500/- (Rupees seven thousand five hundred) to be paid as a token of appreciation. (S.S. Mishra) Judge The High Court of Orissa, Cuttack. Dated the 19th February, 2026/ Swarna Designation: Senior Stenographer