THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK CRLA No.43 of 2009 (In the matter of an application under Section 374 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973) Debasis Rath ……. Appellant -Versus- State of Orissa ……. Respondent For the Appellant : Ms. Chetna Prakash, Advocate For the Respondent : Mr. Jateswar Nayak, AGA CORAM: THE HONOURABLE SHRI JUSTICE SIBO SANKAR MISHRA Date of Hearing: 30.04.2026 :: Date of Judgment: 22.05.2026 S.S. Mishra, J. The present Criminal Appeal, filed by the appellant under Section 374 of Cr.P.C. is directed against the judgment and order dated 17.01.2009 passed by the learned Special Judge, Phulbani in S.T. No.75 of 2006, arising out of G.R. 263/2005, whereby the appellant was convicted for offences under Sections 324 and 354 of the IPC and Section 3(1)(xi) of the SC & ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, and p. 2 sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months on each count with fine of Rs.200/- in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month on each count. 2. Heard Ms. Chetna Prakash, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Jateswar Nayak, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State. 3. The prosecution case, in terse and brief, is that on 20.06.2008 at about 10:00 A.M., the victim, a 15-year-old girl belonging to the Scheduled Tribe community, had gone to take her bath in the Salunki river along with one Sulentina Pradhan. At that time, the accused allegedly reached the spot and first attempted to catch hold of Sulentina, who, however, managed to escape by running towards her house. Thereafter, the accused turned towards the victim, caught hold of her, and dragged her. When the victim raised alarm, the accused allegedly held her by the neck and pressed it. In the course of freeing herself from the clutches of the accused, the victim sustained injuries on her neck and, as alleged, bleeding from her mouth. She then rushed towards the p. 3 riverbank raising alarm, whereupon the accused fled towards the opposite side of the river. On hearing the commotion, local persons gathered at the spot, and some of them chased the accused and succeeded in apprehending him. Subsequently, the informant, who is the father of the victim, lodged a written report before the police. Upon completion of investigation, the Investigating Officer submitted charge-sheet against the accused, whereafter the case was committed to the Court of Session, and the accused stood trial for the alleged offences U/S 341/354/324 IPC and U/S 3(1)(xi) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocity) Act. 4. In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined nine witnesses. P.W.1 is the victim, while P.W.2, Sulentina Pradhan, was an eyewitness. P.W.3, Smt. Mitanjali Rout, offered post-incident testimony. P.W.4, Prakash Sahu, and P.W.6, Swadhina Kumar Swain, are additional witnesses who pursued and apprehended the accused. P.W.5, Kishore Chandra Pradhan, is the informant, and P.W.7, Dr. Page 4 of 16 Shyamasundar Mahapatra, examined the injured party at the police's request. P.W.8, Sri Arjuna Bhoi, served as the Investigating Officer, while P.W.9, Sibanarayan Nanda, was the Tahasildar who issued the victim's father's caste certificate. The defence is one of complete denial and false implication. No defence evidence was adduced. 5. The learned trial Court upon appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence on record held that the testimony of the victim (P.W.1), duly corroborated by P.W.2 and supported by the medical evidence of P.W.7, clearly established that the accused had assaulted the victim while she was taking bath in the river and caused a nail injury on her neck. The trial Court found that such conduct, in the given circumstances, amounted to voluntarily causing hurt and also constituted an act of outraging the modesty of the victim. Further, relying on the unchallenged evidence of the Tahasildar (P.W.9), the court concluded that the victim belonged to a Scheduled Tribe and that the act of the accused was sufficient to attract the provisions of Section 3(1)(xi) of the SC & ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. However, the court found no p. 5 material to establish wrongful restraint under Section 341 IPC and acquitted the accused of that charge. Accordingly, the accused was convicted under Sections 324 and 354 IPC and Section 3(1)(xi) of the SC & ST Act and sentenced accordingly. The relevant portion of the aforesaid judgment is extracted herein below for ready reference:- “Placing reliance on the evidence of P.Ws.1& 2 and the medical officer, it can safely be concluded that the accused voluntarily caused hurt to the victim on her neck by nail, which is an instrument of cutting while the victim was taking her bath in the river. This conduct of the accused in attacking the victim while she was taking bath in the river and causing a simple injury to her by an instrument of cutting i.e. the nail, clearly suggests that the modesty of the victim is infringed or outraged and the intention of the accused is undoubtedly to dishonor the victim in the public esteem. So the offences u/s-324/354 I.P.C and sec 3 (1)(xi) of S.C. and S.T. (Prevention of Atrocity) Act is well brought home to the accused. The I.O., P.W.8 had proved the registration of the case and his taking up the investigation. He proved that he seized the bicycle on production by Kulamani Naik as per the seizure list Ext.6. It is also in his evidence that he had sent the injured victim girl for her medical examination under requisition. Ext.5 is the requisition issued by him, which corroborates his evidence and also the evidence of the medical officer. He had also proved the spot map, which he had prepared as per Ext.3. Page 6 of 16 8. From the evidence discussed above and relying on the evidence of the P.Ws.1 to 3,5,7 to 9 therefore, I conclude that the offences U/S 354/324 I.P.C. and Sec.3 (1)(XI) of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (P.A.) Act is well brought home to the accused. As regards the offence U/S 341 I.P.C. is concerned, absolutely there is no evidence to suggest that the accused had wrongfully restrained the victim. All P.W.1 had stated is that the accused caught hold of her neck and she got rid of him and ran away to the bank of the river. So there is no wrongful restraint and the offence U/S 341 I.P.C. is not brought home to the accused. 9. Accordingly, I found the accused guilty U/S 324/354 I.P.C. and U/S 3(1)(XI) of S.C. & S.T.(P.A.) Act and convict him there under and find him not guilty U/S 341 I.P.C. and acquitted him from the said charge.” 6. Ms. Chetna Prakash, learned counsel for the appellant, assailed the impugned judgment primarily on the ground that the prosecution has failed to establish the essential ingredients of the offences under Sections 324, 354 and 341 IPC as well as Section 3(1)(xi) of the SC & ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. It is contended that mere proof of the victim belonging to a Scheduled Tribe is insufficient to attract the said p. 7 provision, in absence of any evidence showing that the alleged act was committed on account of such caste. She placed reliance on a judgment of this Court, Iswar Chandra Mahanta @ Iswar Mahanta v. State of Orissa in CRA No. 271 of 1994, wherein it has been held that the prosecution must establish that the offence was committed with the intention to humiliate the victim on the ground of caste, failing which conviction under the SC & ST Act cannot be sustained. In the present case, there is no evidence whatsoever to indicate such intention or even knowledge of the caste of the victim on the part of the appellant, thereby rendering the conviction under Section 3(1)(xi) of the Act wholly unsustainable. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant further submitted that the medical evidence completely contradicts the ocular version of the prosecution. While the prosecution alleges that the victim sustained bleeding injuries from the nose and mouth due to pressure on the neck, the doctor (P.W.7) found only a simple abrasion and categorically opined that such injury could not cause bleeding as alleged. In this regard, she referred to Aminul Islam @ Amenur Molla v. State of West p. 8 Bengal in C.R.A. 520 of 2018, wherein it has been held that when medical evidence contradicts the ocular testimony on material particulars, the latter cannot be safely relied upon for conviction. 8. Ms. Prakash further contends that the ingredients of Sections 354 and 324 IPC are not made out. There is no material on record to establish the requisite mens rea for outraging modesty under Section 354 IPC, as emphasized in Naresh Aneja @ Naresh Kumar Aneja v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. reported in 2025 INSC 19, which mandates clear evidence of intention beyond vague allegations. Additionally, the injury allegedly caused by nail cannot be construed as being inflicted by a dangerous weapon so as to attract Section 324 IPC, as held in Chhota @ Akash v. State of Madhya Pradesh in MCRC No. 9404 of 2015. The absence of reliable eye-witnesses, the hostile stance of material witnesses, contradictions in prosecution evidence, and non-examination of independent witnesses further weaken the prosecution case. Accordingly, it is submitted that the conviction is based on unreliable and insufficient evidence and is liable to be set aside. p. 9 9. I have carefully considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant as well as the learned counsel for the State, and perused the entire lower court records, including the depositions of the prosecution witnesses, the medical evidence, and analyzed the reasoning assigned by the learned trial Court while appreciating the evidence brought on record by the prosecution against the appellant. 10. The evidence of P.Ws.1, 2 and 3, when read conjointly, reveals that P.W.1, the victim, has stated that while she and P.W.2 were taking bath in the river at about 9.30 to 10.00 A.M., the accused came to the spot, initially attempted to catch hold of P.W.2 who fled away, and thereafter caught hold of her neck and pressed it, as a result of which she claims blood came out from her mouth. She further deposed that she managed to push the accused, raised alarm, and on hearing her cries, P.W.3 and others reached the spot, whereafter the accused fled away. P.W.2, however, has stated that on seeing the accused approach, she immediately ran away out of fear and did not witness the actual occurrence thereafter, and only later, upon returning to the river bank, p. 10 noticed that P.W.1 had sustained a nail mark injury on her neck and was allegedly bleeding from the mouth. P.W.3, being a post-occurrence witness, has deposed that on hearing the cries of P.W.1, she rushed to the river bank and saw P.W.1 and she was told by P.W.1 that a boy had caused the injury. Thus, while P.W.1 speaks about the occurrence directly, P.W.2 is only a partial witness who did not see the actual assault, and P.W.3 is a hearsay witness to the occurrence, with her knowledge being derived from what was stated to her by P.W.1 after the incident. 11. Upon careful re-appreciation of the entire evidence on record, this Court finds that the medical evidence (P.W.7) assumes significant importance in the present case. The doctor found only a simple abrasion on the neck, which was superficial and skin-deep. Extract of P.W.7’s testimony is profitable to be reproduced for true appreciation: “1. On 20.6.2005 I was Medical Officer attached to Police Hospital at Phulbani. On that day on police requisition I examined the victim at 12.30 P.M. and found as follows:- p. 11 I. Abrasion at the anterior part of the neck one inch left to the middle and directed from about down-wards. It is simple injury and linner in size- half inch length. Skin deep. The Injury is simple and caused by sharp and pointed object, and within six hours of my examination. Ext. 2 is my report and Ext.2/1 is my signature. The injury is possible by nail. Cross-examination:- 2. The injury is possible self infliction. Blood is not possible to come out of the nose and the mouth from the amount of the presser on the neck while causing the injury on the neck.” This creates a serious dent in the prosecution case. The version of P.Ws.1 to 3 that blood was oozing from the mouth stands contradicted by medical evidence, thereby affecting the credibility of their testimony on material particulars. 12. The allegation under Section 324 IPC requires the use of a dangerous weapon or means. A fingernail, in the ordinary course, cannot be construed as a dangerous weapon within the meaning of Section 324 IPC unless used in an exceptionally violent or unusual p. 12 manner, which is not established in the present case. The injury being superficial and minor further weakens the applicability of Section 324 IPC. 13. Coming to the allegation under Section 354 IPC, the prosecution must establish that the act was done with the intention to outrage the modesty of the victim. In the present case, apart from the bare allegation of catching hold of the neck, there is no clear, cogent, and convincing evidence demonstrating any overt act suggestive of sexual intent or indignity to modesty. The conduct alleged appears abrupt and lacks the necessary mens rea required for constituting an offence under Section 354 IPC. It would be apt to rely on Naresh Aneja @ Naresh Kumar Aneja v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. reported in 2025 INSC 19, where the honourable Supreme Court held that:- “12.4 It is well settled that for mens rea to be established, something better than vague statements must be produced before the court. As evidenced by the annexures referred to above, i.e. the FIR, the preliminary investigation report as also the concluding portion of the chargesheet, no direct allegation nor any evidence in support thereof can be found attributing intent to the appellant. It p. 13 cannot be said, then, that a case u/s 354 IPC is made out against the appellant.” It is also pertinent to note that independent witnesses (P.Ws.4 and 6), who allegedly apprehended the accused, have turned hostile. Their earlier statements do not inspire confidence, and their testimony in court does not support the prosecution case. This further weakens the prosecution case. 14. With regard to the offence under Section 3(1)(xi) of the SC & ST (P.A.) Act, it is well settled that mere proof of the victim belonging to a Scheduled Tribe is not sufficient. The prosecution must further establish that the offence was committed on the ground that the victim belonged to such community, with the intent to humiliate or dishonor her on that basis. In the present case, there is no evidence whatsoever to suggest that the alleged act was motivated by caste considerations. The prosecution has failed to prove this essential ingredient. It was determined in the case of Masumsha Hasanasha Musalman vs State of Maharashtra, reported in 2000 (3) SCC 557, relevant part of which is extracted herein:- p. 14 “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 Indian Penal Code 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 Indian Penal Code 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.” In this context, it is also pertinent to note that this Court in earlier decisions in Prodyamn Kumar Sarangi vs. State of Odisha in CRA No.72 of 1994 and Girish Sathua vs. State of Odisha in CRA p. 15 No.306 of 1995, has consistently held that for attracting the provisions of the SC & ST (P.A.) Act, mere proof that the victim belongs to a Scheduled Tribe is not sufficient; the prosecution must further establish that the alleged act was committed on the ground of such caste, with the intention to insult, humiliate or dishonour the victim on that basis, which foundational requirement is conspicuously absent in the present case. 15. Accordingly, this Court finds that the injury alleged to have been caused to the victim is minor, superficial in nature, and not fully consistent with the prosecution version on material particulars, thereby creating doubt as to the manner of occurrence. The ingredients necessary to attract Section 324 IPC are not made out, and the essential elements required to constitute an offence under Section 354 IPC have not been satisfactorily established. Further, there is a complete absence of evidence to show that the alleged act was committed on the ground of the victim’s caste so as to attract Section 3(1)(xi) of the SC & ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. Therefore, the appellant, Debasis Ratha, p. 16 is acquitted of all charges. The judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 17.01.2009 passed by the learned Special Judge, Phulbani in S.T. No.75 of 2006 is hereby set aside. Bail bond, if any, stands discharged. 16. Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal is allowed. (S.S. Mishra) Judge The High Court of Orissa, Cuttack. Dated the 22nd May, 2026/ Swarna