BINA DAS Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Criminal Appeal challenges the judgment passed by the 2nd Addl. Sessions Judge, Cuttack in S.T. No. 519 of 2001 holding the appellant guilty of the offence under Section 3(1)(iv) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') and convicting her thereunder and sentencing her to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 500.00, in default to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for one month.

(2.) ONE Laxman Jena, the complainant, filed a Complaint Case before the S.D.J.M. (S), Cuttack which was registered as ICC NO. 3 of 1994, alleging that he was the exclusive owner of the case land and had constructed his house thereon. He had inducted one Babaji Mallick as a tenant in his house and then in 1972 he inducted one Jagannath Jena as tenant who used to pay rent to him. It is alleged that said Jagannath Jena sub let the case house to the Socialists Unity Centre of India (SUCI for short) and appellant Smt. Bina Das occupied the case house stating to be representing the said organisation. It was averred in the complaint petition that the complainant being a 'PANA' was a member of a Scheduled Caste and appellant Smt. Bina Das who was not a member of any Scheduled Caste was in forcible occupation of his house without any authority and thus committed an offence punishable under Section 3(1)(iv) of the Act. The defence of the appellant was that the complainant was not a member of a Scheduled Caste, but a member of general caste his surname being 'Jena' and further the possession of the case house by her was neither wrongful nor unauthorised.

(3.) IN the Sessions Trial, the complainant examined two witnesses and exhibited eight documents and on behalf of the appellant no witness was examined, but one document was exhibited. The learned Addl. Sessions Judge cum Special Judge after discussion of the evidence, both oral and documentary, came to the conclusion that ownership of the complainant over the case house had been found by Civil Court (in T.S. No. 26 of 1989) and the said fact was established from the record of rights (Ext. 8) and the tax receipt (Ext. 3). It was also held that the appellant was possessing the said house of the complainant. The trial Court further held that the complainant being a 'PANA', was a member of a Scheduled Caste and that the appellant was not a member of Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe. So far as question of wrongful possession was concerned, relying upon the finding of the Civil Court in the aforesaid T.S. No. 26 of 1989, the learned Trial Court found the appellant to be a trespasser. Relying upon the decision in Varadaraja Chettiar v. Swami Meistry and Ors., AIR 1948 Madras 49, the trial Court came to the conclusion that Criminal Court is not entitled to disregard the decree of a Civil Court declaring rights to the identical property in dispute in a Criminal Case. On the basis of such conclusion, the trial Court held that the appellant who was not a member of Scheduled Caste/ Scheduled Tribe, being admittedly in unauthorised occupation of the property belonging to the complainant who was a member of a Scheduled Caste, the offence alleged against the appellant had been established and thus holding the appellant guilty, convicted and sentenced her as stated above.